# Highway Code revision



## snorri (28 Jul 2020)

I have not read this lot myself yet, but it's an opportunity to express the cyclists view.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...ion-proposals-on-a-review-of-the-highway-code


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (28 Jul 2020)

My response

The proposed update to the wording of #66 doesn't feel like an improvement over the current revision.

"[cyclists’ should] ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so. When riding in larger groups on narrow lanes, it is sometimes safer to ride two abreast"

[Reasoning] If it's safe for a driver to overtake then it's safe for a driver to overtake two riders riding abreast, this is also a shorter overtaking distance. Single file riding often results in drivers attempting overtakes within the same lane (and often also with oncoming traffic therefore placing the rider/s at greater risk) *It is largely impossible to know what a drivers intentions are unless the particular road is lacking in junctions/lanes/entrances or laybys.

For the purpose of an overtake, riding single file is directly in conflict with the proposed revisions to #163 where even leaving min 1.5m from a cyclist, motorcyclist or horse rider would place the overtaking vehicle entirely in the oncoming lane. It would therefore not matter how many cyclists were riding abreast


----------



## mjr (28 Jul 2020)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> My response


I can't quote it and it's difficult to read the whole thing. Would you mind moving your own words out of quote tags please?


----------



## Phaeton (28 Jul 2020)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> [Reasoning]


You've gone & done it, now, they'll have to rewrite the whole book if you want to include Reasoning


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (28 Jul 2020)

Phaeton said:


> You've gone & done it, now, they'll have to rewrite the whole book if you want to include Reasoning


Yeah, they're literally rewriting the book


----------



## IanSmithCSE (28 Jul 2020)

Good evening,

Those are silly people thinking that they are making rules that people care about and they are important, they are best ignored :-(

This morning I held up a truck that was fully loaded from a gravel pit and we both went up a steep hill, as soon as it was reasonable I pulled over to let him pass, he gave me a brief beep of his horn and leaned over to gave me a friendly wave.

I find that this happens a lot, if you aren't being an ..... most, not all, but most drivers are happy to accept that you have a right to be on the road and appreciate it when you help them with their right to be on the road too and progress their journey.

Harmony between cyclists and other road users has nothing to do with regulations and everything to do with manners, am I being reasonable or not.

Bye

Ian


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (28 Jul 2020)

The van driver who left me upside down in a ditch then drove off was definitely displaying manners, if that's all it takes in your wee bubble then fine.


----------



## raleighnut (28 Jul 2020)

Good luck at getting motorists to read it, anyone who has tried to cross a side road on foot will know that a car/van turning into that road will will run them over despite the pedestrian having right of way, likewise cyclists who have been 'left hooked' by vehicles whether in a cycle lane or on the road.


----------



## mjr (28 Jul 2020)

IanSmithCSE said:


> Those are silly people thinking that they are making rules that people care about and they are important, they are best ignored :-(


The trouble is that even if you were right, the courts still care about these words, within certain limits, as a sort of tie breaker, so it can still affect you quite a lot and it does sort of matter what it says.


----------



## matticus (29 Jul 2020)

We have laws about murder - surely there is no need if we all remember our manners?

(and theft, vandalism, racism ... )


----------



## Milkfloat (29 Jul 2020)

IanSmithCSE said:


> Good evening,
> 
> Those are silly people thinking that they are making rules that people care about and they are important, they are best ignored :-(
> 
> ...


Yet funnily enough you were simply following Rule 169 of the Highway Code. These things do need to be written down so people have the right expectations on how people should behave.


----------



## Phaeton (29 Jul 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> I'm struggling to get excited about this. Most of the changes seem relatively subtle, and it's all presented in a hard to follow format. Because I'm utterly lazy I'd like to see a marked up copy with old text struck through, new text highlighted and a commentary on changes. Does such a thing exist.


I'd like to see people pulled in at random with 2 weeks notice & made to do a compulsory HWC test to keep their license, or even better, annually or biannually HWC test (if that's every 2 years & not twice a year) also happy to see a 5 year practical driving retest, just think how much revenue that would generate, insurance companies would have a field day if you failed.


----------



## GetFatty (29 Jul 2020)

The HWC is just a guidance document that is largely thrown in the bin once a driver passes their test. What's needed is a re-wording of the relevant laws (RTA etc) in order to better protect cyclists. Of course the re-worded laws then need to be enforced.


----------



## mjr (29 Jul 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> I'm struggling to get excited about this. Most of the changes seem relatively subtle, and it's all presented in a hard to follow format. Because I'm utterly lazy I'd like to see a marked up copy with old text struck through, new text highlighted and a commentary on changes. Does such a thing exist.


Not that I've seen, but it should be fairly easy for you to make one or hire someone to make one


----------



## snorri (29 Jul 2020)

Phaeton said:


> I'd like to see people pulled in at random with 2 weeks notice & made to do a compulsory HWC test to keep their license,


I think that would be a waste of time and money. The vast majority of drivers have the capability to propel their vehicles from A to B in a safe manner. 
We can all swot up for an exam, but if we choose, as many do, to forget or ignore the HWC rules when behind the wheel what good will regular retesting do?


----------



## mjr (29 Jul 2020)

Comparing https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...ion-proposals-on-a-review-of-the-highway-code with my rant at https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/bad-cycling-advice-in-the-highway-code.262435/ makes me think this...

Rule 59: The clothing gibberish seems to be left unchanged and they double down on the helmet promotion by cherry-picking evidence. Bad move.

Rule 60: Unchanged. Complying with this rule still won't be enough to make you legally lit.

Rule 61: Merged with Rule 63 and rephrased. Still inaccurate because, as we all know, not all cycleways "are provided for safety" as the proposed new wording claims. Some of them are legitimately provided to make cycling faster or easier (allowing red light bypasses or turns banned to motorists) and some are dodgily provided so the old men in limos can basically say "get orf moi roahd" in reply to fault reports from cyclists.

Rule 64: unfixed.

Rule 66: the old wording is "ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends" and the new is even worse "ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so" - no no no. Cyclists should not have to decide if it is safe for drivers to overtake. Two abreast always, please.

Rule 67: "be aware of traffic coming up behind you" was the bad old wording. It's not clear to me whether it survives.

Rule 68: unfixed?

Rule 69: unchanged despite being patently false.

Rule 71: a good change about ASLs which I think solves the problem!

Rule 72: was not on my rant list but the new wording puts cyclists too close to the kerb (0.5m!) and makes them responsible for deciding whether it's safe for drivers to overtake. The instruction to ride centre-lane on quiet or slow roads and junctions is good, though.

Rule 74: the crap advice "It may be safer to wait on the left until there is a safe gap or to dismount and push your cycle across the road" remains in the rewrite.

Rule 75: wasn't on my original rant and the new wording fails to mention that you can pretty much always make a two-stage turn at signal-controlled junctions even if there aren't markings, or to suggest how it should be done: I prefer to stop to the right of the crossing, to maximise the advanced-start over the motorists like an ASL, but there's still no guidance on this.

Old Rule 77 (new 79): they've actually strengthened the dodgy suggestion to "If you are turning right you can ride in the left or right-hand lanes". As I understand it, this is basically a lethal hangover from the bad old 1970s Cycling Proficiency Test which should be deleted entirely now.

Old rule 79 (new 81): apparently unfixed despite being completely out of date!

Old Rule 81 (merged with 80 and 82 to become 82): still crap but requires a law change to fix properly. Still needs better advice on level crossings.

Other than that, the changed rule 140 is great, finally directing "You should give way to cyclists approaching or using the cycle track when turning into or out of a junction" and reminding all users "cyclists are not obliged to use cycle lanes or cycle tracks". Rule 167 is a similar reminder not to left hook cyclists in cycle lanes either. Rule 163 at long last establishes 1.5m and 2.0m passing distances.

Many of the other changes look like simple updates to match current law, or mirrors of the above. Dutch Reach gets in, which I'm not too excited about but it's no worse than what it replaces.


----------



## PK99 (29 Jul 2020)

Phaeton said:


> I'd like to see people pulled in at random with 2 weeks notice & made to do a compulsory HWC test to keep their license, or even better, annually or biannually HWC test (if that's every 2 years & not twice a year) also happy to see a 5 year practical driving retest, just think how much revenue that would generate, insurance companies would have a field day if you failed.



I'd like to see the same draconian enforcement for cyclists and scooter riders. Like the 4 cyclists in Wimbledon town center who almost hit me in 2 separate instances one day last week as I was waiting at lights controlled crossings and they came along the road at speed and onto the pavement in front and behind me. The two e-scooterists doing 10-15mph on the pavement in Wimbledon Village last week weaving among pedestrians and the e-scooterist who missed me by inches on a lights controlled crossing in Wimbledon yesterday.


----------



## matticus (29 Jul 2020)

I like the new 2-abreast wording. As I see it:
- you never *need* to single-out; you can *choose *to when/if you think it's safe.
- drivers *still* have a responsibility *when overtaking to do so safely, or not at all*. This hasn't changed.

So the wording could still be seen as ambiguous - twas ever thus - but I think it's much better now.


----------



## mjr (29 Jul 2020)

snorri said:


> I think that would be a waste of time and money. The vast majority of drivers have the capability to propel their vehicles from A to B in a safe manner.
> We can all swot up for an exam, but if we choose, as many do, to forget or ignore the HWC rules when behind the wheel what good will regular retesting do?


Even if some choose to ignore it, it would at least ensure that they've seen the changes made since they passed their test back when the Highway Code still had a bicycle on its cover! Or even worse, we've probably still got a few drivers around who passed the simpler army driving test and then converted at the local council under the pre-1960 regime, who may never have had any code questions at all.

Making it clearer that drivers must keep up to date would puncture the excuse that something was a recent change which, although not a defence as such, seems to influence the public — including juries and magistrates — who probably also haven't read a recent edition of the Highway Code...


----------



## mjr (29 Jul 2020)

matticus said:


> I like the new 2-abreast wording. As I see it:
> - you never *need* to single-out; you can *choose *to when/if you think it's safe.
> - drivers *still* have a responsibility *when overtaking to do so safely, or not at all*. This hasn't changed.
> 
> So the wording could still be seen as ambiguous - twas ever thus - but I think it's much better now.


But some drivers will interpret cyclists riding single file as a signal that the cyclists have decided it is safe for them to overtake and probably even if it's only one cyclist! It partially undermines the establishment of minimum passing distances.


----------



## PK99 (29 Jul 2020)

raleighnut said:


> Good luck at getting motorists to read it, anyone who has tried to cross a side road on foot will know that a car/van turning into that road will will run them over despite the pedestrian having right of way, likewise cyclists who have been 'left hooked' by vehicles whether in a cycle lane or on the road.



The HWC does not confer Right of Way 

_"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. Always give *way* if it can help to avoid an incident. "_


----------



## matticus (29 Jul 2020)

mjr said:


> But some drivers will interpret cyclists riding single file as a signal that the cyclists have decided it is safe for them to overtake and probably even if it's only one cyclist! It partially undermines the establishment of minimum passing distances.


But it doesn't say that, does it? I've already stated the responsibility on drivers (which has always been there). "some drivers" will always be idiots.

If you want to take the pessimistic view that this will somehow increase the idiot numbers, I will just disagree. It's a good change - trust me


----------



## GetFatty (29 Jul 2020)

PK99 said:


> The HWC does not confer Right of Way
> 
> _"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. Always give *way* if it can help to avoid an incident. "_


I think the wording has changed. I'm sure the bit about pedestrians already crossing a road you are turning into was the only place in the HWC where the term "right of way" was used. It's now been changed to "have priority"


----------



## mjr (29 Jul 2020)

matticus said:


> But it doesn't say that, does it? I've already stated the responsibility on drivers (which has always been there). "some drivers" will always be idiots.
> 
> If you want to take the pessimistic view that this will somehow increase the idiot numbers, I will just disagree. It's a good change - trust me


It's an improvement but it could still be better. The misinterpretation by some drivers is a problem because I'm pretty sure from what I've seen that some of them are magistrates!


----------



## Phaeton (29 Jul 2020)

mjr said:


> It's an improvement but it could still be better. The misinterpretation by some drivers is a problem because I'm pretty sure from what I've seen that some of them are magistrates!


But which drivers are going to read it? I would suggest that (pulls number from thin air) 99% of drivers have never read the HWC after they have passed their test, unless they need to revise to do another.


----------



## mjr (29 Jul 2020)

Phaeton said:


> But which drivers are going to read it? I would suggest that (pulls number from thin air) 99% of drivers have never read the HWC after they have passed their test, unless they need to revise to do another.


They (or their hired professionals) will read it to look for loopholes before going before a magistrate.


----------



## matticus (29 Jul 2020)

Phaeton said:


> _It's an improvement but it could still be better _
> 
> But which drivers are going to read it?


Anyone needing a driving licence?

Are you on-board with trying to get this doc right? After all, it's the only one that every driver is tested on before they are granted a licence.


----------



## matticus (29 Jul 2020)

Could anyone commenting here that improving the HC is pointless, please also explain why the f[_redacted_] they are bothering reading this thread and posting on it? (instead of staring morosely into their _half-empty_ beer mug, moaning about the weather, or doing something useful with their time)

Thanks


----------



## Phaeton (29 Jul 2020)

mjr said:


> They (or their hired professionals) will read it to look for loopholes before going before a magistrate.


But would it not be better to have educated drivers in the first place?


----------



## mjr (29 Jul 2020)

Phaeton said:


> But would it not be better to have educated drivers in the first place?


Of course it would, but we don't need to choose between that and a correct HC.


----------



## GetFatty (29 Jul 2020)

matticus said:


> Could anyone commenting here that improving the HC is pointless, please also explain why the f[_redacted_] they are bothering reading this thread and posting on it? (instead of staring morosely into their _half-empty_ beer mug, moaning about the weather, or doing something useful with their time)
> 
> Thanks


My point still stands that it is pointless updating the HC unless you update the laws it is describing.


----------



## mjr (29 Jul 2020)

GetFatty said:


> My point still stands that it is pointless updating the HC unless you update the laws it is describing.


I'd say not quite pointless, but not as good as correcting the laws.


----------



## HMS_Dave (29 Jul 2020)

Phaeton said:


> But which drivers are going to read it? I would suggest that (pulls number from thin air) 99% of drivers have never read the HWC after they have passed their test, unless they need to revise to do another.


An Electrician, Builder, Gas Fitter, Doctor etc all have regulations updated and changed regularly which they need to keep up to date with, why the devil shouldn't a motorist keep up to date? Ignorance is never an excuse.


----------



## GetFatty (29 Jul 2020)

mjr said:


> I'd say not quite pointless, but not as good as correcting the laws.


I can live with that. Pointless was perhaps too strong a word and there can be good advice in there, it's just getting people to read it


----------



## matticus (29 Jul 2020)

GetFatty said:


> The HWC is just a guidance document that is largely thrown in the bin once a driver passes their test. What's needed is a re-wording of the relevant laws (RTA etc) in order to better protect cyclists. Of course the re-worded laws then need to be enforced.


You've listed basically 3 things there that Gov can do.

Do you realise that each is massively cheaper than the next?

Which do you think will happen more quickly?


----------



## GetFatty (29 Jul 2020)

matticus said:


> You've listed basically 3 things there that Gov can do.
> 
> Do you realise that each is massively cheaper than the next?
> 
> Which do you think will happen more quickly?


I get that and if you change the HC, then new drivers will pay attention to it. Maybe. Existing drivers won't read it. The law change is the only way to make people sit up and take notice.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (29 Jul 2020)

Phaeton said:


> I'd like to see people pulled in at random with 2 weeks notice & made to do a compulsory HWC test to keep their license, or even better, annually or biannually HWC test (if that's every 2 years & not twice a year)



Biannual = twice a year
Biennial = every two years 👍


----------



## Phaeton (29 Jul 2020)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Biannual = twice a year
> Biennial = every two years 👍


Always been igurant wi words, but I think we are getting to the stage where a license for life has to be challenged, periodic testing, random testing or sometime, the quality/skill of drivers is plummeting.


----------



## matticus (29 Jul 2020)

The excuse always used to be the lack of examiners - but that doesn't hold any water for theory re-tests.

And you could probably have a stripped/dumbed down version of the test for re-tests, if necessary.


----------



## classic33 (29 Jul 2020)

matticus said:


> The excuse always used to be the lack of examiners - but that doesn't hold any water for theory re-tests.
> 
> And you could probably have a stripped/dumbed down version of the test for re-tests, if necessary.


If you use a dumbed down version for retests, why waste time with a retest?


----------



## matticus (30 Jul 2020)

classic33 said:


> If you use a dumbed down version for retests, why waste time with a retest?


Better than not doing a retest?
(this is a standard approach to certification ... )

Do you like the retest concept?


----------



## classic33 (30 Jul 2020)

matticus said:


> Better than not doing a retest?
> (this is a standard approach to certification ... )
> 
> Do you like the retest concept?


Why not a limit on the life of your licence? Ireland has a 10 year limit on theirs.


----------



## matticus (30 Jul 2020)

Sorry - how is that different to a "retest"?


----------



## Phaeton (30 Jul 2020)

classic33 said:


> Why not a limit on the life of your licence? Ireland has a 10 year limit on theirs.


Along with instant do not go past go do not collect £200 straight to jail if caught driving without a valid one.


----------



## classic33 (30 Jul 2020)

Phaeton said:


> Along with instant do not go past go do not collect £200 straight to jail if caught driving without a valid one.


I like their three disc system. VED, NCT and insurance all on public display in the windscreen.


----------



## Phaeton (30 Jul 2020)

classic33 said:


> I like their three disc system. VED, NCT and insurance all on public display in the windscreen.


Not too worried about that, VED should be abolished, the others are only a quick lookup away.


----------



## classic33 (30 Jul 2020)

Phaeton said:


> Not too worried about that, VED should be abolished, the others are only a quick lookup away.


But if not on display, you're issued an instant fine.


----------



## Phaeton (30 Jul 2020)

classic33 said:


> But if not on display, you're issued an instant fine.


But you could easily issue anybody who 'NEEDS' to know a phone app that you take a picture of the reg & it goes off & gets you the info within seconds. You could also incorporate a VIN scanner that checks the plates on it belong to the vehicle in question as they are harder to swap, not sure what having stickers in the window achieves, yep last century, but not this one.


----------



## Phaeton (30 Jul 2020)

Phaeton said:


> But you could easily issue anybody who 'NEEDS' to know a phone app that you take a picture of the reg & it goes off & gets you the info within seconds. You could also incorporate a VIN scanner that checks the plates on it belong to the vehicle in question as they are harder to swap, not sure what having stickers in the window achieves, yep last century, but not this one.


You can get free text messages, free emails & free marks on a calendar


----------



## mjr (30 Jul 2020)

Phaeton said:


> You can get free text messages, free emails & free marks on a calendar


Or even put your own sticker on the edge of the windscreen...


----------



## Ian H (30 Jul 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> Having a tax disc was a great reminder for me when it ran out. I've once nearly forgotten and once actually forgotten to re-tax my vehicle since they did away with them.



I get a postal reminder. Tax discs became quite sought after and nickable at some point in the recent past.


----------



## tyred (31 Jul 2020)

classic33 said:


> I like their three disc system. VED, NCT and insurance all on public display in the windscreen.


I think it is stupid in this day and age to have to stick bits of paper to my windscreen when all that info should be on some database which can be quickly and easily checked by the Guards. 

Putting my insurance disc on the windscreen in public view allows any Tom, Dick or Harry to take down my policy number and put in a fraudulent claim. This has been known to happen. It also just tells the guards that there is an insurance policy on the vehicle, which doesn't necessarily mean that I am insured to drive it.


----------



## raleighnut (31 Jul 2020)

How about if anyone is convicted of an offence against 'the rules' stipulated in the Highway Code has to take a course with an exam at the end, fail that and your licence is revoked.


----------



## mjr (31 Jul 2020)

raleighnut said:


> How about if anyone is convicted of an offence against 'the rules' stipulated in the Highway Code has to take a course with an exam at the end, fail that and your licence is revoked.


It would need new legislation so isn't relevant to this revision.


----------



## sheddy (31 Jul 2020)

OT but would regular eye tests be viable ?


----------



## BoldonLad (31 Jul 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> Having a tax disc was a great reminder for me when it ran out. I've once nearly forgotten and once actually forgotten to re-tax my vehicle since they did away with them.



They send you a reminder, assuming that is, they have the correct address for you? You have updated your address, haven't you?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (31 Jul 2020)

They have this thing now called direct debit, it's great when I CBA to insure and pay VED in the same month


----------



## mjr (31 Jul 2020)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> They have this thing now called direct debit, it's great when I CBA to insure and pay VED in the same month


1. You still need to put the money in the DD account.
2. If they fark up the DD, then they guarantee you the refund if they overcharge, but they don't pay your fines if they undercharge or miss a charge and you're caught driving without a valid VED licence, so you still need to check it.


----------



## snorri (31 Jul 2020)

Phaeton said:


> Always been igurant wi words, but I think we are getting to the stage where a license for life has to be challenged, periodic testing, random testing or sometime, the quality/skill of drivers is plummeting.


I believe the problem is one of mental aptitude, not a lowering of driving skills.
The vast majority of drivers could drive competently under supervision for the short time it takes to undergo a driving test.


----------



## BoldonLad (31 Jul 2020)

mjr said:


> 1. *You still need to put the money in the DD account*.
> 2. If they fark up the DD, then they guarantee you the refund if they overcharge, but they don't pay your fines if they undercharge or miss a charge and you're caught driving without a valid VED licence, so you still need to check it.



Sorry, off topic but...

Youngest daughter was a financial disaster in her early years. Improved now (42).

At one point, threaten with eviction, rent arrears, court, for Council Tax arrears.

We sat down, I cleared the debts, then, convinced her to set up Direct Debits.

Three months later, debts mounting again.

Harsh words.

Daughter: "but, Dad, you said to set up Direct Debits, and, I have"
Me: "Yes, but, there has to be money left in the account to pay them!"


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (31 Jul 2020)

mjr said:


> 1. You still need to put the money in the DD account.
> 2. If they fark up the DD, then they guarantee you the refund if they overcharge, but they don't pay your fines if they undercharge or miss a charge and you're caught driving without a valid VED licence, so you still need to check it.


Open bank app, swipe finger. Massively difficult task


----------



## mjr (31 Jul 2020)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Open bank app, swipe finger. Massively difficult task


As with so many things about motoring, it's not the difficulty of the task, but remembering to do it, such as changing lanes when overtaking a cyclist or giving way to any cyclists on your left when turning left!


----------



## recumbentpanda (3 Aug 2020)

I am very concerned about the proposed new wording on the 'single file' issue. I sent the following to the consultation feedback address:




I wish to express my deep anxiety about the following wording:

“[cyclists’ should] ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake . . .”

This seems to me to be extremely dangerous. 

How are cyclists supposed to know that a driver wishes to overtake? 

Is there to be an automatic assumption that a driver behind cyclists wishes to overtake? 

What about cyclists doing 18 in a 20 zone, or 28 in a 30 zone? (Neither of which would be particularly unusual.)

If not, how are drivers supposed to communicate that wish?

It seems to me that this wording is highly likely to encourage and reinforce existing ‘bullying behaviours’ by drivers, such as illegal use of the horn, revving the engine, or driving dangerously close behind.

I would suggest the point be made the other way round, with some form of wording such as:

“Groups of two or more cyclists should only ride single file if they feel it is safe to do so. Remember that it will take much longer for a driver to complete an overtake of a group in single file, than a group riding two abreast. In both cases, the driver should use the opposite lane, and only pass if they can see it is safe to do so.”

Thank you for considering this proposal.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (3 Aug 2020)

^Hopefully the respondents as such will outnumber the 💩 ones


----------



## matticus (4 Aug 2020)

recumbentpanda said:


> I wish to express my deep anxiety about the following wording:
> 
> “[cyclists’ should] ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake . . .”


Shame you could only be bothered reading the first nine words.

<sigh>


----------



## ianrauk (4 Aug 2020)

matticus said:


> Shame you could only be bothered reading the first nine words.
> 
> <sigh>




To be fair, they are the only 9 words that will stick in the mind of motorists.


----------



## matticus (4 Aug 2020)

ianrauk said:


> To be fair, they are the only 9 words that will stick in the mind of motorists.


Currently, most think we must not ride 2-abreast. How can this make things worse?

(The wording ISNT perfect, but it IS a huge improvement on the current edition.)


----------



## ianrauk (4 Aug 2020)

matticus said:


> Currently, most think we must not ride 2-abreast. How can this make things worse?
> 
> (The wording ISNT perfect, but it IS a huge improvement on the current edition.)




As we all know, car drivers will interpret what ever the wording is in their own way to suit their own petty minded agenda at cyclists..


----------



## recumbentpanda (4 Aug 2020)

Matticus, I don’t really understand your comment. I quoted the words that alarmed me. I did actually read the rest of the relevant sections, and that wording was what jumped out at me as a cause for concern.

‘How can this make things worse?’ -well, I thought that was exactly what I was explaining in my post. 

This Highway Code revision is a big deal for cyclists. If we don’t make our feelings known we could be lumbered with something even more awful for a very long time.


----------



## matticus (4 Aug 2020)

It's quite simple; the entire paragraph (or indeed, just the 1st sentence) has a very different meaning to the partial quote you gave.

I could misleadingly quote from the current HC:


> Rule 66. You should. keep both hands on the handlebars
> or
> Rule 64 You MUST NOT cycle


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (4 Aug 2020)

Frying pan into the fire.

Majority of anti-cycling rhetoric is the belief that riding two abreast is illegal when in fact the wording of the *advice* is "no more than two abreast" the current suggested revision isn't better than this. However it does strengthen the need to give space when overtaking, which is contrary to the single file "suggestion" in the revision. (as explained in my initial post on P1)

No idea how often the HC is truly revised, we have a chance do to some good moving forward - the wording needs to be challenged, amended and correct.


----------



## raleighnut (4 Aug 2020)

matticus said:


> It's quite simple; the entire paragraph (or indeed, just the 1st sentence) has a very different meaning to the partial quote you gave.
> 
> I could misleadingly quote from the current HC:


How are you supposed to 'indicate' with both hands on the handlebars, not to mention changing gear.


----------



## matticus (4 Aug 2020)

raleighnut said:


> How are you supposed to 'indicate' with both hands on the handlebars, not to mention changing gear.


Gosh. It's a dilemma, isn't it?!?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (4 Aug 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> Single out if there's a vehicle behind and the road is clear, but don't single out if the view forward isn't clear as that could invite close passes and potentially being hit by a driver taking evasive action when they discover the way is not clear.
> 
> I do understand it could be misread as "get out of the way immediately when there's a vehicle behind you". But that's not what it says, and frankly, whatever it says could and will get misread and misinterpreted by those who want to do so. I've thought about it and I can't come up with an un-misinterpretable improvement.
> 
> btw I'm assuming that the "never ride more than two abreast" rule isn't going to be removed. But it's hard to tell with the way it has been presented.


I think the original "should never" text is removed for the purpose of "it is sometimes safer to ride two abreast " covering it

Obviously the definition of "sometimes" is as vague as "busy" "narrow" and "bendy" - depending on who you ask.


----------



## mjr (4 Aug 2020)

Apparently, it's currently illegal for cyclists to overtake other cyclists when a motorist wishes to overtake, according to self-gratification artist face of Thetford during today's ride.

Or so I'm told by a friend with better hearing. It sounded to me like she was saying we could only cycle when it was raining. I don't think motorists realise how difficult it is to hear them shouting from inside a mobile greenhouse when some moron is running a loud petrol engine nearby. Hopefully my hand signal reply was clear enough to show that I thought she was insane


----------



## Gixxerman (5 Aug 2020)

Driving instructer discussing these changes. The comments are surprisingly upbeat, with only a few anti-cycling types.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKYv1TB2980&lc=UgwEVuYWAOSuFM9olet4AaABAg.9Bz-i6Jx3ty9BzpEv3nAfH


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (5 Aug 2020)

^I'm a subscriber of Ashleys, he's generally on the money with this kind of thing.


----------



## sheddy (6 Aug 2020)

I would request motorists to signal overtakes to following vehicles. Can anyone see a flaw with this ? Wording ?


----------



## CXRAndy (10 Aug 2020)

Here is the list of questions in the questionaire

You can do it online the questionaire or print it off


I've filled it in online-takes about 10 mins to go through and complete on line.


----------



## mjr (10 Aug 2020)

sheddy said:


> I would request motorists to signal overtakes to following vehicles. Can anyone see a flaw with this ? Wording ?


It's already in rule 163 on overtaking: "...signal when it is safe to do so..."

What's missing is enforcement, and punishing those Institute of Advanced Motorists idiots who advocate not signalling if you think no one is looking.


----------



## classic33 (10 Aug 2020)

mjr said:


> It's already in rule 163.


*Rule 163.* give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car. ?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (10 Aug 2020)

mjr said:


> What's missing is enforcement, and punishing those Institute of Advanced Motorists idiots who advocate not signalling if you think no one is looking.


IAM an IAM idiot


----------



## Ming the Merciless (10 Aug 2020)

raleighnut said:


> How are you supposed to 'indicate' with both hands on the handlebars, not to mention changing gear.



One of those new fangled indicator systems for bikes that turn up here now and again.😜


----------



## Ming the Merciless (10 Aug 2020)

sheddy said:


> I would request motorists to signal overtakes to following vehicles. Can anyone see a flaw with this ? Wording ?



Just needs to say ensure you signal before overtaking vulnerable road users. there needs to be something about not overtaking if you are the third motirist. Always the third motorist that cuts in too soon!


----------



## Ming the Merciless (10 Aug 2020)

classic33 said:


> *Rule 163.* give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car. ?



But that could be interpreted as just the space between the left side of your car and right side of theirs. Which is often considerably less than 1.5 metres. Saying give vulnerable road users at least 1.5 metres when overtaking would be better.


----------



## mjr (10 Aug 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> Just needs to say ensure you signal before overtaking vulnerable road users. there needs to be something about not overtaking if you are the third motirist. Always the third motorist that cuts in too soon!


I find it's the second one. The third one has usually seen me waving at the second one and pointing at the handlebar camera...


----------



## netman (22 Oct 2020)

*Bump

There's *just one week left until* the Highway Code Review closes. 

The consultation offers a rare chance to improve many of the rules which govern our roads, and you can make a difference. Help make the roads safer for everyone, especially people cycling and walking, by supporting our campaign.

10 key proposed changes include new rules to tackle dangerous close passing and car-dooring, and also improve safety at junctions, particularly addressing 'left hook' collisions.

But these will only be adopted if the public show their support.

Please join almost 10,000 others who have already taken part and write to the Department for Transport today.


----------



## Drago (23 Oct 2020)

No bugger ever reads it anyway aside from learners, who instantly forget everything they read the moment the L plates come off.

I also disagree with the hierarchy of users. More cyclists are killed by pedestrians than the other way around, so why aren't we at the apex of the pyramid? That's pandering to the Daily Mail readership who think we're all slavering loons, not the actual reality of the situation.


----------



## Stonepark (26 Oct 2020)

Only 24 Hours left until consultation closes, if you haven't already, please complete it.


----------



## mjr (26 Oct 2020)

Drago said:


> I also disagree with the hierarchy of users. More cyclists are killed by pedestrians than the other way around, so why aren't we at the apex of the pyramid? That's pandering to the Daily Mail readership who think we're all slavering loons, not the actual reality of the situation.


Kinetic energy, innit? More energy means more responsibility, as a default.


----------



## matticus (26 Oct 2020)

I think it's more complicated - a pedestrian could easily have more KE than a cyclist (e.g. 80kg geezer runs across road, hits slight rider queueing at a red light.)
Also vulnerability is complex - elderly rider at 8mph is quite vulnerable. 100kg 25yo male pedestrian weaving off the pavement is less so.

(Much harder to find similar examples with a motor vehicle.)

Lots of variables :-/


----------



## mjr (26 Oct 2020)

matticus said:


> I think it's more complicated - a pedestrian could easily have more KE than a cyclist


yebbut balance of probabilities is they don't.

Edited to add: the justification in the proposed new text is "those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility".


----------



## matticus (26 Oct 2020)

mjr said:


> yebbut balance of probabilities is they don't.


Strict liability based on likelihood? I'm not convinced that's a good rule/law.


----------



## Drago (26 Oct 2020)

mjr said:


> Kinetic energy, innit? More energy means more responsibility, as a default.


Are we creating a hierarchy of physics or of the reality of road death numbers? If its the latter, then cyclists should be at the apex. If its the former, it should be in New Scientist and not the Highway Code.

There are issues clearly more fundamental than kinetic energy as pedestrians are killing more cyclists than the other way around,


----------



## mjr (26 Oct 2020)

matticus said:


> Strict liability based on likelihood? I'm not convinced that's a good rule/law.


Sorry - I thought we were discussing the highway code revision (which merely sets a starting point for the courts to determine liability if needed), not any possible future law change.


----------



## G3CWI (27 Oct 2020)

Phaeton said:


> But which drivers are going to read it? I would suggest that (pulls number from thin air) 99% of drivers have never read the HWC after they have passed their test, unless they need to revise to do another.


I agree. You only have to plough through any anti cycling thread on the web to realise that many drivers don’t know the Highway Code.


----------



## Ajax Bay (27 Oct 2020)

Just been a short piece on Radio 4 'Today' programme (@ 0856 for 'listen again / Sounds) debating the 'two abreast' clarification proposal.
Reiterate:
Proposal to amend The Highway Code to introduce a hierarchy of road users, clarify pedestrian and cyclist priority, establish safer overtaking consultation closes at 11:59pm on 27 October 2020


----------



## mjr (27 Oct 2020)

Only a few hours left! Have you commented?


----------



## sheddy (27 Oct 2020)

Yes.
I don't care much for the 'move left for faster vehicles behind' sentences, they seem to contradict the hierarchy of users philosophy.

I also requested that Touch Screens should not be operated by the driver while the vehicle is in motion.


----------

