Quiz for taxi drivers

Here's your first one:

What is this? https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/sites/cycling-embassy.org.uk/files/styles/max_resolution/public/cycle_zone.jpg?itok=vkGfqa67

I appreciate that's a tough one to start with. You may need to phone a friend (who isn't a taxi driver).

I'm not a taxi driver but I'll bite. It's a bike stop zone and Highway Code Point 178 states: "Motorists, including motorcyclists, MUST stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red".

But at the same time "Booking cars which enter the zone is tricky, PC James Aveling says, as it's not illegal if they stop in one if a light turns red as they're part-way in. Officers thus have to watch a driver creep in on an already red light. There are also rumours that some officers see the penalty for the infringement – six points on the licence the same as you'd get for sailing all the way through the red light – as somewhat disproportionate."

And bike blog reader Nick Lane also has this to add

"Cycle stop boxes are NOT legally enforceable, no points of fines can be levied against a vehicle entering or using one. Therefore they are NOT illegal.

In 2004 I had a lengthy correspondence with a chief inspector of road policy policing in which I queried why officers were not fining or awarding penalty points to motorists who compromised [advanced stop line] boxes. His reply on each occasion was emphatic - it is not an offence and therefore they cannot take action. He advised that I should not interpret the Highway Code as a set of laws attached to which were penalties, but rather as a set of guidelines"

So the ignorant taxi driver in the box are probably as ignorant as the police too. Many police officers also creep into these boxes. I don't understand why cyclists need these boxes to be honest. Your supposed to stay to one side of the road to allow cars to pass when safe anyway so why would you need to stop in front of a car at the lights when most of the time the car sets off a lot quicker than you would? And what about the cyclists that stop in these boxes but then decide to mount the pavement and cut across just to avoid the red light? Double standards in my opinion.

Might have a bit more sympathy if, all in the last month, I hadn't witnessed three separate cyclists almost causing the accidents that would have killed them by lazily weaving their way in front of buses (twice) and a taxi that were about to drive past them with plenty of room to spare, causing the drivers of those vehicles to slam their breaks on a split second before the cyclist went under their wheels.

Road safety is the responsibility of both sides.

Might have a bit more sympathy if, all in the last month, I hadn't witnessed three separate cyclists almost causing the accidents that would have killed them by lazily weaving their way in front of buses (twice) and a taxi that were about to drive past them with plenty of room to spare, causing the drivers of those vehicles to slam their breaks on a split second before the cyclist went under their wheels.

 

Road safety is the responsibility of both sides.

Lazily weaving or dodging potholes?

Either way, if you swerve to avoid a pothole into something that is overtaking you, it's your fault. Better to ride through the pothole and bust a wheel than be killed.

Either way, if you swerve to avoid a pothole into something that is overtaking you, it's your fault. Better to ride through the pothole and bust a wheel than be killed.

Utter rubbish. If I swerve to avoid a pothole, I move maybe half a metre, a metre maybe, sideways.

No vehicle should be that close when overtaking.

What if a hit the pothole and crash? Is that a good option?

Utter rubbish. If I swerve to avoid a pothole, I move maybe half a metre, a metre maybe, sideways.

 

No vehicle should be that close when overtaking.

 

Mirror, signal and then maneuver?

Might have a bit more sympathy if, all in the last month, I hadn't witnessed three separate cyclists almost causing the accidents that would have killed them by lazily weaving their way in front of buses (twice) and a taxi that were about to drive past them with plenty of room to spare, causing the drivers of those vehicles to slam their breaks on a split second before the cyclist went under their wheels.

 

Road safety is the responsibility of both sides.

Here's a link to what the highway code says about overtaking cyclists-

http://ukcyclelaws.blogspot.co.uk/p/overtaking-cyclists.html

specifically- "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211-215)"

and, just below that line there's a photo showing what that looks like, from which it is 100% clear, that, were the cyclist to 'swerve to avoid a pothole', or even 'lazily weave', that any car overtaking correctly would not have to slam on their brakes.

Might have a bit more sympathy if, all in the last month, I hadn't witnessed three separate cyclists almost causing the accidents that would have killed them by lazily weaving their way in front of buses (twice) and a taxi that were about to drive past them with plenty of room to spare, causing the drivers of those vehicles to slam their breaks on a split second before the cyclist went under their wheels.

 

Road safety is the responsibility of both sides.

I suppose you've got a point. I must say I've never ever seen a car driver lazily weaving all over the road, messing with their mobile phones, radio etc or going through red lights.

Cyclists stand to learn a lot from these knights of the road.

So the ignorant taxi driver in the box are probably as ignorant as the police too. Many police officers also creep into these boxes. I don't understand why cyclists need these boxes to be honest. Your supposed to stay to one side of the road to allow cars to pass when safe anyway so why would you need to stop in front of a car at the lights when most of the time the car sets off a lot quicker than you would? And what about the cyclists that stop in these boxes but then decide to mount the pavement and cut across just to avoid the red light? Double standards in my opinion.

Cyclists are supposed to ride in the middle of the lane (as taught on the government's cycle training scheme). Riding to the side of the road is unsafe as it encourages motorists to overtake by squeezing past when there's not enough room to do so safely rather than waiting for an appropriate opportunity.

As for cyclists not needing the boxes, have you considered how a cyclist who wants to turn right is going to do so when there's a stream of cars all wanting to go ahead.

Might have a bit more sympathy if, all in the last month, I hadn't witnessed three separate cyclists almost causing the accidents that would have killed them by lazily weaving their way in front of buses (twice) and a taxi that were about to drive past them with plenty of room to spare, causing the drivers of those vehicles to slam their breaks on a split second before the cyclist went under their wheels.

 

Road safety is the responsibility of both sides.

It's hard (in fact impossible) to see why this justifies not observing the advance stop lines. They are really important in avoiding vehicles turning across people on cycles at junctions, which puts people at real risk of harm. People should educate themselves on the reasons these boxes are on the road, way too many people ignore them, and I've noticed in Sheffield that taxi drivers almost universally ignore them.