It’s that time of the year again, folks, when the social media admin for Halfords – the UK’s largest retailer of cycling products and services – scratches their head, has a long think over their morning coffee, and then decides to post something that will annoy cyclists and pit motorists against them.
Last year, Halfords decided to weigh in on the whole bike helmet debate, for some reason (surely not to sell helmets?), by advising cyclists that they “strongly recommend” wearing one… just in case a tree branch falls on your head.
> "Wear a helmet!" Halfords advises... because a tree branch might fall on your head
And, just like clockwork, this winter’s questionable post comes courtesy of a gloriously ambiguous graphic depicting a cyclist and a motorist on the road, along with the not-at-all-inflammatory question: “Who has right of way?”
The eyebrow-raising post has so far received 9,000 comments and shares, so it’s fair to say the social media admin has done their job – but if you were expecting a thoughtful, articulate Facebook discussion on the new Highway Code and its pyramid of vulnerable road users, you’d be sorely mistaken.
Instead, get your anti-cycling bingo cards at the ready…
“Car. We pay to use the road,” answered Bryan, very helpfully.
“The one who pays road tax!” added Rob, even more helpfully.
While David, the most helpful of all, wrote: “The car has right of way , because he pays road tax and insurance – the cyclist should be on the pavement eating its vegan sausage roll and reading this week’s Trainspotting Weekly.”
Great stuff David, cheers.
> Cycling sales down at Halfords as retailer shifts focus to car repairs
“Cyclists have breaks [sic] too and should assess the situation and not assume they have priority,” says Sean.
“Doesn’t look like there’s a cycle lane and I’d assume the car would be indicating left well before this so really the bike shouldn’t be in this position,” added the very presumptuous Eddie.
And that’s before we even get to Danny’s extremely coherent comment, the contents of which I’ve decided to leave fully intact for your Monday morning enjoyment:
You now the answer ??the first thing you would be told use your mirror ?? But the ciclist would be right because there is no laws for ciclist or padestrion only punish drivers ????
Make of that what you will…
Meanwhile, Anthony claimed “it’s the car” who has priority because “1) Car is in front. 2) Bike is undertaking. 3) There is no bike lane.”
But, thankfully not everyone interpreted the admittedly highly dubious graphic in the same way.
Replying to Anthony, Jamie wrote: “It’s not. Maybe back in 2000. Even maybe in 2019. In 2023 it’s the bike.
“This is exactly why the theory test should expire every two or three years. Most people just follow the rules they were taught when they passed their test, sometimes many decades ago.”
> Halfords remains "very, very confident" about cycling market, despite overall annual profits falling by 55 percent
Meanwhile, ignoring the whole tedious discussion, others were extremely critical of Halfords even bringing the whole thing up in the first place, along with the questionable use of the term ‘right of way’.
“There’s no such term as ‘right of way; it’s who has priority, so please ask the question correctly before asking for answers Halfords, okay?” wrote Dean.
“Very poor and antagonistic of Halfords”, said John, before answering the antagonistic question anyway, “but let’s assume the car overtook the bike then made a left hand turn, then the bike has right of way, if the cyclist is undertaking (though assuming there’s no standing traffic so unlikely) then the cyclist is as daft as a brush, though this needs to be a video so that we can see the whole story, instead of making a decision on a snapshot.”
Okay…
Philippa, who alerted us to the post, described it as “shameful”, and says she has forwarded it – along with the “atrocious and inaccurate” comments – to Cycling UK and Stop Killing Cyclists.
I’m sure next year’s Halfords cycling post will go down much better…
Add new comment
54 comments
Re Trek giving 500 bikes to help 40,000 cyclist that is going to be an amazing balancing act 80 people on one bike!
This clue in today's crossword raised a smile...
Sir Bradley cycled around those who got there first (5,5)
Nice.
I'm rubbish at crosswords - what's the answer?
Early birds - anagram (indicated by "cycled around") of Sir Bradley meaning those who got there first.
I believe Leto II used sandworms to improve his body.
Yeah - that worked out so well, didn't it… ?
Who could have foreseen that, though?
Avon and Somerset Police's speed warning as road deaths rise
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-67468005
I think the Halfords pic might be showing 3 potential scenarios.
1) The cyclist and driver are travelling side by side at the same speed approaching the junction.
The driver wants to turn left into the side road.
Who has priority?
The cyclist, as the driver would either end up driving into the cyclist or have to speed up to turn left in front of them which is a clear no-no.
2) The driver is approaching the junction, wanting to turn left.
The cyclist approaches from behind looking to go straight on.
Who has priority?
This is debatable but in principle the highway code states that drivers should look out for cyclists who may be coming up from behind on their left.
If the driver has used their indicators properly on the approach then the cyclist might be sensible to slow to allow the driver to turn.
But again, this situation can vary as if the driver has only just overtaken the cyclist then this would be a dangerous left hook.
3) The cyclist is ahead of the driver on the approach to the junction. The driver wants to turn left.
No brainer, the driver must wait behind untill it is safe to turn left once the cyclist has gone straight on past the junction.
Sadly this is the situation many of us see almost daily, resulting in left hooks.
I love the way that social media allows clueless folk to out themselves to the world.
Rather than replying on Facebook and getting involved in a pointless debate with a lot of petrolheads I suggest contacting Halfords direct. Let them know your views without adding to their clickbait clicks and online attention.
This can be done here.
https://help.halfords.com/wss/getting-in-touch/customer-support/make-a-c...
Good idea. Anyone is welcome to use any of my text:
"Please don't post any more ill-informed clickbait like this.
www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=737402688415398&set=a.674209678068033
The suggestion that it *could* be OK to close pass and turn across a vulnerable road user is wrong and reinforces some dangerous prejudices.
It's also my understanding that no-one has "right of way" on the road: "The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others."
www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice..."
If you are driving you never have "right of way" under any circumstance.
It makes no difference if its a cyclist, mobility scooter, horse, another car undertaking on a wide road, you can't just crash your car into them.
This is the correct answer
Exactly!
If Halfords wanted to improve road safety they should have asked "which of these road users is most likely to be injured or killed in this situation and how would you feel as either road user if there was a collision resulting in serious injury?".
The question shouldn't be who has right of way, it is who should have the GoPro on their bike for when the car inevitably tries to run you over. I used to think a helmet was the most important piece of safety equipment, but now I know it's a camera.
Pedantry possibly, but I don't count "something which may help assigning blame after the bad thing has already happened" as "safety equipment". Particularly as we don't implement a proper safety review and feedback system in the UK like industries or other transport sectors do (e.g. MAIB).
"Safety equipment" would be "things which prevent (separate infra) or help you avoid crashes (brakes, mirrors) or help reduce consequences (helmet, hand, knee and elbow protection). Or at the lowest level help others avoid hitting you (we're into hi-viz, lights to be seen by and reflectives territory, or maybe a loudspeaker blasting out "cyclist - please drive carefully").
My PassPixi is sort of the equivalent of that, although the sentence should have the addendum "or you may find yourself in court". It genuinely does work!
As I understand it, the airplane's black box isn't an item of safety equipment...
Aviation is the safest form of transport for good reasons, including an abundance of caution in maintainance repair and overhaul (MRO) enterprises, and the flight safety notification system that shares valuable insights from Air Accident Investigation professionals. Their investigations are significantly enabled by the flight recorder 'black box' which you can imagine has a lot of data in the digital cockpit typical in commercial aircraft today.
Taking a temporal view the 'black box' fitted to previous aircraft provide safety relevant information for each current service, just like the training of their flight crew, ground crew, maintainance staff and air traffic control staff. Better information and understanding provides better outcomes.
A qualified pilot.
IIRC there are people involved in the airline industry who frequent this forum who would know far better than my speculation below.
As you note it's not just "information from crashes will hopefully make flying safer in the future" (maybe too late for you, but others may benefit). I imagine after "events" and perhaps routinely recordings (or maybe even live flight data?) of systems will be interrogated. There is testing at all levels, both proactive and reactive.
This is absent from driving. I guess that would be akin to taking your car into the garage for quick checks at the end of every journey and opting in for extra driving lessons, retests and indeed a medical regularly. And a course whenever you change your car! And an investigation when you close-pass someone, or speed...
As you note we seem to have lost that expertise in the police - although I think it also needs to be at a more general (e.g. not just "legal fault") level.
For driving we don't even have a dedicated organisation which picks over the report of accidents and looks not just at what went wrong here but if this indicates some more general issue. And what might be done to tackle that.
We may have the RSIB (seems in limbo currently) and if you're lucky there are coroners' Reports to Prevent Future Deaths (which rely on the diligence of a coroner and of course while knowledgeable they are not specifically experts in infra design, road legislation and road safety). Not sure what if anything the (several) organisations with responsibility for roads do here?
Along a similar line, I seem to recall that drivers could have a 'black box' fitted to their cars to prove they were safe drivers and thus reduce their insurance premium.
From what I can gather, many people who tried this, no longer have one as the ability to drive safely is too onerous.
Telemetry data is sent to the insurance company daily (some might even realtime) and analysed for spikes indication rapid acceleration, braking etc.
Won't pick up close passes though.
It's posts like the Halfords one that make me glad that my spend with them is zero.
Why? They posted a valid highway code question to show where people's knowledge on this scenario is lacking.
That's a good thing isn't it ? Educating people to remove their misconceptions about things.
I don't see what the confected outrage is all about.
How is it a valid question when they use the term "right of way" (which exclusively is to do with whether people have the right to use land for walking etc) when they should be using the Highway Code term of "priority". The diagram is also ambiguous and it clearly shows the car as being dangerously close to the cyclist.
I see no attempt at education in that at all.
how does it invalidate the question to use a popular term that the majority of people in the UK understand ? did the people who follow Halfords on facebook understand the question still, yes I guess they did as over 9000 appear to have responded to it. With the vast majority it seems from the latest scan to have provided the right answer.
so really, whats with making it such a big deal ? its not even a recent Halfords post, its nearly a month old.
Although Halfords' intentions may have been good, posing it as a question implies that the matter is open to debate, and clearly many drivers have taken it to be so. If their aim was to improve people's knowledge, why not just post the same picture with "Don't forget under the new Highway Code rules you must let the cyclist proceed before turning left?"
Exactly, if they are trying to educate then why not post the correct answer and reply to those that think it was a debate. That's why it's inflammatory.
Based on that image, it is impossible to tell the events that led to the positioning of the car and the cycle.
Was the car already in that position, clearly signalling left turn and the cyclist came up the inside?
Was the cyclist already moving forwards and the driver overtook and left-hooked?
Has the cyclist stopped all forwards movement to allow the driver to make their turn following a conversation along the lines of:
D - sorry buddy, I'm lost. Can I turn in front of you?
C - yes pal, no worries, I'll stop here.
Could the vehicle be in the process of having a mechanical failure and the cyclist has stopped to let them past?
Whatever the scenario you might want to invent, the car driver had not signalled their intentions. That's clear to see as the indicator is not shown as lit.
Pages