Review of Highway Code to improve road safety for cyclists

Review of Highway Code to improve road safety for cyclists

Author
Discussion

JPJPJP

Original Poster:

9,574 posts

127 months

Tuesday 28th July
quotequote all
pedestrians and horse riders

Consultation seeking views on proposed changes to The Highway Code to improve safety for vulnerable road users, particularly the groups of:

- cyclists
- pedestrians
- horse riders

The main alterations to the code being proposed are:

- introducing a hierarchy of road users which ensures that those road users who can do the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they may pose to others

- clarifying existing rules on pedestrian priority on pavements, to advise that drivers and riders should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross the road,

- providing guidance on cyclist priority at junctions to advise drivers to give priority to cyclists at junctions when travelling straight ahead

- establishing guidance on safe passing distances and speeds when overtaking cyclists and horse riders

You can have your say

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review...

SlimJim16v

3,034 posts

102 months

Thursday 30th July
quotequote all
JPJPJP said:
- clarifying existing rules on pedestrian priority on pavements, to advise that drivers and riders should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross the road,
This part is madness. It basically gives pedestrians the right to just step into the road, without taking any care or responsibility mad

Toltec

6,184 posts

182 months

Thursday 30th July
quotequote all
JPJPJP said:
pedestrians and horse riders

- introducing a hierarchy of road users which ensures that those road users who can do the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they may pose to others
Thanks I'll take a look at the link.

That will put the horse riders near the top then? wink

What about a ranking of those that pose a threat to themselves?



Reg Local

2,540 posts

167 months

Thursday 30th July
quotequote all
SlimJim16v said:
JPJPJP said:
- clarifying existing rules on pedestrian priority on pavements, to advise that drivers and riders should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross the road,
This part is madness. It basically gives pedestrians the right to just step into the road, without taking any care or responsibility mad
It’s already in the highway code - read rule 206. The amendment is designed to clarify the existing rule.

Nampahc Niloc

528 posts

37 months

Saturday 8th August
quotequote all
Reg Local said:
It’s already in the highway code - read rule 206. The amendment is designed to clarify the existing rule.
The “waiting to cross the road” bit isn’t already in there.

Solocle

1,612 posts

43 months

Saturday 8th August
quotequote all
SlimJim16v said:
This part is madness. It basically gives pedestrians the right to just step into the road, without taking any care or responsibility mad
It applies to side roads, where pedestrians who are already crossing have priority. They're effectively implicit zebra crossings.

Motorists should be prepared to give way to crossing pedestrians already, but knowledge of rule 170 is... lacking.

Nampahc Niloc

528 posts

37 months

Saturday 8th August
quotequote all
Rule 170 says nothing about those who are “waiting to cross”.

Salted_Peanut

421 posts

13 months

Wednesday 9th September
quotequote all
The new (proposed) rules appear to make Primary the default position for cycling, i.e. the centre of the road. While I know – because I cycle – about the Primary and Secondary positions, this change is going to be a Big Deal for many drivers.


daimlerv8

2,328 posts

39 months

Saturday 12th September
quotequote all
Salted_Peanut said:
The new (proposed) rules appear to make Primary the default position for cycling, i.e. the centre of the road. While I know – because I cycle – about the Primary and Secondary positions, this change is going to be a Big Deal for many drivers.

Whatever happened to 'close to and parallel with the curb'?

Salted_Peanut

421 posts

13 months

Saturday 12th September
quotequote all
Close to the curb has been out-of-date for decades! If you've read Roadcraft, haven't you read Cyclecraft? wink

daimlerv8

2,328 posts

39 months

Sunday 13th September
quotequote all
Salted_Peanut said:
Close to the curb has been out-of-date for decades! If you've read Roadcraft, haven't you read Cyclecraft? wink
Obviously I'm showing my age here!

Sorry,I've not seen/read Cyclecraft.....but going by my observation of the modern cyclist,I assume that it advocates holding up and obstructing all other traffic at any cost?

Gweeds

644 posts

11 months

Sunday 13th September
quotequote all
daimlerv8 said:
Obviously I'm showing my age here!

Sorry,I've not seen/read Cyclecraft.....but going by my observation of the modern cyclist,I assume that it advocates holding up and obstructing all other traffic at any cost?
Of course. Because it's *definitely* not other cars causing hold-ups is it, it's those pesky cyclists.

Solocle

1,612 posts

43 months

Sunday 13th September
quotequote all
Gweeds said:
daimlerv8 said:
Obviously I'm showing my age here!

Sorry,I've not seen/read Cyclecraft.....but going by my observation of the modern cyclist,I assume that it advocates holding up and obstructing all other traffic at any cost?
Of course. Because it's *definitely* not other cars causing hold-ups is it, it's those pesky cyclists.
"Obstructing all other traffic"... decades ago, there was a chance that a motorist could safely overtake a cyclist without crossing offside.


That's not the case anymore. Bcensoredy motorway lanes aren't wide enough for it.

daimlerv8

2,328 posts

39 months

Sunday 13th September
quotequote all
Solocle said:
Gweeds said:
daimlerv8 said:
Obviously I'm showing my age here!

Sorry,I've not seen/read Cyclecraft.....but going by my observation of the modern cyclist,I assume that it advocates holding up and obstructing all other traffic at any cost?
Of course. Because it's *definitely* not other cars causing hold-ups is it, it's those pesky cyclists.
"Obstructing all other traffic"... decades ago, there was a chance that a motorist could safely overtake a cyclist without crossing offside.


That's not the case anymore. Bcensoredy motorway lanes aren't wide enough for it.
Not so sure about that,a single carriageway road that is wide enough for a white line is what? 14'/15' each side? so 28'/30' in total.

So if your cyclist was 'close to and parallel' that's 3',6' for an average car,leaving 5' to the centre line.....so no need to enter the 'opposite' side unless you are driving a lorry,even then,3' for the cyclist,6' passing gap,8'6'' for the lorry is a total of 17'6'',or just 3'-4' into the 'other' side.

littlebasher

2,939 posts

130 months

Sunday 13th September
quotequote all
daimlerv8 said:
Salted_Peanut said:
The new (proposed) rules appear to make Primary the default position for cycling, i.e. the centre of the road. While I know – because I cycle – about the Primary and Secondary positions, this change is going to be a Big Deal for many drivers.

Whatever happened to 'close to and parallel with the curb'?
That would explain the cyclist riding to the right of the lane on the A3 last week, which came as a surprise.

Not sure those proposed rules take into account a road with a 70mph limit and an unsighted uphill bend

Solocle

1,612 posts

43 months

Monday 14th September
quotequote all
daimlerv8 said:
Not so sure about that,a single carriageway road that is wide enough for a white line is what? 14'/15' each side? so 28'/30' in total.

So if your cyclist was 'close to and parallel' that's 3',6' for an average car,leaving 5' to the centre line.....so no need to enter the 'opposite' side unless you are driving a lorry,even then,3' for the cyclist,6' passing gap,8'6'' for the lorry is a total of 17'6'',or just 3'-4' into the 'other' side.
14' is stupid wide. SC is more typically 10-12'. 2' from kerb, 5' gap, 6' car, 13' minimum.

Salted_Peanut

421 posts

13 months

Monday 14th September
quotequote all
With the new rules – which I reckon are inevitable – many drivers are going to be surprised (unless the Government advertises the changes widely).

littlebasher said:
That would explain the cyclist riding to the right of the lane on the A3 last week, which came as a surprise.

Not sure those proposed rules take into account a road with a 70mph limit and an unsighted uphill bend
yikes Recently, I saw the same thing: someone cycling on a dual carriageway with a 70mph limit and an unsighted bend. As a cyclist, I think it's madness. I wouldn't cycle on a 70 mph dual carriageway (surely a Darwin Award?), but I'm amazed how many people do.

And the law says we can cycle on 70 mph dual carriageways unless the authorities take out a specific traffic regulation order banning bicycles from a particular section of road. I've not yet seen a No Cyclists sign on a dual carriageway, have you?

vonhosen

36,898 posts

176 months

Solocle

1,612 posts

43 months

Monday 14th September
quotequote all
Salted_Peanut said:
yikes Recently, I saw the same thing: someone cycling on a dual carriageway with a 70mph limit and an unsighted bend. As a cyclist, I think it's madness. I wouldn't cycle on a 70 mph dual carriageway (surely a Darwin Award?), but I'm amazed how many people do.

And the law says we can cycle on 70 mph dual carriageways unless the authorities take out a specific traffic regulation order banning bicycles from a particular section of road. I've not yet seen a No Cyclists sign on a dual carriageway, have you?
70 mph dual carriageway, 60 mph main road, there's not a huge difference. Or rather, it very much depends on the road in question. I'd take a quiet DC over a busy SC.

There's no such thing as an unsighted bend, there's speed inappropriate for the conditions. Which is a problem on both types of road.

DCs generally have better sight lines, and they have a dedicated overtaking lane. Problems arise when you have someone trying to overtake you while they themselves are being overtaken.

From my ride yesterday:

Preparing to turn right off the A420. The prior single carriageway section of that road was far worse

Salted_Peanut

421 posts

13 months

Monday 14th September
quotequote all
I agree about unsighted (Limit Point Analysis). But many people neither use nor know about the Limit Point, plus they don't expect to come across a cyclist on a 70 mph stretch of road.

The same holds for some 60 mph roads: many drivers will (wrongly but often) be taken by surprise to come across a cyclist. And it's worse uphill, where you can't cycle quickly, with cars will be doing 60+ mph.

Legally, I might be able to cycle on these roads. And many other cyclists do. But I think it's leaving my safety to chance (hoping that every driver behind me is going to be 100% on the ball, not chatting on the phone). And isn't it how Matthew Pinsent, while cycling, got his life-changing brain injury when a truck whacked him?