# New Highway Code



## Saracenlad (19 Aug 2021)

Is the new latest Highway Code available yet?


----------



## mjr (19 Aug 2021)

Saracenlad said:


> Is the new latest Highway Code available yet?


Only as draft. See https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/h...improvements-for-walking-and-cycling….277936/

I've seen somewhere that it's expected this October. So probably next May, based on the glacial pace of DfT, unless they want to bury other news before then.

Edit to add: the changes actually take effect 29 January 2022 and are summarised at https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/new-highway-code.278598/post-6646683


----------



## LeetleGreyCells (25 Aug 2021)

I received a link to an article from Confused.com about the new changes and expected it to have 'motorist-heavy' bias, but was surprised to find it was simply factual.

It did make me smile though when the author put inverted commas around _high quality_ cycle lanes. We all hope for more than a splash of paint.


----------



## dutchguylivingintheuk (29 Aug 2021)

LeetleGreyCells said:


> I received a link to an article from Confused.com about the new changes and expected it to have 'motorist-heavy' bias, but was surprised to find it was simply factual.
> 
> It did make me smile though when the author put inverted commas around _high quality_ cycle lanes. We all hope for more than a splash of paint.


Well the site name isn't wrong, the author must be confused if he talks about ''high quality cycle lanes''


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (20 Jan 2022)

Found this - Rule 187

187
*In all cases watch out for *and give plenty of room to


pedestrians who may be crossing the approach and exit roads
traffic crossing in front of you on the roundabout, especially vehicles intending to leave by the next exit
traffic which may be straddling lanes or positioned incorrectly
motorcyclists
cyclists and horse riders who may stay in the left-hand lane and* signal right if they intend to continue round the roundabout*. Allow them to do so
long vehicles (including those towing trailers). These might have to take a different course or straddle lanes either approaching or on the roundabout because of their length. Watch out for their signals.

I was not aware of a part that - it seems - suggest that cyclists can stay in the left lane of a roundbout even if they are turning right over all - and signal right at each exit to show they are carrying on round

Is this right??

and how many drivers will know about it!


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Jan 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> ...
> 
> and how many drivers will know about it!



Only those currently reading the highway code... ie. learner drivers, but then again, which edition of the HC are they reading??


----------



## PeteXXX (20 Jan 2022)

Some of the changes here.. 

~ The Sun linkie ~


----------



## harlechjoe (20 Jan 2022)

I'm unsure when the UK highway code was last updated so forgive me if this is already known. Under a new section under rule 186, road users will now be forced to give priority to cyclists on roundabouts. I wonder whether this rule will be adhered to by motorists or cause so much confusion that cyclists will be at risk rather than be protected from the risk of motor vehicles hitting us.


----------



## BoldonLad (20 Jan 2022)

harlechjoe said:


> I'm unsure when the UK highway code was last updated so forgive me if this is already known. Under a new section under rule 186,* road users will now be forced* to give priority to cyclists on roundabouts. I wonder whether this rule will be adhered to by motorists or cause so much confusion that cyclists will be at risk rather than be protected from the risk of motor vehicles hitting us.



Only if it is policed, which I doubt.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (20 Jan 2022)

Thanks - doesn't mention the 'signalling right' bit though

I do wonder how many drivers will read the new version though
In my opinion the DVLA should send out a summary of the changes and a selection of things that need to be re-iterated when they send out the Road Tax reminder (yes yes yes - I know Vehicle something something)


----------



## classic33 (20 Jan 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> Found this - Rule 187
> 
> 187
> *In all cases watch out for *and give plenty of room to
> ...


I'll not chance it on the local roundabouts. I claim the lane(marked) instead.


----------



## vickster (20 Jan 2022)

I doubt most motorists will have a clue about the change (many appear to have never had much of a clue. I reckon a large proportion of drivers who didn’t learn to drive in the U.K. have ever looked at or even heard of the HC


----------



## vickster (20 Jan 2022)

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/new-highway-code.278598/ discussion here already


----------



## DaveReading (20 Jan 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> I was not aware of a part that - it seems - suggest that cyclists can stay in the left lane of a roundbout even if they are turning right over all - and signal right at each exit to show they are carrying on round


Unless the left lane is specifically marked as the designated exit lane, drivers should be prepared for the possibility that a cyclist (or vehicle) who isn't signalling may well be carrying on round the roundabout.


----------



## mjr (20 Jan 2022)

harlechjoe said:


> I'm unsure when the UK highway code was last updated so forgive me if this is already known. Under a new section under rule 186, road users will now be forced to give priority to cyclists on roundabouts. I wonder whether this rule will be adhered to by motorists or cause so much confusion that cyclists will be at risk rather than be protected from the risk of motor vehicles hitting us.


That's not a change: you have to give priority to traffic already on the roundabout ahead of you anyway, regardless of what that traffic is. It's just being stated more explicitly because driving standards have gone down the toilet.

The Daily Mirror got this completely wrong and I am thankful that I never had the misfortune to be cycling on a roundabout at the same time the authors and editors of its article on this were driving onto it!


----------



## BoldonLad (20 Jan 2022)

mjr said:


> *That's not a change: you have to give priority to traffic already on the roundabout* ahead of you anyway, regardless of what that traffic is. It's just being stated more explicitly because driving standards have gone down the toilet.
> 
> The Daily Mirror got this completely wrong and I am thankful that I never had the misfortune to be cycling on a roundabout at the same time the authors and editors of its article on this were driving onto it!



My impression this was "change" was to do with situations where both vehicles are already on the roundabout, rather than traffic joining it. Basically, the instruction could read "please do not simply run over a cyclist on your left, just because you wish to exist the roundabout" 

But, I would agree, it is not really a change, since, AFAIK the rule never was "you may plough into other vehicles sharing the roundabout with you".


----------



## mjr (21 Jan 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> I was not aware of a part that - it seems - suggest that cyclists can stay in the left lane of a roundbout even if they are turning right over all - and signal right at each exit to show they are carrying on round
> 
> Is this right??


It's right as in correct. It's not right as in a good idea IMO. It used to be that all slow vehicles could do this and the 1968 Highway Code included Rule 84 "When in a roundabout, look out for vehicles crossing in front of you to leave by the next exit."

The 1993 edition included in Rule 200 for cyclists only "Rules 123-128 set out the correct procedures at roundabouts but you may feel safer approaching in the left-hand lane and keeping to the left in the roundabout. If you do keep to the left, take extra care when cycling across exits and signal right to show you are not leaving. Watch out for vehicles crossing your path to leave or join the roundabout." Rule 126 warns motorists about the practice. I also note that rule 200 weasels that "you may feel safer" rather than you'll actually be any safer, which puts it firmly in the same evidence-free category as certain other cycling rules.



> and how many drivers will know about it!


Any of them who did Cycling Proficiency at school before 1990 (when it was taught as how to cycle on roundabouts) really should, as should any drivers who took their test before 1999, even if you consider the current (2007-2022 edition) wording to be less than explicit.


----------



## Mike_P (21 Jan 2022)

Fat chance of it being understood, after all too many motorists fail to indicate correctly at roundabouts


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (21 Jan 2022)

Mike_P said:


> Fat chance of it being understood, after all too many motorists fail to indicate correctly at roundabouts


Exactly

If I decide to maybe use this method then I am doing it from Prime and signalling like a mad man and looking everywhere

Although I try to avoid roundabouts that are big enough for this to be relevant


----------



## Alex321 (21 Jan 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> My impression this was "change" was to do with situations where both vehicles are already on the roundabout, rather than traffic joining it. Basically, the instruction could read "please do not simply run over a cyclist on your left, just because you wish to exist the roundabout"
> 
> But, I would agree, it is not really a change, since, AFAIK the rule never was "you may plough into other vehicles sharing the roundabout with you".


The point of the wording is to make drivers aware that cyclists and horses may not be following the "usual" roundabout rules, so don't assume because they are in the LH lane they are taking the next exit, and so don't cut across expecting they will.

It is unlikely to make many of them any more aware than they would have been without it, but I suppose every little helps.


----------



## classic33 (21 Jan 2022)

mjr said:


> It's right as in correct. It's not right as in a good idea IMO. It used to be that all slow vehicles could do this and the 1968 Highway Code included Rule 84 "When in a roundabout, look out for vehicles crossing in front of you to leave by the next exit."
> 
> The 1993 edition included in Rule 200 for cyclists only "Rules 123-128 set out the correct procedures at roundabouts but you may feel safer approaching in the left-hand lane and keeping to the left in the roundabout. If you do keep to the left, take extra care when cycling across exits and signal right to show you are not leaving. Watch out for vehicles crossing your path to leave or join the roundabout." Rule 126 warns motorists about the practice. I also note that rule 200 weasels that "you may feel safer" rather than you'll actually be any safer, which puts it firmly in the same evidence-free category as certain other cycling rules.
> 
> ...


But you don't like multi-lane roundabouts and would prefer to dismount and walk your bike round. Or has that changed in more recent years?


----------



## Alex321 (21 Jan 2022)

vickster said:


> https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/new-highway-code.278598/ discussion here already


That is this thread  (Unless it got merged after you posted).

You may have meant this one https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/new-priority-rules-may-cause-confusion-says-aa.281998/


----------



## Alex321 (21 Jan 2022)

harlechjoe said:


> I'm unsure when the UK highway code was last updated so forgive me if this is already known. Under a new section under rule 186, road users will now be forced to give priority to cyclists on roundabouts. I wonder whether this rule will be adhered to by motorists or cause so much confusion that cyclists will be at risk rather than be protected from the risk of motor vehicles hitting us.


It is surprising how often it does get updated actually. There were some changes last year (which I think is what this thread started off about), but there are quite significant changes coming.

Assuming no MP has objected, the changes discussed in this thread come into force at the end of next week (29th January).


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (21 Jan 2022)

classic33 said:


> But you don't like multi-lane roundabouts and would prefer to dismount and walk your bike round. Or has that changed in more recent years?


Not always possible - some motorway type roundabouts don't have anywhere to walk. One near here has a cycle path round about half of it - which makes turning right rather a puzzle - especially as the path end with no provision to join the main carrigeway.
In some cases I feel that cycling is actually safer than walking - with or without a bike.


----------



## harlechjoe (21 Jan 2022)

mjr said:


> It's right as in correct. It's not right as in a good idea IMO. It used to be that all slow vehicles could do this and the 1968 Highway Code included Rule 84 "When in a roundabout, look out for vehicles crossing in front of you to leave by the next exit."
> 
> The 1993 edition included in Rule 200 for cyclists only "Rules 123-128 set out the correct procedures at roundabouts but you may feel safer approaching in the left-hand lane and keeping to the left in the roundabout. If you do keep to the left, take extra care when cycling across exits and signal right to show you are not leaving. Watch out for vehicles crossing your path to leave or join the roundabout." Rule 126 warns motorists about the practice. I also note that rule 200 weasels that "you may feel safer" rather than you'll actually be any safer, which puts it firmly in the same evidence-free category as certain other cycling rules.
> 
> ...


Your reply has struck a chord with me - it was the way I had been taught and am still the proud possessor of my cycling proficiency badge


----------



## mjr (21 Jan 2022)

classic33 said:


> But you don't like multi-lane roundabouts and would prefer to dismount and walk your bike round. Or has that changed in more recent years?


I suspect you have confused me with someone else. I almost never prefer to dismount.


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Jan 2022)

harlechjoe said:


> I'm unsure when the UK highway code was last updated so forgive me if this is already known. *Under a new section under rule 186, road users will now be forced to give priority to cyclists on roundabouts.* I wonder whether this rule will be adhered to by motorists or cause so much confusion that cyclists will be at risk rather than be protected from the risk of motor vehicles hitting us.


I expect most cyclists (like most drivers) will be unaware of this change and shall continue to use roundabouts as they always have done.


----------



## Alex321 (21 Jan 2022)

MontyVeda said:


> I expect most cyclists (like most drivers) will be unaware of this change and shall continue to use roundabouts as they always have done.


I think most of us cyclists are well aware we are the squishy ones, so ride as if everybody else is out to squish us. And even though the new HC rules do afford us a bit more protection, that is only helpful if followed by others. 

Still a good idea, anything that helps is a good idea, but probably won't make nearly as much difference to road use habits as the proponents of the change might have hoped.


----------



## presta (21 Jan 2022)

vickster said:


> I doubt most motorists will have a clue about the change (many appear to have never had much of a clue. I reckon a large proportion of drivers who didn’t learn to drive in the U.K. have ever looked at or even heard of the HC


I've had numerous twitter arguments in which I've listed about half a dozen rules that are being broken, but they still think that they're in the right. And the threads are usually full of motorists complaining that cyclists ignore the highway code.


ebikeerwidnes said:


> some motorway type roundabouts don't have anywhere to walk


Try the Stansted Airport junction on the M11: half a mile in circumference, varies from 2 to 4 lanes wide, has multiple traffic lights, a bypass cutting through the central island, and no footpath or verge to walk on.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (21 Jan 2022)

I had a motorist pull across me on a roundabout from right lane to turn left. I was in left lane, in my car, and had not indicated I was turning left, because I wasn’t. They can’t get it right when you are in car. Since when did turning left from the right lane become a thing?


----------



## mjr (21 Jan 2022)

presta said:


> Try the Stansted Airport junction on the M11: half a mile in circumference, varies from 2 to 4 lanes wide, has multiple traffic lights, a bypass cutting through the central island, and no footpath or verge to walk on.


Even better than that, the walking/cycling bypass route bypassing the Stansted Airport junction is about double the distance between the roundabouts either side, including two U-turns, unlit and unsurfaced:

*Cyclepath 16*


© Glyn Baker, cc-by-sa.

With roundabouts and alternative routes that crap, the Highway Code is only ever going to be a sticking plaster trying to close a gushing artery... but still better to have it improved than not.


----------



## mjr (21 Jan 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> I had a motorist pull across me on a roundabout from right lane to turn left. I was in left lane, in my car, and had not indicated I was turning left, because I wasn’t. They can’t get it right when you are in car. Since when did turning left from the right lane become a thing?


I can think of roundabouts where the markings direct people to turn right from the left lane, such as the A47 westbound at West Lynn, where all the preceding exits have only one lane off. I expect there's one somewhere that does the opposite, where only the first exit has two lanes off, but then the left lane really ought to be marked as left-turn-only, which I bet it wasn't because you weren't.


----------



## Solocle (22 Jan 2022)

mjr said:


> I can think of roundabouts where the markings direct people to turn right from the left lane, such as the A47 westbound at West Lynn, where all the preceding exits have only one lane off. I expect there's one somewhere that does the opposite, where only the first exit has two lanes off, but then the left lane really ought to be marked as left-turn-only, which I bet it wasn't because you weren't.


Right from the left lane:


----------



## Solocle (23 Jan 2022)

Aaand there we go!

Left from the right lane. A4260/A44 junction just outside Oxford. I've cycled the A44/A44 movement a number of times, but never this arm of the roundabout.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (23 Jan 2022)

mjr said:


> I can think of roundabouts where the markings direct people to turn right from the left lane, such as the A47 westbound at West Lynn, where all the preceding exits have only one lane off. I expect there's one somewhere that does the opposite, where only the first exit has two lanes off, but then the left lane really ought to be marked as left-turn-only, which I bet it wasn't because you weren't.



Yep no such markings to indicate turning left from right hand lane, plus they didn’t even indicate when they made the crazy manoeuvre


----------



## Alex321 (23 Jan 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> Yep no such markings to indicate turning left from right hand lane, plus they didn’t even indicate when they made the crazy manoeuvre


The chances are they just suddenly realised they were inthe wrong place and should be taking that exit, and rather than going all the way round again, just dived across.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (23 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> The chances are they just suddenly realised they were inthe wrong place and should be taking that exit, and rather than going all the way round again, just dived across.



Whatever, an idiotic move, if I hadn’t braked sharply it would have been a collision.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (23 Jan 2022)

We have a small roundabout near here that has a left turn only lane as I approach it

I have had a couple of cars sweep round inside me when they get in the wrong lane
luckily I have always spotted them and been able to give them room - not sure how possible that would be if someone was coing round the roundabout at the same time - but it has never happened


----------



## KnittyNorah (23 Jan 2022)

In the past couple of days I've had several drivers stop their cars to let me continue on my way, in the sort of situation where it has NEVER happened before - but exactly the sort of situation as described in the 'new' Highway Code. A couple of regularly-dog-walking neighbours, with whom I share notes, have also commented on drivers halting and their not needing - as one lady put it - to 'scamper' across the road feeling as if they're dodging vehicles, but being able to walk across 'in a normal civilised fashion'. 
So it seems that there is some publicity, somewhere, reaching some drivers. And some of those drivers take note - as of course they should.


----------



## BoldonLad (23 Jan 2022)

KnittyNorah said:


> In the past couple of days I've had several drivers stop their cars to let me continue on my way, in the sort of situation where it has NEVER happened before - but exactly the sort of situation as described in the 'new' Highway Code. A couple of regularly-dog-walking neighbours, with whom I share notes, have also commented on drivers halting and their not needing - as one lady put it - to 'scamper' across the road feeling as if they're dodging vehicles, but being able to walk across 'in a normal civilised fashion'.
> So it seems that there is some publicity, somewhere, reaching some drivers. And some of those drivers take note - as of course they should.



We can but hope


----------



## harlechjoe (23 Jan 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> We can but hope


Gosh, I'm amazed and signals, as you say, hope for all of us !


----------



## Svendo (23 Jan 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> I had a motorist pull across me on a roundabout from right lane to turn left. I was in left lane, in my car, and had not indicated I was turning left, because I wasn’t. They can’t get it right when you are in car. Since when did turning left from the right lane become a thing?


One of my dirty habits is watching DashCams UK videos on Facebook, and a very high proportion of the incidents are on roundabouts, and about half of those are big a-road or M-way junction ones, usually someone exiting from the right hand lane to their 2nd exit (or more) and another car on the inside crossing the exit. Quite often the camera car is barrelling across the roundabout from right hand approach lane to right hand roundabout lane to right hand exit lane. I now assume even more than I did that everyone on a roundabout is lost, doesn’t understand ‘lanes’, know their left from right or have working indicators.


----------



## Svendo (23 Jan 2022)

mjr said:


> It's right as in correct. It's not right as in a good idea IMO. It used to be that all slow vehicles could do this and the 1968 Highway Code included Rule 84 "When in a roundabout, look out for vehicles crossing in front of you to leave by the next exit."
> 
> The 1993 edition included in Rule 200 for cyclists only "Rules 123-128 set out the correct procedures at roundabouts but you may feel safer approaching in the left-hand lane and keeping to the left in the roundabout. If you do keep to the left, take extra care when cycling across exits and signal right to show you are not leaving. Watch out for vehicles crossing your path to leave or join the roundabout." Rule 126 warns motorists about the practice. I also note that rule 200 weasels that "you may feel safer" rather than you'll actually be any safer, which puts it firmly in the same evidence-free category as certain other cycling rules.
> 
> ...


I’m intrigued, do you have a library of successive HCs, or a didactic memory?


----------



## classic33 (23 Jan 2022)

Svendo said:


> I’m intrigued, do you have a library of successive HCs, or a didactic memory?


Google at his fingertips.


----------



## mjr (24 Jan 2022)

Svendo said:


> I’m intrigued, do you have a library of successive HCs, or a didactic memory?


Ones more than 50 years old are online, as is the current one, plus I have a paper copy of the 1993 edition from when I was learning to drive. I should have a copy of the 1988(?) edition but can't find it. They're small books and I found the 1993 mixed in a shelf of touring maps during the last house move. It has been useful in forums like this for context and sometimes "how the fark did this messed-up layout arise?" and "was that sign ever legal?" questions.


----------



## Milkfloat (24 Jan 2022)

My immediate reaction is that the highway code should not even suggest that cyclists should be in the 'wrong' lane if they are not confident. Cyclists should be seen as normal traffic and if a slow or unconfident cyclist is going slowly and wobbling around a roundabout then the rest of the traffic should just make allowances for them. After all a slow tractor is not told that they can use the wrong lane to turn right.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (24 Jan 2022)

I think the 'outrage' from some car drivers towards what are largely just clarification of the existing rules, emphasises what a poor job driving instructors have been doing for years, and how ignorant many road users are.


----------



## mjr (24 Jan 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> I think the 'outrage' from some car drivers towards what are largely just clarification of the existing rules, emphasises what a poor job driving instructors have been doing for years, and how ignorant many road users are.


Indeed, and the 4% of drivers saying that they will not read the updated code highlights that we have no effective system for revoking the licences of the willfully incompetent (keeping up to date on the code is a requirement of the licensing standard).

I've tried to summarise what's really changing below. Notice that all the crap about roundabout lanes, road position and overtaking distances are only clarifications, not actually new rules. Over half the new rules only apply to cyclists!

What's Really Changing in the Highway Code?

· Three new rules at the start:
⋄ H1 - All road users have responsibility for safety and "those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others". Not only large goods vehicles to everyone else, but cyclists have greater responsibility than walkers.
⋄ H2 - basically, everyone else should give way to walkers, walkers may use any bit of a road unless specifically banned and only walkers may use the pavement.
⋄ H3 - drivers should not cut across cyclists or horse riders, even if they are on a cycle track.

· 3 clarified rules on overtaking: give cyclists 1.5m+ at 30mph (and more when faster), horses 2m+ at max 10mph and walkers 2m+ at low speed.

· 10 updated and clarified rules on crossings to say:
⋄ give way to walkers, riders and cyclists continuing straight ahead when turning or changing lane (even if they are on a pavement or track);
⋄ don't overtake them immediately before a junction where you will turn;
⋄ don't enter a crossing unless you can completely clear it.

· One updated rule on getting out of cars (look behind you before/as you open a door) and not leaving charging cables to trip people up.

· 12 updated and 5 new rules on how to cycle, including riding centrally in narrow lanes, two-stage right turns and roundabouts. Plus lots of small corrections.

I'd love an infographic of that, if anyone has time and/or more skill than me.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (24 Jan 2022)

2 points
Firstly - the bit about giving way to cyclists on a cycle path when the car is turning left (or right) is welcome
However, in many cases around here the cycle path has give way lines (but no sign) on it - so should they be changing this I wonder?

and Secondly
coming back from the shops today we came across this roundabout






We were coming up from the bottom (stop sniggering at the back!!) on Lower House Lane
we were turning left - or kinda half left
Waiting on the pavement on our left (which is also a cycle path) was a walker waiting to cross over to the other part of Lower House lane
so the walker was pretty much going strait on 
BUT the main road is basically going left

so - once this new HC becomes valid - would be be supposed to stop and let him cross - and if there was traffic coming from his left
would they have to stop as well?? 
and would this change of there was a refuge in the centre of the road or not??

what does the community think??


----------



## Alex321 (24 Jan 2022)

Milkfloat said:


> My immediate reaction is that the highway code should not even suggest that cyclists should be in the 'wrong' lane if they are not confident. Cyclists should be seen as normal traffic and if a slow or unconfident cyclist is going slowly and wobbling around a roundabout then the rest of the traffic should just make allowances for them. After all a slow tractor is not told that they can use the wrong lane to turn right.


It always has said that - and it isn't about confidence.
The change to the wording here is:

*Rule 77* You may feel safer walking your cycle round on the pavement or verge. 
If you decide to ride round keeping to the left-hand lane you should be aware that drivers may not easily see you take extra care when cycling across exits. You may need to signal right to show you are not leaving the roundabout 
watch out for vehicles crossing your path to leave or join the roundabout.*Becomes Rule 79* If you are turning right, you can ride in the left or right-hand lanes and move left when approaching your exit. Position yourself in the centre of your lane if it is safe to do so (see Rule 72) and signal right to indicate that you are not leaving the roundabout. Alternatively, you may feel safer walking your cycle round on the pavement or verge. 

If you decide to ride round keeping to the left-hand lane you should 
• be aware that drivers may not easily see you 
• take extra care when cycling across exits. You should signal right to show you are not leaving the roundabout 
• watch out for vehicles crossing your path to leave or join the roundabout. 

Where a roundabout has separate cycle facilities, you should use these facilities where they make your journey safer and easier although you are not obliged to use them. This will depend on your experience and skills and the situation at the time.

And then rule 186 has had the following text added:

You should give priority to cyclists on the roundabout. They will be travelling more slowly than motorised traffic. Give them plenty of room and do not attempt to overtake them within their lane. Allow them to move across your path as they travel around the roundabout. Cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles may stay in the left-hand lane when they intend to continue across or around the roundabout and should signal right to show you they are not leaving the roundabout. Drivers should take extra care when entering a roundabout to ensure that they do not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles in the left-hand lane, who are continuing around the roundabout.


----------



## Alex321 (24 Jan 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> 2 points
> Firstly - the bit about giving way to cyclists on a cycle path when the car is turning left (or right) is welcome
> However, in many cases around here the cycle path has give way lines (but no sign) on it - so should they be changing this I wonder?


Yes, they should. It may take quite a while before all such markings get changed though.

The current "key design principles" suggest that such markings (and also "cyclists dismount" signs) should be avoided. But those are recent, and how long it will take to update al existing ones, who knows?




ebikeerwidnes said:


> and Secondly
> coming back from the shops today we came across this roundabout
> 
> View attachment 628025
> ...


With the roundabout there, leaving it classes as a junction, so yes, you should let them cross.


----------



## mjr (24 Jan 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> However, in many cases around here the cycle path has give way lines (but no sign) on it - so should they be changing this I wonder?


They should. Anti-cycling Norfolk is instead taking the opportunity to refresh or add give-way lines to some cycleways. They're not doing all of them and I'm not inclined to tell them which ones they've missed!



> so - once this new HC becomes valid - would be be supposed to stop and let him cross - and if there was traffic coming from his left
> would they have to stop as well??
> and would this change of there was a refuge in the centre of the road or not??


You should, in line with several rules including H2 ("At a junction you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning"), possibly 151 if traffic is slow-moving ("allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross in front of you") and 170 ("give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning"), as should the other traffic (the rules say "into which or from which"), but none of these are MUSTs so I think it's necessarily not an immediately-punishable offence not to stop. You're just more likely to be viewed as a careless or dangerous driver if you don't. I'd suggest deliberately revving, honking or flashing to discourage the walker from crossing would add to that likelihood.

A central refuge might mean that only one direction should stop at a time, but I think it's only stated as a definite difference for marked crossings.


----------



## Milkfloat (24 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Yes, they should. It may take quite a while before all such markings get changed though.



It is a bit of a mess to say the least - when I looked at this the wording said that road marking or signs take precedence, therefore the cyclist still has to cede priority if they have give way markings which the majority of junctions I have seen do. However, how a driver is supposed to know if the markings exist or not I have no idea. Hopefully all drivers will just give way in all cases, but let's be honest there is not a chance of that at all.


----------



## mjr (24 Jan 2022)

Milkfloat said:


> Hopefully all drivers will just give way in all cases, but let's be honest there is not a chance of that at all.


Wouldn't be a chance of that, no matter what. We still have to wait for the feckers to stop (or nearly) and it to be physically near-impossible for them to run us over before we finish crossing, else we're chancing our arms (or legs, or possibly neck).

The AA instructor shown on BBC Breakfast about 07:15 this morning is teaching his pupils to stop well before the junction, before they even start to turn in: hopefully, all instructors are doing that and so will the THINK adverts when they start next month.


----------



## sheddy (24 Jan 2022)

Does anyone know Jason ?
Ranty radio phone in - short clip
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0bjyzq5


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (24 Jan 2022)

Sounds to me that this has not been well thought out
It seems clear if a pedestrian is approaching a junction off the road they are walking along

but what if the junction is a major junction - maybe a motorway junction or similar

As said above - how does a driver know whether or not there are give way lines on a cycle path - and are these legally enforceable if there is no roadside signpost - as far as I am aware it needs both on a full road but what about a cycle path???

One of my rides goes along a path that crosses a major expressway - should traffic stop for me if I am waiting for a gap? This would clearly be dangerous but does the new guidance imply they should?

I may be taking rubbish - but I thought I would ask.


----------



## mjr (24 Jan 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> Sounds to me that this has not been well thought out
> It seems clear if a pedestrian is approaching a junction off the road they are walking along
> 
> but what if the junction is a major junction - maybe a motorway junction or similar


What about it? It's clear: drivers give way. The number of pedestrians willingly traversing a major motorway junction will be tiny. I've done it on M5 and M42 from memory, and it's something you only do if there's no reasonable alternative. They're having a shoot walk, so why make it any worse for them?



> As said above - how does a driver know whether or not there are give way lines on a cycle path - and are these legally enforceable if there is no roadside signpost - as far as I am aware it needs both on a full road but what about a cycle path???


I'm 95% confident that they're only legally enforceable in so far as failing to give way may contribute to a charge of carelessness or reduce the liability of the person who hit you, same as it ever was. I doubt the presence of a sign makes any difference unless the markings have worn out.



> One of my rides goes along a path that crosses a major expressway - should traffic stop for me if I am waiting for a gap? This would clearly be dangerous but does the new guidance imply they should?
> 
> I may be taking rubbish - but I thought I would ask.


Yes, it should stop, but I bet it will take some prosecutions before it's commonplace. How would it "clearly be dangerous", if all are using the road in line with the law and with due regard to the Highway Code?


----------



## lazybloke (24 Jan 2022)

sheddy said:


> Does anyone know Jason ?
> Ranty radio phone in - short clip
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0bjyzq5




What kind of person presents themself on the radio like that.


----------



## mjr (24 Jan 2022)

mjr said:


> I'd love an infographic of that, if anyone has time and/or more skill than me.


First decent infographic I've seen of some of the cycling-related changes, but I wish it had other pics instead of the ones used for 4 and 5:

View: https://twitter.com/tomstaniford/status/1485550742173847556


----------



## Accy cyclist (24 Jan 2022)

Have these changes come into effect yet? I ask because while out walking this aft' I stopped at the kerb to wait for a fire engine to turn right into the fire station. I raised my walking stick as if to say "I've seen you, so I'm not going to do something daft" as in step out in front of a fire engine. The driver of the vehicle gave me the thumbs as he turned right in front of me. After I thought about it and thought maybe he was thanking me for letting him go, when as a pedestrian I now have the right of way over vehicles.🤔


----------



## Mo1959 (24 Jan 2022)

Going to be a bit on the news shortly.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (24 Jan 2022)

There was a new article on the BBC at lunch time


----------



## mjr (24 Jan 2022)

Accy cyclist said:


> Have these changes come into effect yet?


No. Saturday.


----------



## DaveReading (24 Jan 2022)

mjr said:


> First decent infographic I've seen of some of the cycling-related changes, but I wish it had other pics instead of the ones used for 4 and 5:
> 
> View: https://twitter.com/tomstaniford/status/1485550742173847556
> 
> View attachment 628037



Cyclists *should *ride two abreast? Where did that come from?


----------



## numbnuts (24 Jan 2022)

Well I'm not going to ride in the middle of the road, not unless I'm turning right


----------



## mjr (24 Jan 2022)

Mo1959 said:


> Going to be a bit on the news shortly.


Fairly short, a bit bland, so-so.



DaveReading said:


> Cyclists *should *ride two abreast? Where did that come from?


Remember, this is directed at drivers, and it's only the best I've seen yet, not perfection.

Probably it's to reinforce the new first paragraph of rule 213, which includes: "It can be safer for groups of cyclists to ride two abreast in these situations. Allow them to do so for their own safety"

The rule for cyclists, rule 66, will only say about it that "You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so".



numbnuts said:


> Well I'm not going to ride in the middle of the road, not unless I'm turning right


New rule 72 only tells you to ride in the middle of your lane, not the middle of the road. I see the comic seems to have got that one wrong.


----------



## matticus (24 Jan 2022)

View: https://twitter.com/theeyecollector/status/1485564190106529798?t=472JTVvh3Lu4dQeiLaUhJQ&s=19


As a cyclist, I break the highway code constantly just to annoy drivers. The police see it but they can't stop me because of political correctness


----------



## Ming the Merciless (24 Jan 2022)

numbnuts said:


> Well I'm not going to ride in the middle of the road, not unless I'm turning right



Don’t everyone weave around the dotted white line?


----------



## sheddy (24 Jan 2022)

Not a tabloid -
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/entitled-motorists-have-ruled-the-roads-for-far-too-long


----------



## Alex321 (25 Jan 2022)

mjr said:


> New rule 72 only tells you to ride in the middle of your lane, not the middle of the road. I see the comic seems to have got that one wrong.


No, that is what it said above. Unless you are talking about something other than the infographic at post #59.


----------



## DaveReading (25 Jan 2022)

The infographic is misleading in a number of respects. It doesn't appear to have originated from any official source.


----------



## Alex321 (25 Jan 2022)

DaveReading said:


> The infographic is misleading in a number of respects. It doesn't appear to have originated from any official source.


I don't think it has. But as far as I can see, it is only #2 which is misleading?


----------



## mjr (25 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> No, that is what it said above. Unless you are talking about something other than the infographic at post #59.


The infographic that says "Cycle in centre of the lane"? That is not "middle of the road" as posted.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (25 Jan 2022)

In the Liverpool Echo today apparently people were "outraged" by an article on Good Morning Britain

Apparently a cyclist was shown cycling along a road
People's 'outrage' was because there was a cycle path available

but the article seems to miss out the bit where the HC says - specifically - that cyclists do not HAVE to use a cycle path

typical mis-information from the press about these changes


----------



## matticus (25 Jan 2022)

sheddy said:


> Not a tabloid -
> https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/entitled-motorists-have-ruled-the-roads-for-far-too-long


Seems a very sensible column. I'm sure fellow CycleChatters will join me in praising the closing line:
_
But there is nothing unreasonable about the changes to the Highway Code, which are merely a small rebalancing in the relationship between motorists, cyclists and pedestrians — and an example of how Conservative governments can and should promote civilised values._


----------



## Alex321 (25 Jan 2022)

mjr said:


> The infographic that says "Cycle in centre of the lane"?


Correct.



mjr said:


> That is not "middle of the road" as posted.



"As posted" where?

Your comment was that "the comic seems to have got that one wrong". What do you mean by "the comic" here?

Without more context, I thought it was the infographic you were talking of.


----------



## fossyant (25 Jan 2022)

I suppose, the only good thing is it's all over the press about the 'changes'. My wife is ranting about it, as it's actually common sense and she does this already, which 'most' drivers do.


----------



## matticus (25 Jan 2022)

DaveReading said:


> The infographic is misleading in a number of respects. It doesn't appear to have originated from any official source.


Are we all talking about this one:





(I can't see Twitter from this machine!)

If so, I agree, it is rather misleading on 1 & 2.

I do wish everyone jumping up-and-down about those 2 rules would actually read the ACTUAL HC, but it's hardly surprising when they don't :-/


----------



## mjr (25 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> "As posted" where?


In the post by numbnuts that I quoted!



> Your comment was that "the comic seems to have got that one wrong". What do you mean by "the comic" here?


Cycling Weekly. I've been told it ran an article saying the new code says we must ride in the middle if the road and pull over whenever motorists want to overtake.



> Without more context, I thought it was the infographic you were talking of.


I literally gave the context, as a quote. It was not the infographic.


----------



## Alex321 (25 Jan 2022)

matticus said:


> Are we all talking about this one:
> 
> (I can't see Twitter from this machine!)
> 
> ...


On 2 it is very misleading, because it absolutely doesn't say you "should" do that. The actual wording is "You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders".

On 1, I think it is only slightly misleading, because that does appear to be the "general" advice, with it saying there are 2 basic positions you should adopt, and that being the first one.

But there are numerous stories in the press which are just ridiculous - suggesting that the changes to the HC mean there are additional things for which you could be fined, for instance. The changes make no difference to the law, so no difference to what you can be fined for. They mainly just clarify existing guidance, and add a few new bits.
One example headline from the Sun says 
"DID YOU KNOW? 
Highway Code rule changes LIVE – New 2022 rules about roundabouts, junctions & car doors could land you huge £1k fine"

Or from the London Evening Standard:
"A new rule will see drivers fined £1,000 if they open the door with the wrong hand, as the Highway Code is updated."

And unfortunately, it isn't actually all that easy to read the ACTUAL changes until they are finally incorporated in the current HC.
There is a pdf of the changes here, but that takes a bit of searching out, and quite often fails at the first attempt to load.


----------



## Alex321 (25 Jan 2022)

mjr said:


> In the post by numbnuts that I quoted!
> 
> 
> Cycling Weekly. I've been told it ran an article saying the new code says we must ride in the middle if the road and pull over whenever motorists want to overtake.
> ...


Fair enough. I didn't realise you were referring to numbnuts as "the comic".


----------



## numbnuts (25 Jan 2022)

Who's taking my name in vain


----------



## presta (25 Jan 2022)

In Cyclecraft, Franklin defines Primary Position as the centre of the vehicle track, not the centre of the lane.
Like this:


----------



## annedonnelly (25 Jan 2022)

The changes to the code are going to be discussed on the Jeremy Vine show today.


----------



## matticus (25 Jan 2022)

numbnuts said:


> Who's taking my name in vain


Comical. Not "the comic".

p.s. For Alex


----------



## Solocle (25 Jan 2022)

presta said:


> In Cyclecraft, Franklin defines Primary Position as the centre of the vehicle track, not the centre of the lane.
> Like this:
> View attachment 628108


That distinction becomes important somewhere like here.




It tapers too quickly for lane sharing to be reasonable.


----------



## Illaveago (26 Jan 2022)

I think the new changes could lead to more traffic congestion and hold ups .
If every road user has to give way to every person at a side road waiting to cross , imagine the tail backs caused by streams of children on their way to school . Not all roads are 2 lanes which allow vehicles driving straight on to pass and will have to wait behind . Not every vehicle will be turning off at every junction but this will add to delays , this rule also applies to cyclists . I know some cyclists don't stop for red lights so pedestrians could just walk out on side roads assuming they have right of way straight into the path of such a rider .
Are roundabouts going to be treated like side roads ?


----------



## Mo1959 (26 Jan 2022)

Afraid when I'm out walking and crossing the road at junctions I will definitely still be waiting for the cars to go first. I just wouldn't trust the drivers to give way anyway apart from the very occasional one who might if they have read the new code and want to comply. I think they will be few and far between.


----------



## Solocle (26 Jan 2022)

Mo1959 said:


> Afraid when I'm out walking and crossing the road at junctions I will definitely still be waiting for the cars to go first. I just wouldn't trust the drivers to give way anyway apart from the very occasional one who might if they have read the new code and want to comply. I think they will be few and far between.



Nothing has substantially changed from the existing highway code there.




The main difference is that traffic from the side road now should give way to you.

The change of "should give way to waiting pedestrians" is keeping it in line with zebra crossings. Frankly just common sense - if a pedestrian has priority as soon as they set foot on the road, then you need to give way, because if they do step out a crash will be your fault. All that element of the change does is spell that out for the hard of thinking.


----------



## matticus (26 Jan 2022)

Illaveago said:


> I think the new changes could lead to more traffic congestion and hold ups .
> If every road user has to give way to every person at a side road waiting to cross , imagine the tail backs caused by streams of children on their way to school .


Is this satire?
Are you complaining that children will be able to safely walk to school, but this will delay a few drivers?


----------



## Alex321 (26 Jan 2022)

Solocle said:


> Nothing has substantially changed from the existing highway code there.
> View attachment 628212
> 
> The main difference is that traffic from the side road now should give way to you.
> ...


I don't agree that this hasn't made a substantial change. It is a major change.

Previously, you were only expected to give way to pedestrians already on the carriageway. Now you should give way to anybody waiting to cross.

It may be "in line with zebra crossings", but it wasn't before.

I have no idea why you believe (with the old rules) "if a pedestrian has priority as soon as they set foot on the road, then you need to give way, because if they do step out a crash will be your fault. ". That was simply not true. If a pedestrian steps out in front of you when you are too close to avoid them, then it is NOT currently your fault (unless the reason you were too close to avoid them was you were travelling too fast of course).


----------



## Illaveago (26 Jan 2022)

matticus said:


> Is this satire?
> Are you complaining that children will be able to safely walk to school, but this will delay a few drivers?


I am just being realistic!
Have you ever seen them crossing at controlled lights ? Even after the lights have changed they will still cross. 
They will assume that they have priority and just blindly walk across any side road .


----------



## matticus (26 Jan 2022)

Illaveago said:


> I am just being realistic!
> Have you ever seen them crossing at controlled lights ? Even after the lights have changed they will still cross.
> They will assume that they have priority and just blindly walk across any side road .


Bloody kids eh? Perhaps they should be required to commute by motor vehicle. Win-win!


----------



## matticus (26 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> I don't agree that this hasn't made a substantial change. It is a major change.
> 
> Previously, you were only expected to give way to pedestrians already on the carriageway. Now you should *give way to anybody waiting to cross.*


"... _waiting to cross_" only applies at zebras (etc) and at junctions (I believe!). This seems like a sensible, positive move.


----------



## Ian H (26 Jan 2022)

Illaveago said:


> I am just being realistic!
> Have you ever seen them crossing at controlled lights ? Even after the lights have changed they will still cross.
> They will assume that they have priority and just blindly walk across any side road .


That is the situation we need to reach. The pavement virtually extending across any junction (actually extending would be even better).


----------



## mjr (26 Jan 2022)

Illaveago said:


> I am just being realistic!
> Have you ever seen them crossing at controlled lights ? Even after the lights have changed they will still cross.
> They will assume that they have priority and just blindly walk across any side road .


And tell us, do you think it's more achievable to get tested, licensed adults to give way or all schoolchildren?

And is it fairer to put the burden of care on the probable injured party or the probable injurer?

And if there were enough walkers to cause congestion of motor traffic, weren't all the walkers waiting to cross already serious congestion of foot traffic? So isn't this measure going to lead to reduced congestion and fewer people waiting, even if more motorisrs wait? Is there some good reason to ignore congestion of foot traffic?

In most places, this will make no difference because few are walking (walking alongside busy roads is avoided by most people who have any reasonable alternative) or there are already "WAIT" signs at a crossing with pro-motorist timing. The other crossings should have been provided sooner, or alternative routes provided by an "disentangling of networks".


----------



## mjr (26 Jan 2022)

Ian H said:


> That is the situation we need to reach. The pavement virtually extending across any junction (actually extending would be even better).


And much fairer to wheelchair, mobility scooter, walking stick, tricycle and handcycle users who currently usually have to deal with two oblique 5mm ish steps at every side road. Not much to thee or me, but an easy skid, trip or flip if you fluff it or the step is oversize.

I can't believe that's legal under Equalities Act, but government and developers keep building them. Pavement continuity now!


----------



## Solocle (26 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> I don't agree that this hasn't made a substantial change. It is a major change.
> 
> Previously, you were only expected to give way to pedestrians already on the carriageway. Now you should give way to anybody waiting to cross.
> 
> ...


Before, it was *exactly the same as zebra crossings*. Motorists currently don't need to give way to pedestrians waiting at a zebra crossing - only once a pedestrian sets foot on the crossing do they have priority. But that priority is absolute. If a pedestrian steps out onto a zebra crossing when a motorist is too close to avoid them... well, the motorist should have been prepared to stop.

After, the change... *it's still exactly the same as zebra crossings*.

The only difference is the general lack of observation of rule 170, which is in the meta, not in the rules.


----------



## presta (26 Jan 2022)

There are quite a few motorists starting to appear on Twitter saying they're going to ignore the new rules.


----------



## matticus (26 Jan 2022)

presta said:


> There are quite a few motorists starting to appear on Twitter saying they're going to ignore the new rules.


There have always been a few keyboard warriors out there. Just attention seeking, w@nk-panzer drivers, mostly.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (26 Jan 2022)

There are always a few motorist idiots


----------



## BoldonLad (26 Jan 2022)

Out of interest (and a desire to buy a copy, daughter no 4 is about to begin driving lessons), has anyone managed to actually acquire a copy of the new version of the Highway Code?, if yes, where from?


----------



## Alex321 (26 Jan 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> Out of interest (and a desire to buy a copy, daughter no 4 is about to begin driving lessons), has anyone managed to actually acquire a copy of the new version of the Highway Code?, if yes, where from?


If it has been published yet in paper form, it will probably be embargoed, since it will not be current until Saturday


----------



## Arrowfoot (26 Jan 2022)

Illaveago said:


> I think the new changes could lead to more traffic congestion and hold ups .
> If every road user has to give way to every person at a side road waiting to cross , imagine the tail backs caused by streams of children on their way to school . Not all roads are 2 lanes which allow vehicles driving straight on to pass and will have to wait behind . Not every vehicle will be turning off at every junction but this will add to delays , this rule also applies to cyclists . I know some cyclists don't stop for red lights so pedestrians could just walk out on side roads assuming they have right of way straight into the path of such a rider .
> Are roundabouts going to be treated like side roads ?


You do have a point that sadly I did not realise. Yes, there will be traffic stoppage in certain places. It will be interesting how this pans out. 

I am trying to find if other countries have same or similar regulations. Or are we the first. 

Anyway, I will patiently wait and not try my luck. Remember in the words of the XXX and in reverse, you only have to be unlucky once.


----------



## DaveReading (26 Jan 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> Out of interest (and a desire to buy a copy, daughter no 4 is about to begin driving lessons), has anyone managed to actually acquire a copy of the new version of the Highway Code?, if yes, where from?


I've seen references to it not being available until March at least

In the meantime, read the current edition in conjunction with this: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-highway-code-8-changes-you-need-to-know-from-29-january-2022


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (26 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> If it has been published yet in paper form, it will probably be embargoed, since it will not be current until Saturday


That sounds well thought out
I mean - I know most people taking their test are young and probably do everything online - but surely it should be in print several weeks before becoming current so people can read it.


----------



## Alex321 (26 Jan 2022)

DaveReading said:


> I've seen references to it not being available until March at least
> 
> In the meantime, read the current edition in conjunction with this: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-highway-code-8-changes-you-need-to-know-from-29-january-2022


Actually, from April 
You can pre-order here, with an estimated delivery date of 15th April.


----------



## Alex321 (26 Jan 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> That sounds well thought out
> I mean - I know most people taking their test are young and probably do everything online - but surely it should be in print several weeks before becoming current so people can read it.


The problem there is that technically, it is proposals only until it goes live.

The changes are produced by Statutory instrument, and if they are objected to by an MP before the 29th, then they would not necessarily come into force, certainly not on that date.


----------



## BoldonLad (26 Jan 2022)

DaveReading said:


> I've seen references to it not being available until March at least
> 
> In the meantime, read the current edition in conjunction with this: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-highway-code-8-changes-you-need-to-know-from-29-january-2022


Thank you for that link. At the end of the text, it actually includes another link, to pre-order printed version, and, says new version not available in print until April 2022.


----------



## mjr (26 Jan 2022)

Arrowfoot said:


> You do have a point that sadly I did not realise. Yes, there will be traffic stoppage in certain places. It will be interesting how this pans out.
> 
> I am trying to find if other countries have same or similar regulations. Or are we the first.


 Almost every other country in Europe has similar regulations, plus many others around the world. I think this leaves Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and Romania as the only European countries with the same bad system that we're leaving behind... and I suspect three of those copied the UK's mistakes when the UK ran/ruled them.


----------



## Chislenko (26 Jan 2022)

mjr said:


> First decent infographic I've seen of some of the cycling-related changes, but I wish it had other pics instead of the ones used for 4 and 5:
> 
> View: https://twitter.com/tomstaniford/status/1485550742173847556
> 
> View attachment 628037




With regard to point 5 is any right minded cyclist seeing that a car is turning left, going to ride up the inside of him / her and hope they give you right of way (or even see you)

Looks like suicide to me!


----------



## Alex321 (27 Jan 2022)

Chislenko said:


> With regard to point 5 is any right minded cyclist seeing that a car is turning left, going to ride up the inside of him / her and hope they give you right of way (or even see you)
> 
> Looks like suicide to me!


Of course they aren't. And the actual wording of the new rule 163 says:
"Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you. Be careful about doing so, particularly on the approach to junctions, and especially when deciding whether it is safe to pass lorries or other large vehicles."

The infographic seems to have taken the new rule 160 in isolation - the relevant part of which says:
"be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. These are more difficult to see than larger vehicles and their riders are particularly vulnerable. Give them plenty of room, especially if you are driving a long vehicle or towing a trailer. You should give way to cyclists when you are changing direction or lane – do not cut across them."


----------



## Arrowfoot (27 Jan 2022)

mjr said:


> Almost every other country in Europe has similar regulations, plus many others around the world. I think this leaves Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and Romania as the only European countries with the same bad system that we're leaving behind... and I suspect three of those copied the UK's mistakes when the UK ran/ruled them.


Thanks.


----------



## DaveReading (27 Jan 2022)

Chislenko said:


> With regard to point 5 is any right minded cyclist seeing that a car is turning left, going to ride up the inside of him / her and hope they give you right of way (or even see you)
> 
> Looks like suicide to me!


The infographic doesn't give any clue as to the relative speeds of the cycle and car, so there's no justification for suggesting that the bike is somehow overtaking the car on the inside.

A far more likely scenario is that the car is in the process of overtaking the bike, but won't be sufficiently clear of it before starting its turn. In other words, a classic left hook.


----------



## matticus (27 Jan 2022)

My driving instructors taught me to check the inside mirror before turning left (I think it was also a possible FAIL item in the test), specifically in case of 2-wheeled things nipping up the gap.
No-one ever said "_they have a RIGHT to pass on your left!_"; it was just considered a wise tactic to check.


----------



## BoldonLad (27 Jan 2022)

DaveReading said:


> The infographic doesn't give any clue as to the relative speeds of the cycle and car, so there's no justification for suggesting that the bike is somehow overtaking the car on the inside.
> 
> A far more likely scenario is that the car is in the process of overtaking the bike, but won't be sufficiently clear of it before starting its turn. In other words, a classic left hook.



It (the info graphic), is an illustration, to illustrate the words of the HC, not a complete explanation of every possible scenario. It may not be a very good info graphic, but, that is a different subject. One example I can immediately think of, based on a road I cycle regularly, is the situation where you have a cycle lane, painted on the carriageway, and, a traffic lane to the right, part way along the road is a traffic light controlled T junction. It is not uncommon to encounter a significant queue of vehicles, either stopped, or moving very slowly, at the approach to the traffic lights. I would continue to cycle, in “my” lane, overtaking those vehicles to my right. However, as I approached the actual traffic lights, I would look out for vehicles signaling to turn left, and, not put myself in danger by overtaking them. However, not EVERY driver signals their intention to turn, particularly in the case of left turns.


----------



## mjr (27 Jan 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> [...] cycle lane, painted on the carriageway, and, a traffic lane to the right, [...] However, as I approached the actual traffic lights, I would look out for vehicles signaling to turn left, and, not put myself in danger by overtaking them. However, not EVERY driver signals their intention to turn, particularly in the case of left turns.


Well, maybe I'm misunderstanding the description, but that sounds a way to fark yourself and — in lanes with lots of cycle traffic like Cambridge — get yourself a load of abuse from following cyclists for stopping unnecessarily. Unless it was the front vehicle in the queue and there was no bike box or other space ahead of it, I would continue to overtake with caution, being prepared to emergency-stop or turn left if they start to move/turn before I've got past.


----------



## cyberknight (27 Jan 2022)

just turned off notification from facefluff as the local group was debating it with the usual road tax etc drivel after one post strated on how bikes shouldnt be on the road in case they get run over pretty much saying its the cyclists fault


----------



## mjr (27 Jan 2022)

cyberknight said:


> just turned off notification from facefluff as the local group was debating it with the usual road tax etc drivel after one post strated on how bikes shouldnt be on the road in case they get run over pretty much saying its the cyclists fault


Just tell them they need to send a note saying that, along with their driving licence, to "DVLA, Swansea, SA6 7LJ", so that their objection can be recorded.


----------



## numbnuts (27 Jan 2022)

View: https://youtu.be/zU9tBBQNq_0


----------



## BoldonLad (27 Jan 2022)

mjr said:


> Well, maybe I'm misunderstanding the description, but that sounds a way to fark yourself and —* in lanes with lots of cycle traffic like Cambridge* — get yourself a load of abuse from following cyclists for stopping unnecessarily. Unless it was the front vehicle in the queue and there was no bike box or other space ahead of it,* I would continue to overtake with caution, being prepared to emergency-stop or turn left if they start to move/turn before I've got past.*



South Tyneside is not very near Cambridge. Other than Mrs @BoldonLad, I am usually the only cyclist in the lane.

Must be my description, because, that is exactly what I (we) do. (There is a "bike box", but, the markings have long since faded to be barely visible, and, it is generally ignored by drivers).


----------



## mjr (27 Jan 2022)

numbnuts said:


> View: https://youtu.be/zU9tBBQNq_0



So his arguments are basically that 1. drivers turning into junctions can't see people; 2. drivers following drivers who do give way will crash into the back of them. As well as him basically arguing in favour of rewarding incompetence (drivers who can't see properly or follow too close should have their licenses taken away from them!), those two are mutually exclusive! If drivers indeed can't see people waiting to cross, they're not going to give way to them and the drivers following too close behind won't hit them...

Then he contrives some junction situations, makes them as bad as they possibly could be and insults pedestrians.

To cap it all, he says that 1.5m means drivers will have to use "the wrong side" of the road and objects to this because it will cause "significant tailbacks" and ignores that this is only a clarification of the old rule. Then he concludes with some questioning of primary/secondary positioning, ignoring that it's been taught by cycle trainers for over 20 years now, and another rant about the junctions. He really does seem far more concerned about the mere possibility of motorists having to queue than the safety of all other road users.

About the only good thing of that video is that he displays the actual text of some of the new rules, unlike the tabloid newspaper reports.


----------



## presta (29 Jan 2022)

Edmund King was on the radio this morning saying that there's a £500k advertising campaign pending in February.
Meanwhile, I think that the DoT's own summary is better than anything I've yet seen in the media.


----------



## matticus (29 Jan 2022)

Brilliant ride this morning - about 3 hours. Ratio of
cockwombles : drivers being almost _over the top _helpful
was about 
1:20

Commuting has been pretty good too this week.

Probably just a statistical blip, but why not be optimistic? Even Cheery?!?


----------



## matticus (29 Jan 2022)

This war has been won before it even got started:


View: https://twitter.com/carltonreid/status/1487133536322736132?s=20&t=ccKRQ7zq66Ki2oJb9Fpn4g


----------



## JPBoothy (30 Jan 2022)

vickster said:


> I doubt most motorists will have a clue about the change (many appear to have never had much of a clue. I reckon a large proportion of drivers who didn’t learn to drive in the U.K. have ever looked at or even heard of the HC


Agreed on that one.. Bad driving habits are ingrained (as are bad cycling habits) but, I just hope the good cyclists don't suffer the backlash if the few anarchist type 'bike riders' who decide to exercise the riding in the middle of the lane rule to the extent of causing a massive tailback just because they can


----------



## numbnuts (30 Jan 2022)

With all these discussions in the media it's surprising to see how many still think they pay road tax


----------



## DaveReading (30 Jan 2022)

vickster said:


> I reckon a large proportion of drivers who didn’t learn to drive in the U.K. have ever looked at or even heard of the HC


I suspect you mean "I reckon a large proportion of drivers who didn’t learn to drive in the U.K. have *never *looked at or even heard of the HC "


----------



## cyberknight (30 Jan 2022)

FIL said cyclists are causing chaos according to the news, but the only one i can see is from the daily fail , 8 mile tailback apparantly  
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-new-rules-tell-bikers-ride-middle-lanes.html


----------



## SydZ (30 Jan 2022)

It's very obvious that none of the dozen or so drivers I encountered on a short walk to the local shop, and back, today have heard of changes to the HC. Either that or previous behaviour is so ingrained that they haven't been able to change it yet.


----------



## matticus (30 Jan 2022)

SydZ said:


> It's very obvious that none of the dozen or so drivers I encountered on a short walk to the local shop, and back, today have heard of changes to the HC. Either that or previous behaviour is so ingrained that they haven't been able to change it yet.


Do you mean the rules around pedestrians?


----------



## SydZ (30 Jan 2022)

matticus said:


> Do you mean the rules around pedestrians?


Yes, sorry should have made that clearer.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (30 Jan 2022)

Well I went out for a ride today and happily caused total chaos
I think I delayed an HGV for nearly 400 yards as I approached a traffic refuge heavy area of Warrington
so if anyone was driving round Warrington and was stuck in an 8mile traffic jam

sorry

to cut the sarcasm for a moment - the HGV driver was great and hung back until there was a straight stretch with no traffic islands - I thanked him as he passed and he tooted his horn in recognition
still - total chaos - wonder if the Daily Fail will do a report on it tomorrow


----------



## PK99 (30 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> I don't agree that this hasn't made a substantial change. It is a major change.
> 
> Previously, you were only expected to give way to pedestrians already on the carriageway. Now you should give way to anybody waiting to cross.
> 
> ...



From HWC online today:

My reading is that little has changed other than some "should" guidance. 
Rule 19​*Zebra crossings.* Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. *Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing*. *Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing*. Drivers and riders *should *give way to pedestrians waiting to cross and *MUST* give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing (see Rule H2)

Rule H2 - Rule for drivers, motorcyclists, horse drawn vehicles, horse riders and cyclists​At a junction you* should *give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning.

You MUST give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing, and to pedestrians and cyclists on a parallel crossing (see Rule 195).

Pedestrians have priority when on a zebra crossing, on a parallel crossing or at light controlled crossings when they have a green signal.

Y*ou should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross a zebra crossin*g, and to pedestrians and cyclists waiting to cross a parallel crossing.


----------



## PK99 (30 Jan 2022)

matticus said:


> Are we all talking about this one:
> View attachment 628102
> 
> (I can't see Twitter from this machine!)
> ...



Item 5, is in conflict with HWC guidance if it is intended to suggest that cyclists are now allowed to pass on the inside a car in that situation
Rule 74​*Turning.* When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. *Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signaling or slowing down to turn left.*


----------



## Arrowfoot (30 Jan 2022)

I found this article particularly helpful. It targets all - motorists, cyclist, horse riders and pedestrians with news changes with a focus on safety rather than the right to do something. . 

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1557630/highway-code-changes-cyclists-list-evg


----------



## cyberknight (30 Jan 2022)

link to give drivers who moan that the new rules make it unsafe for them
https://www.gov.uk/giving-up-your-driving-licence


----------



## matticus (30 Jan 2022)

SydZ said:


> It's very obvious that none of the dozen or so drivers I encountered on a short walk to the local shop, and back, today have heard of changes to the HC. Either that or previous behaviour is so ingrained that they haven't been able to change it yet.


OK, so regarding pedestrian stuff: I'd say that all the anti-cyclists hysteria has totally drowned out the tweaks that benefit other users.


----------



## mjr (30 Jan 2022)

The graphics from Sustrans look good at first glance:

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/Sustrans/status/1487349803939885064


----------



## PK99 (30 Jan 2022)

mjr said:


> The graphics from Sustrans look good at first glance:
> 
> View: https://mobile.twitter.com/Sustrans/status/1487349803939885064




The bottom left graphic is a far better illustration of what is meant by not turning across cyclists going straight ahead than those suggesting cyclist ride up the inside of cars at junctions.


----------



## Alex321 (30 Jan 2022)

PK99 said:


> From HWC online today:
> 
> My reading is that little has changed other than some "should" guidance.
> ​


Absolutely. No laws have changed. And actually, most of the guidance changes are more clarification of what should already have been the case than anything really new. There are only a few really new bits of guidance.


PK99 said:


> Item 5, is in conflict with HWC guidance if it is intended to suggest that cyclists are now allowed to pass on the inside a car in that situation
> Rule 74​*Turning.* When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. *Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signaling or slowing down to turn left.*


I don't think 5 is suggesting it is OK for the cyclist to overtake on the inside tgere, it isaying the car shouldn't bevturning if the cyclist is there.

But one of the new rules does now expicitly state that it is generally OK for cyclists to overtake on either side in slow moving or stationary traffic.


----------



## cougie uk (30 Jan 2022)

I have to say that apart from a couple of honourable mentions for the Darwin awards today - I think drivers were better today.


----------



## Kajjal (30 Jan 2022)

Out this afternoon and drivers with the exception a couple of the normal “BMW“ drivers diving through gaps that don’t exist drivers were more patient than normal. To be fair locally drivers are very good anyway.


----------



## matticus (30 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> I don't think 5 is suggesting it is OK for the cyclist to overtake on the inside tgere, it isaying the car shouldn't bevturning if the cyclist is there.


Yes.
Unfortunately a lot of people can't cope with these two statements at the same time!


----------



## alchurch (30 Jan 2022)

As pedestrians now have right of way I was wondering about light controlled crossings. It says we should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross but does not specify if that includes against the lights.The only bit I could find regarding pecan crossings mentions that cyclists can now cycle across but only when the green bike light is on


----------



## alchurch (30 Jan 2022)

matticus said:


> Yes.
> Unfortunately a lot of people can't cope with these two statements at the same time!


It does say in slow moving traffic cyclists can now pass vehicles on either side, taking care as they may not have been seen


----------



## Mike_P (30 Jan 2022)

PK99 said:


> Item 5, is in conflict with HWC guidance if it is intended to suggest that cyclists are now allowed to pass on the inside a car in that situation


Item 5 is meant to be showing the "Left hook"; it really needs a series of graphics showing the car overtaking the cyclsit and then turning left straight in front


----------



## PK99 (30 Jan 2022)

alchurch said:


> As pedestrians now have right of way I was wondering about light controlled crossings. It says we should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross but does not specify if that includes against the lights.The only bit I could find regarding* pecan *crossings mentions that cyclists can now cycle across but only when the green bike light is on



*pecan?*

We have always been allowed to cycle across Toucan (TwoCan) crossings

For ALL other crossings:
Rule 81​*Do not ride across* *equestrian* crossings, as they are for horse riders only. Do not ride across a* pelican, puffin or zebra crossing.* Dismount and wheel your cycle across


----------



## JPBoothy (30 Jan 2022)

New rules or Old rules, I have always ridden with the belief that all drivers are out to kill me (I know they aren't really) and that I need to look out for myself because they won't be, and so far that has served me well 🤞


----------



## Rusty Nails (30 Jan 2022)

Kajjal said:


> Out this afternoon and drivers with the exception a couple of the normal “BMW“ drivers diving through gaps that don’t exist drivers were more patient than normal. To be fair locally drivers are very good anyway.


Same here. But I was riding along as I normally do, 2-3 feet from the kerb, when one car passed me (small BMW by coincidence), with the passenger window open and the woman passenger screeching at me, something about "bloody cyclists think you own the road". I just gave a friendly wave and carried on.

I am sure that her reaction was provoked by some of the clickbait comments in the press about the new rules rather than the changed rules themselves.


----------



## mjr (30 Jan 2022)

PK99 said:


> The bottom left graphic is a far better illustration of what is meant by not turning across cyclists going straight ahead than those suggesting cyclist ride up the inside of cars at junctions.


I thought the previous graphic suggested that the motorist was doing the classic overtake-then-cut-across left-hook, but I can see how someone who hates cyclists could interpret it the other way.


----------



## mjr (30 Jan 2022)

PK99 said:


> For ALL other crossings:
> Rule 81​*Do not ride across* *equestrian* crossings, as they are for horse riders only. Do not ride across a* pelican, puffin or zebra crossing.* Dismount and wheel your cycle across


1. That's not a MUST.
2. Some puffins (crossings with near-side panels) here have green bike symbols on their panels.
3. It's blooming stupid to dismount and wheel where a pelican, puffin or zebra connects two cycleways (as they often do, at least around here, because some highways officers are a bit careless about cycling) because we are normally allowed to cycle on the carriageway there anyway as long as we give way to walkers. Dismounting just makes cyclists a wider, slower, less-controlled annoyance for all other road users.
3. Dismounting and wheeling would be even more stupid if you are going along the carriageway, crossing the other road (the cycleway or bridleway, which is also a road in law).

That's one rule I suggested correcting during the consultation period, but they've kept the stupid version, probably because it's shorter and only advice anyway... but it's still the Highway Code equivalent of a "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" at every puffin on a cycleway.


----------



## classic33 (30 Jan 2022)

mjr said:


> 1. That's not a MUST.
> 2. Some puffins (crossings with near-side panels) here have green bike symbols on their panels.
> *3. It's blooming stupid to dismount and wheel* where a pelican, puffin or zebra connects two cycleways (as they often do, at least around here, because some highways officers are a bit careless about cycling) because we are normally allowed to cycle on the carriageway there anyway as long as we give way to walkers. Dismounting just makes cyclists a wider, slower, less-controlled annoyance for all other road users.
> 3. Dismounting and wheeling would be even more stupid if you are going along the carriageway, crossing the other road (the cycleway or bridleway, which is also a road in law).
> ...


Stupid in your opinion.
If you have to push your bike, get off and push it.


----------



## Alex321 (30 Jan 2022)

classic33 said:


> Stupid in your opinion.
> If you have to push your bike, get off and push it.


But he doesn't have to.

The rule is suggesting he "should", but there is no law saying he has to.


----------



## DaveReading (30 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> But he doesn't have to.
> 
> The rule is suggesting he "should", but there is no law saying he has to.


The rule about not left-hooking cyclists is also a "should" (or rather a "should not)").

If we're going to start picking and choosing which "should" rules we heed and which we don't, then we can hardly complain if motorists do likewise.


----------



## Moon bunny (30 Jan 2022)

There is no “should” in HC rule 81, just “Do not...” seems pretty unequivocal to me.


----------



## mjr (30 Jan 2022)

Moon bunny said:


> There is no “should” in HC rule 81, just “Do not...” seems pretty unequivocal to me.


Find any rule for drivers that is equally bonkers. No rule telling them to disembark and push. If there was, I would probably disobey that too and support others who did.


----------



## DaveReading (30 Jan 2022)

Moon bunny said:


> There is no “should” in HC rule 81, just “Do not...” seems pretty unequivocal to me.


Unfortunately, that's not the case.

The HC classes both "should/should not" and "do/do not" as "advisory words". Only "must/must not" refer to legal requirements.


----------



## classic33 (30 Jan 2022)

mjr said:


> Find any rule for drivers that is equally bonkers. No rule telling them to disembark and push. If there was, I would probably disobey that too and support others who did.


Are other road vehicle owners allowed to use a pedestrian crossing, whilst using their vehicles?

And pedestrians are higher than cyclists in the hierarchy, be prepared to give way to them.


----------



## Alex321 (31 Jan 2022)

Moon bunny said:


> There is no “should” in HC rule 81, just “Do not...” seems pretty unequivocal to me.


Anything that does not include the word MUST or phrase MUST Not (in capitals) is advice. Anything which does include one of those refers to a legal requirement.


----------



## DaveReading (31 Jan 2022)

Strange echo in here ...


----------



## MontyVeda (31 Jan 2022)

classic33 said:


> ...
> And pedestrians are higher than cyclists in the hierarchy*, be prepared to give way to them*.


I don't believe MJR suggested otherwise


----------



## mjr (31 Jan 2022)

classic33 said:


> Are other road vehicle owners allowed to use a pedestrian crossing, whilst using their vehicles?


Yes, else how would they get across it when no pedestrians are using it?


----------



## classic33 (31 Jan 2022)

mjr said:


> Yes, else how would they get across it when no pedestrians are using it?


You're saying you see them park up on the pavement, then crossing the road to rejoin the footpath on the other side.


----------



## Illaveago (31 Jan 2022)

I am a motorist and a cyclist so I have mixed feelings about the new rules . When I go out on my bike I use the mixed cycle path which was purposely built . I refuse the painted section on the road that the council tried to enforce riders to use as a traffic calming measure . I feel much safer not having to listen out for approaching vehicles . Road junctions may be a pain but a quick glance round to see that no vehicles wish to cross isn't too much of an inconvenience .
Out on the open road I tend to ride to the nearside of the middle of my lane. If I hear a vehicle approaching I move over towards the verge to allow them to pass . If the road is too narrow I will either speed up to a wider section or pull over to let them pass . It may hold me up momentarily but once they are past I can get on with my ride without the sound of a vehicle behind me .
As a motorist I can see the frustration that people can get from being behind a cyclist who refuses to use a cycle path which is perfectly good , out of the way of traffic yet is content to hold up the flow of traffic . It may take vehicles a while before it is safe to pass the cyclist , and then once past get held up at traffic lights where the cyclist will ignore them and get in front once more .
I find that driving examiners are at fault for not making it mandatory that motorists do the mirror signal manoeuvre which was in the 70's. It Might look like there is no other vehicle about when they enter a roundabout and therefore not need to indicate, but waiting at one of the exits trying to cross is a nightmare not knowing if the vehicle which looks like it is going right round suddenly turns towards you whilst you are crossing .
As road users there should be a bit more give and take so that we can get on without the need to be antagonistic towards each other .


----------



## mjr (31 Jan 2022)

classic33 said:


> You're saying you see them park up on the pavement, then crossing the road to rejoin the footpath on the other side.


No, obviously not.


----------



## matticus (31 Jan 2022)

classic33 said:


> You're saying you see them park up on the pavement,


I'm not sure what your point is/was here, but ...
yes, I do see lots of car drivers mounting the pavement - illegally of course - for various reasons. (mainly to leave their car there for a few hours, or days).


----------



## MontyVeda (31 Jan 2022)

Illaveago said:


> ...
> As road users there should be a bit more give and take ...


From what you posted its seems you're doing all the giving and letting the motorists do all the taking. 

As a cyclist I'm as much a* vehicle* using the road as any other vehicle using the road. If there's a 'faster' vehicle behind me, so be it. If a motorist is going to get antagonised because they're behind a slower vehicle than they need to do some of the 'giving'. They can pass when it's safe to do so and I'll try my best to use my position in the road to enable this. It's not just cyclists that go slower on narrow country lanes, it's tractors and buses too... and as i always said to my dad when he was complaining about being stuck behind some cyclists... why don't you complain when it's a bus or a tractor. Oddly, he never had a viable reply.


----------



## Illaveago (31 Jan 2022)

MontyVeda said:


> From what you posted its seems you're doing all the giving and letting the motorists do all the taking.
> 
> As a cyclist I'm as much a* vehicle* using the road as any other vehicle using the road. If there's a 'faster' vehicle behind me, so be it. If a motorist is going to get antagonised because they're behind a slower vehicle than they need to do some of the 'giving'. They can pass when it's safe to do so and I'll try my best to use my position in the road to enable this. It's not just cyclists that go slower on narrow country lanes, it's tractors and buses too... and as i always said to my dad when he was complaining about being stuck behind some cyclists... why don't you complain when it's a bus or a tractor. Oddly, he never had a viable reply.


Busses can be really infuriating! The Top Gear programme with Richard Hammond was a prime example ! Cutting him up , pulling out in front of him and squeezing him out . 
In the old days bus stops had lay-bys in which a bus would stop allowing the free flow of traffic . In those days they also had conductors which meant that the bus could move off once everyone was aboard . Here the busses stop at the side of the road with the nose near the kerb and the tail blocking the whole road whilst passengers pay the driver .
It's consideration for other road users . It doesn't take a lot of effort to just to move over to allow a vehicle past.
A


----------



## MontyVeda (31 Jan 2022)

note to self... don't mention the 'B' word


----------



## Alex321 (31 Jan 2022)

MontyVeda said:


> From what you posted its seems you're doing all the giving and letting the motorists do all the taking.
> 
> As a cyclist I'm as much a* vehicle* using the road as any other vehicle using the road. If there's a 'faster' vehicle behind me, so be it. If a motorist is going to get antagonised because they're behind a slower vehicle than they need to do some of the 'giving'. They can pass when it's safe to do so and I'll try my best to use my position in the road to enable this. It's not just cyclists that go slower on narrow country lanes, it's tractors and buses too... and as i always said to my dad when he was complaining about being stuck behind some cyclists... why don't you complain when it's a bus or a tractor. Oddly, he never had a viable reply.


I will always complain when stuck behind a tractor if they pass a few openings without pulling in to let traffic past (though to be fair, most of them don't do that).

And until recently, I owned and used a caravan regularly, and with that I would always pull in if I could see a few cars building up behind me.

It is just common courtesy, if you are holding other traffic up, you pull over when there is a reasonable opportunity to let them past.


----------



## matticus (31 Jan 2022)

MontyVeda said:


> From what you posted its seems you're doing all the giving and letting the motorists do all the taking.
> 
> As a cyclist I'm as much a* vehicle* using the road as any other vehicle using the road. If there's a 'faster' vehicle behind me, so be it. If a motorist is going to get antagonised because they're behind a slower vehicle than they need to do some of the 'giving'. They can pass when it's safe to do so and I'll try my best to use my position in the road to enable this. It's not just cyclists that go slower on narrow country lanes, it's tractors and buses too... and as i always said to my dad when he was complaining about being stuck behind some cyclists... why don't you complain when it's a bus or a tractor. Oddly, he never had a viable reply.


Yes, I agree.

Do Drivers stop for a faster car to pass? (e.g. Brabants stopping for Porsches?)
And do drivers pull over in queues to help cyclists pass more safely?
(actually they sometimes do - I've had several this week! But that doesn't fit the party line of_ Drivers don't know about the changes, and if they do will just be antagonised _:P


----------



## PK99 (31 Jan 2022)

.


Alex321 said:


> I will always complain when stuck behind a tractor if they pass a few openings without pulling in to let traffic past (though to be fair, most of them don't do that).
> 
> And until recently, I owned and used a caravan regularly, and with that I would always pull in if I could see a few cars building up behind me.
> 
> It is just common courtesy,* if you are holding other traffic up, you pull over when there is a reasonable opportunity to let them past.*



Just as the revised HWC makes clear for cyclists when holding up traffic:

_People cycling are asked to be aware of people driving behind them and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when it’s safe to do so.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-highway-code-8-changes-you-need-to-know-from-29-january-2022_

It seems to me many cyclists are focussing on the newly explained HWC requirements on Drivers and ignoring the clear duties the revisions highlight for cyclists, in this case, wrt other road traffic but most particularly wrt pedestrians. There is a particular crossroad near me where commuting cyclists turn off the through road at speed. They will now have to stop on the main road for pedestrians waiting to cross the side road.


----------



## DaveReading (31 Jan 2022)

PK99 said:


> Just as the revised HWC makes clear for cyclists when holding up traffic:
> 
> _People cycling are asked to be aware of people driving behind them and *allow them to overtake* (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when it’s safe to do so.
> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-highway-code-8-changes-you-need-to-know-from-29-january-2022_


Hard to argue with any of that.

But "allow them to overtake" needs to be clarified - when singling out means that a driver might be tempted to take that as an invitation to overtake without crossing the white line (i.e. where there is oncoming traffic) then facilitating the overtake could well result in a close pass, or worse.


----------



## icowden (31 Jan 2022)

Illaveago said:


> In the old days bus stops had lay-bys in which a bus would stop allowing the free flow of traffic . In those days they also had conductors which meant that the bus could move off once everyone was aboard .


Well, I don't know which olden days you had.

In *my day *(1970s-80s) we stood at the side of the road and waved for the bus to stop. Sometimes in the city centre the bus had a pull in, but mostly not. I do remember the conductors, but they are now somewhat obsolete. You just get on and wave your card at a reader (or phone). The ire should be reserved for those people who *do not get their phone or card ready before boarding!*


----------



## matticus (31 Jan 2022)

DaveReading said:


> But "allow them to overtake" needs to be clarified - when singling out means that a driver might be tempted to take that as an invitation to overtake without crossing the white line (i.e. where there is oncoming traffic) then facilitating the overtake could well result in a close pass, or worse.


But isn't it still the driver's responsbility to overtake safely?


----------



## DaveReading (31 Jan 2022)

matticus said:


> But isn't it still the driver's responsbility to overtake safely?


Of course.

But it's always better to remove the driver's option to overtake irresponsibly.


----------



## mjr (31 Jan 2022)

icowden said:


> In *my day *(1970s-80s) we stood at the side of the road and waved for the bus to stop. Sometimes in the city centre the bus had a pull in, but mostly not. I do remember the conductors, but they are now somewhat obsolete. You just get on and wave your card at a reader (or phone). The ire should be reserved for those people who *do not get their phone or card ready before boarding!*


Maybe that's how it works for you, but here you have to get on, tell the driver what ticket you want, then wave your card/phone at the reader and wait for the ticket. The pay wave has just replaced dropping coins/notes into a tray with something slower! You can use an app instead, but then you need a different app for each bus company and still have to wait for the driver's machine to scan the QR code, thanks to every single bus company here using mTickets instead of the standard eTickets that you can put into your phone's standard ticket app like most rail companies including Eurostar IIRC.

Back on topic or almost: no, few pull-ins here either. We have a few created by road improvement projects, where the loop of old road has been left for buses. I do remember that back in the Midlands, the Highways Agency was very keen on pull-ins for buses stopping on their trunk A roads, but it's far from universal on their A47 in Norfolk, so that might have been something that only some regional offices insisted upon.


----------



## mjr (31 Jan 2022)

PK99 said:


> It seems to me many cyclists are focussing on the newly explained HWC requirements on Drivers and ignoring the clear duties the revisions highlight for cyclists, in this case, wrt other road traffic but most particularly wrt pedestrians. [...]


Yes, I've pointed it out before: this revision has more new and updated rules for cyclists than any other road user. Mostly these are good things, such as bringing the advice on road positioning into line with Bikeability, weakening the advice on clothing and reflecting the long-updated laws on lighting and zebra/parallel crossings.

But they are still updates and all cyclists would do well to reread the code one evening soon.


----------



## alchurch (31 Jan 2022)

PK99 said:


> *pecan?*
> 
> We have always been allowed to cycle across Toucan (TwoCan) crossings
> 
> ...


This was not so much quoting a new rule affecting cyclists, but asking where do we stop giving way for pedestrians? I looked and did not find anything explaining pedestrian conduct at light controlled crossings.Rule 82 mentions "

Toucan crossings are light-controlled crossings which allow cyclists and pedestrians to share crossing space and cross at the same time.
Pedestrians and cyclists will see the green signal together. Cyclists are permitted to ride across.
You may ride across, but you MUST NOT cross until the green cycle symbol is showing"
When it says you MUST NOT CROSS it is taking about cyclists, but does it mean pedestrians also? if so where would we stand legally if there was a collision and the rule supposed to explain it was not written down.
I appreciate I confused my birds with nuts so change pecan with toucan


----------



## alchurch (31 Jan 2022)

Rusty Nails said:


> Same here. But I was riding along as I normally do, 2-3 feet from the kerb, when one car passed me (small BMW by coincidence), with the passenger window open and the woman passenger screeching at me, something about "bloody cyclists think you own the road". I just gave a friendly wave and carried on.
> 
> I am sure that her reaction was provoked by some of the clickbait comments in the press about the new rules rather than the changed rules themselves.


My sarcasm will need to be reigned in. The first thought that came to mind for a reply was " yes we do, this is a bike and that is only a bmw


----------



## mjr (31 Jan 2022)

Illaveago said:


> As a motorist I can see the frustration that people can get from being behind a cyclist who refuses to use a cycle path which is perfectly good , out of the way of traffic yet is content to hold up the flow of traffic .


There are far fewer "cycle paths which are perfectly good" than most motorists think. Now, I generally prefer cycle paths because I think it's more fun dealing with a 20% increase in rolling resistance (due to most councils using a less smooth tarmac than on roads) than a line of motorists behind me, but most of the examples of "perfectly good" cycle paths that come to my mind are not in this country!

Even the East West Cycle Superhighway (CS3) on London's Embankment isn't perfectly good: the surface is top notch and the signs are clearer than anything we'd seen before, but I suspect that all those traffic lights and their lack of coordination and countdown timers means that it's actually slower to use the cycleway than the carriageway.

Or the Cambridge-St Ives rail trail: smooth, wide and direct, but the level crossings make cyclists twist around and stop for motorists (or often no motorists), both end junctions are hostile unsigned messes and it floods near St Ives, which seems like an achievement when most of it is higher than nearby land.

More often, it's simply a case of it not really being worth dealing with the junction onto a cycleway because it finishes before you've recovered that deceleration and extra effort and almost always before it has helped you through any major junction. Some cycle paths are worth using IMO more because the alternative road is that awful (A17 Fosdyke Bridge, for example) but that doesn't make the path good: it's just less shoot than cycling on a truly awful road.

I asked for suggestions of decent-length good cycle paths about a year ago, in https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/best-cycleway-in-england-for-part-of-a-tour.271330/ if anyone has some more "perfectly good" ones they'd like to suggest.


----------



## mjr (31 Jan 2022)

alchurch said:


> Rule 82 "[...] You may ride across, but you MUST NOT cross until the green cycle symbol is showing"


That MUST NOT only applies to "cycle-only crossings", not toucans. You can ride across a toucan crossing in any direction you like when a red man or red man+bike is showing, giving way to any traffic on the carriageway as appropriate, as well as pedestrians. It's one of those odd legal quirks that a red bike next to a red man is merely a warning, even though the same red bike as the top light on a set of red/amber/green traffic lights is a legally compulsory stop.


----------



## Rusty Nails (31 Jan 2022)

A lot of the joint cycle/pedestrian paths alongside roads are getting narrower and narrower around my city because they are poorly maintained and grass and weeds encroach.


----------



## Lovacott (31 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Absolutely. No laws have changed. And actually, most of the guidance changes are more clarification of what should already have been the case than anything really new. There are only a few really new bits of guidance.



Spot on. There is nothing new in the rules so far as I can see. It's always been the case that any vehicle on the road can use all of the width of the lane they occupy. There has never been an obligation for cyclists to ride in the gutter.


----------



## Alex321 (31 Jan 2022)

mjr said:


> There are far fewer "cycle paths which are perfectly good" than most motorists think. Now, I generally prefer cycle paths because I think it's more fun dealing with a 20% increase in rolling resistance (due to most councils using a less smooth tarmac than on roads) than a line of motorists behind me, but most of the examples of "perfectly good" cycle paths that come to my mind are not in this country!
> <snip>
> I asked for suggestions of decent-length good cycle paths about a year ago, in https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/best-cycleway-in-england-for-part-of-a-tour.271330/ if anyone has some more "perfectly good" ones they'd like to suggest.


Not in England, and not really very suitable for long tours, but I have been pleasantly surprised by the quality of some of the cycle paths in Rhondda-Cynon-Taf, and even the only one I have used in the Vale of Glamorgan.

If you look at the green (and dotted green) lines here, I have ridden a few of them
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5533778,-3.4216669,7516m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e3

The one running alongside the A473 is good tarmac, separated from the road by a verge and a good solid wooden fence. I've also ridden the one from coed-ely down to the hospital, and this is a streetview photo from the middle of that.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.555...-pi-20-ya340-ro-0-fo100!7i6080!8i3040!5m1!1e3

And the dotted line near the top from where it leaves the A4093 is a decent minor road which motor traffic is no longer permitted to use (except emergency vehicles), part of NCR4


----------



## Illaveago (31 Jan 2022)

matticus said:


> Yes, I agree.
> 
> Do Drivers stop for a faster car to pass? (e.g. Brabants stopping for Porsches?)
> And do drivers pull over in queues to help cyclists pass more safely?
> (actually they sometimes do - I've had several this week! But that doesn't fit the party line of_ Drivers don't know about the changes, and if they do will just be antagonised _:P


If I see a really fast car coming up in my mirror I will move over to allow them to pass if there is a good place for them to do so . I also do that for motorcycles . Also if I am in a queue I will position myself so that cyclists could pass down the near side . I won't do that if they are an average 40 mph driver . A person who will drive at 40 whatever the speed limit . 20 , 30 or 60 mph they will maintain 40 mph .


----------



## MontyVeda (31 Jan 2022)

Illaveago said:


> If I see a really fast car coming up in my mirror I will move over to allow them to pass ...


presumably that's a really fast car with flashing lights and a siren?


----------



## alchurch (31 Jan 2022)

mjr said:


> That MUST NOT only applies to "cycle-only crossings", not toucans. You can ride across a toucan crossing in any direction you like when a red man or red man+bike is showing, giving way to any traffic on the carriageway as appropriate, as well as pedestrians. It's one of those odd legal quirks that a red bike next to a red man is merely a warning, even though the same red bike as the top light on a set of red/amber/green traffic lights is a legally compulsory stop.


so do pedestrians have right of way or does their right of way only come into force when the traffic lights stop the road users?


----------



## mjr (31 Jan 2022)

alchurch said:


> so do pedestrians have right of way or does their right of way only come into force when the traffic lights stop the road users?


 Pedestrians always have right of way, but hurling motor vehicles discourage most from trying to use it.


----------



## Alex321 (31 Jan 2022)

alchurch said:


> so do pedestrians have right of way or does their right of way only come into force when the traffic lights stop the road users?


Pedestrians have right of way over traffic turning into or out of the road, but not over traffic proceeding straight along it.

But does it really matter who has "right of way"? If I'm driving (or cycling) and a pedestrian steps out into the road, I will (of course) do all I can to avoid them, whether they have "right of way" or not. But if I am walking, I will also try to avoid stepping out in front of a car - if they don't see me in time, there is only one person going to come off worse.


----------



## Electric_Andy (1 Feb 2022)

Last night I had my first "dither" moment. I've been keeping the new highway code thing in my head to make sure I give way to pedestrians crossing the road. Last night I was going straight through a mini-roundabout and there was a lady waiting at the island, which is right in the mouth of the exit I was tkaing. She was looking down at her phone; I was about to stop when I thought maybe I shouldn't becasue the roundabout is so small I would have been stopped in the middle of it. She was still looking at her phone and not moving, so I carried on through. Should I have waited for her to cross?


----------



## icowden (1 Feb 2022)

Electric_Andy said:


> She was still looking at her phone and not moving, so I carried on through. Should I have waited for her to cross?


In my view - she wasn't interested in crossing, she was interested in her socials. I used to enjoy startling smombies when I commuted (on the bike obviously) by shouting a cheery "HELLO" a la Dom Joly, or inviting them to play Pokemon Go on the pavement (back when that was a thing)...


----------



## Mike_P (1 Feb 2022)

It is a should rather than a must. I had a case on Sunday on coming round a corner a person was waiting to cross but not immediately at the corner so does the "should" apply in that instance anyway and I was being followed by a car which had no intent on stopping.


----------



## vickster (1 Feb 2022)

Rusty Nails said:


> A lot of the joint cycle/pedestrian paths alongside roads are getting narrower and narrower around my city because they are poorly maintained and grass and weeds encroach.


Report to council, there’s usually a dedicated form to use online


----------



## cyberknight (1 Feb 2022)

someone on twitter tried to do a should cyclists pay road tax , they took it down after 92 % said no  

View: https://twitter.com/TimAltham/status/1488203165493301249


the following post made me laugh too , cyclist pays £2 a year based on weight / potential to damage road , car ? £20, 000 a year


----------



## PK99 (1 Feb 2022)

,


cyberknight said:


> someone on twitter tried to do a should cyclists pay road tax , they took it down after 92 % said no
> 
> View: https://twitter.com/TimAltham/status/1488203165493301249
> 
> ...




Always interesting when sound science is lost in translation.

This article explains the origin and relevance of the 4th power law:

_https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-trucks-do-our-roads_

Essentially looking at the damage caused by heavy trucks:

_“The damage due to cars, for practical purposes, when we are designing pavements, is basically zero. It’s not actually zero, but it’s so much smaller -- orders of magnitude smaller -- that we don’t even bother with them,” said Karim Chatti, a civil engineer from Michigan State University in East Lansing._

*ie using the 4th power law to argue as in the Twitter post about cars v bikes is bad science.*

Elsewhere, I saw years ago a report saying that the loads imposed by cars on a road surface designed for HGVs are well within the elastic limit of the engineered surface and car damage is essentially zero. ie the same thing as the linked article but coming from a different diretion.


----------



## CanucksTraveller (1 Feb 2022)

My goodness, a lot of motorists are really quite angry at being asked to be just a tad more observant and careful aren't they? Message boards across the web are alight with rage today on the thought of having to just maybe ease up for a second, to watch out for vulnerable road users that tiny bit more. 

By the way, what is it about a cyclist's fabric choice that's a really key trigger to the Toads of Toad Hall? "_Lycra clad_ cyclists"... "_All these Tour de France wannabes,_ _in their lycra"_. Never a peep about coat clad pedestrians, or trouser clad dog walkers, or denim clad drivers, or denim clad cyclists for that matter. It seems that it's not cycles that wind up the Ronnie Pickerings, it's someone else wearing _lycra_ that really gets them wound up.


----------



## alchurch (1 Feb 2022)

vickster said:


> Report to council, there’s usually a dedicated form to use online


Are we supposed to use them for cycling, or is it just an area to sweep broken glass and other debris. In Slough the bike lanes are just car parking areas, it will be great when councils finally take bike lanes seriously


----------



## cyberknight (1 Feb 2022)

CanucksTraveller said:


> My goodness, a lot of motorists are really quite angry at being asked to be just a tad more observant and careful aren't they? Message boards across the web are alight with rage today on the thought of having to just maybe ease up for a second, to watch out for vulnerable road users that tiny bit more.
> 
> By the way, what is it about a cyclist's fabric choice that's a really key trigger to the Toads of Toad Hall? "_Lycra clad_ cyclists"... "_All these Tour de France wannabes,_ _in their lycra"_. Never a peep about coat clad pedestrians, or trouser clad dog walkers, or denim clad drivers, or denim clad cyclists for that matter. It seems that it's not cycles that wind up the Ronnie Pickerings, it's someone else wearing _lycra_ that really gets them wound up.


its because they are jealous as they know they would wobble to much if they tried


----------



## vickster (1 Feb 2022)

alchurch said:


> Are we supposed to use them for cycling, or is it just an area to sweep broken glass and other debris. In Slough the bike lanes are just car parking areas, it will be great when councils finally take bike lanes seriously


I’ve reported a couple of overgrown shared ped/bike paths around here , both were cleared when I next used

I generally avoid Slough to be honest!


----------



## MontyVeda (1 Feb 2022)

Mike_P said:


> It is a should rather than a must. I had a case on Sunday on coming round a corner a person was waiting to cross but not immediately at the corner so does the "should" apply in that instance anyway *and I was being followed by a car which had no intent on stopping.*


...so... let me try to understand this... the car behind you may have some influence on whether or not you stop to let a pedestrian cross?


----------



## cyberknight (1 Feb 2022)

vickster said:


> I’ve reported a couple of overgrown shared ped/bike paths around here , both were cleared when I next used
> 
> I generally avoid Slough to be honest!


i had to get onto my mp to get anything done


----------



## Mike_P (1 Feb 2022)

MontyVeda said:


> ...so... let me try to understand this... the car behind you may have some influence on whether or not you stop to let a pedestrian cross?


Not exactly, more an oops should I have stopped, um he didn't either.


----------



## presta (1 Feb 2022)

This might be of interest if anyone tries to tell you that motorists weren't consulted about the changes:










cyberknight said:


> someone on twitter tried to do a should cyclists pay road tax , they took it down after 92 % said no


This is the most effective answer I've found when they start complaining about road tax. If you tell them there's no such thing as road tax they just laugh at you, but this shuts them up first time every time.








PK99 said:


> loads imposed by cars on a road surface designed for HGVs are well within the elastic limit of the engineered surface and car damage is essentially zero


Loads imposed by HGVs are well within the elastic limit as well, otherwise the roads would fail due to overload immediately the load is applied. Fatigue fractures grow when a cyclic load below the elastic limit is applied thousands or millions of times, and the greater the load, the fewer cycles required to reach failure point.

The fourth power law is good enough for the DoT: _"road wear: the structural road wear attributable to vehicles is normally assumed to be proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight"_

Maths here.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (1 Feb 2022)

PK99 said:


> ,
> 
> 
> Always interesting when sound science is lost in translation.
> ...



What about UK pavements? See plenty that must be (damaged by) cars as you won’t be seeing trucks on them.


----------



## PK99 (1 Feb 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> What about UK pavements? See plenty that must be (damaged by) cars as you won’t be seeing trucks on them.



US article pavement = road


----------



## matticus (1 Feb 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> What about UK pavements? See plenty that must be (damaged by) cars as you won’t be seeing trucks on them.


And there are roads where HGVs are banned; they still appear to wear out. (is it the recumbents? Should _they _be paying more??)


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (1 Feb 2022)

I do wonder whether - with all these perfectly reasonable arguments about cyclist paying road tax
after all 'they ' provide specific areas for cyclist to ride on
and there is evidence that they can cause road traffic 'accidents'
and therefore they should pay road tax

so what level of road tax should all pedestrians be paying - and where should they wear their number plate?????
the same things seems to apply - so, logically,the same should apply

and - I suppose - do they need a different number plate for each pair of shoes???

just wondering


----------



## Ming the Merciless (1 Feb 2022)

matticus said:


> And there are roads where HGVs are banned; they still appear to wear out. (is it the recumbents? Should _they _be paying more??)



Surely it’s trikes with those extra wheels?


----------



## fossyant (1 Feb 2022)

I pay about £240 'road tax' for my car I don't use much. Two of the cars in our house pay £20 and they are used much more. 

I'll pay £20 for my bike if folk shut up, even though I'm paying way more per mile than alot of folk.


----------



## KnittyNorah (1 Feb 2022)

fossyant said:


> I pay about £240 'road tax' for my car I don't use much. Two of the cars in our house pay £20 and they are used much more.
> 
> I'll pay £20 for my bike if folk shut up, even though I'm paying way more per mile than alot of folk.


If 'road tax' on human-powered vehicles is to be predicated on emissions, then the eating of artichokes, beans and brassicas by cyclists will need to incur extra costs ...


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (1 Feb 2022)

KnittyNorah said:


> If 'road tax' on human-powered vehicles is to be predicated on emissions, then the eating of artichokes, beans and brassicas by cyclists will need to incur extra costs ...


I am not looking forward to the visit to the MOT station to measure my emissions - that sensor they jam up the exhaust pipe doesn;t look comfy


----------



## cyberknight (1 Feb 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> I am not looking forward to the visit to the MOT station to measure my emissions - that sensor they jam up the exhaust pipe doesn;t look comfy


some folk pay good money for that sort of thing


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (1 Feb 2022)

cyberknight said:


> some folk pay good money for that sort of thing


I bow to your greater experience


----------



## cyberknight (1 Feb 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> I bow to your greater experience


married with teenage kids i dont get any paid or otherwise


----------



## Rusty Nails (1 Feb 2022)

vickster said:


> Report to council, there’s usually a dedicated form to use online


Cycling friends of mine have contacted the council, but no response and nothing done.


----------



## classic33 (1 Feb 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> I do wonder whether - with all these perfectly reasonable arguments about cyclist paying road tax
> after all 'they ' provide specific areas for cyclist to ride on
> and there is evidence that they can cause road traffic 'accidents'
> and therefore they should pay road tax
> ...


Try registering your bike, to enable you to pay VED. It's nigh on impossible. 
Until you have that you can't pay anything. MOT's would block cars being tested, something else to moan about.


----------



## vickster (1 Feb 2022)

Rusty Nails said:


> Cycling friends of mine have contacted the council, but no response and nothing done.


Try your MP as above then


----------



## MontyVeda (2 Feb 2022)

Rusty Nails said:


> Cycling friends of mine have contacted the council, but no response and nothing done.





vickster said:


> Try your MP as above then



If your local council is anything like my local council, they'll sit on their hands until a group of charitable do-gooders get out their shovels and bin bags and do the council's job for them, for free. 

Then they'll post the before and after photos on FB, showing locals all the great work they've done and everyone is full of praise (except for a few grumblers wondering why the local council hasn't done it)... and the local council thinks, _this strategy works!_


----------



## BoldonLad (2 Feb 2022)

KnittyNorah said:


> If 'road tax' on human-powered vehicles is to be predicated on emissions*, then the eating of artichokes, beans and brassicas by cyclists will need to incur extra costs ...*



We can have classifications for emissions, like they do for diesel vehicles: Euro 1, 2... etc, but, I suppose now we have left Europe it cannot be Euro, Cyclo1, Cyclo2... perhaps


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (2 Feb 2022)

Last day or so I have seen couple of things saying teh new 'rules' should be abolished IMMEDIATELY as they will cause mass deaths and all sorts


Main one seems to be that cyclists are now allowed to undertake a vehicle that is about to turn left into a side street
which is clearly total rubbish 

and, of course, now cyclists are allowed to ride in the middle of the road and cars etc can;t overtake 

all total carp but seems like there is a new 'motorist' group being formed to fight the changes before we get swamped in dead bodies of poor innocent motorists killed by cyclists
or something like that
they will probably declare themselves sovereign citizens before long


----------



## mjr (2 Feb 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> Main one seems to be that cyclists are now allowed to undertake a vehicle that is about to turn left into a side street
> which is clearly total rubbish


That has always been the lie told by motorists who kill or seriously injure cyclists by overtaking them and turning left across or into them. We should not be surprised it is trotted out again, but rebut it firmly yet again.

Maybe we need a cyclists defence organisation to accompany the cyclists defence fund?


----------



## figbat (2 Feb 2022)

What these "new rules" seem to have done is simply trigger a whole load of people who weren't really aware of what their obligations or expectations were already - the 'news' has simply woken them up and given them a target to rant and rave in a focussed way at, rather than the constant but disparate commentary underneath Daily Mail articles or Jeremy Vine tweets. It is a rallying call to all the entitled drivers who have spent their whole driving lives under an assumed belief of righteousness. If there had been no changes to the HC but a high profile awareness campaign of what is expected the same would have happened.

We now see people railing against the "new laws" and I've seen an online petition raised to rescind the changes, largely all based on misunderstanding or simple ignorance of what the new HC statements actually mean. For the most part, to paraphrase, the new HC is essentially stating "_if you see a cyclist doing this, they are allowed to_" but sadly without the additional "_...and always were_".

People, especially entitled drivers, do not like being told that their beliefs or behaviours are wrong. I have lost count of the number of times I have seen comments about things being illegal, or quoting laws that are simply made up to fit the commentator's beliefs.


----------



## matticus (2 Feb 2022)

fossyant said:


> I'll pay £20 for my bike if folk shut up,


Don't bother - I'm riding down the middle of the road until I get bored of it. Doesn't matter what YOU do, they'll still hate us. SOZ.


----------



## fossyant (2 Feb 2022)

matticus said:


> Don't bother - I'm riding down the middle of the road until I get bored of it. Doesn't matter what YOU do, they'll still hate us. SOZ.



You mean you didn't do that before ?


----------



## BoldonLad (2 Feb 2022)

figbat said:


> What these "new rules" seem to have done is simply trigger a whole load of people who weren't really aware of what their obligations or expectations were already - the 'news' has simply woken them up and* given them a target to rant and rave in a focussed way at, rather than the constant but disparate commentary underneath Daily Mail articles or Jeremy Vine tweets. It is a rallying call to all the entitled drivers who have spent their whole driving lives under an assumed belief of righteousness. * If there had been no changes to the HC but a high profile awareness campaign of what is expected the same would have happened.
> 
> We now see people railing against the "new laws" and I've seen an online petition raised to rescind the changes, largely all based on misunderstanding or simple ignorance of what the new HC statements actually mean. For the most part, to paraphrase, the new HC is essentially stating "_if you see a cyclist doing this, they are allowed to_" but sadly without the additional "_...and always were_".
> 
> People, especially entitled drivers, do not like being told that their beliefs or behaviours are wrong. I have lost count of the number of times I have seen comments about things being illegal, or quoting laws that are simply made up to fit the commentator's beliefs.



Most who fall into this group should have their driving licence withdrawn, since, IMHO, they are mentally unfit to be in charge of a 1 tonne motorised killing machine.


----------



## matticus (2 Feb 2022)

fossyant said:


> You mean you didn't do that before ?


Not ALL the time! Just, you know, most of the time ...


----------



## tyred (2 Feb 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> I do wonder whether - with all these perfectly reasonable arguments about cyclist paying road tax
> after all 'they ' provide specific areas for cyclist to ride on
> and there is evidence that they can cause road traffic 'accidents'
> and therefore they should pay road tax
> ...


Should overweight pedestrians pay more due to the extra damage caused to the road?


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (2 Feb 2022)

tyred said:


> Should overweight pedestrians pay more due to the extra damage caused to the road?


Good point
maybe people wearing high heels should be in this category as well
and people with leather soled shoes - especially if they have the clicky steel tips on them

basically I'm satrting to think that having a reg number and paying road tax for each pair of used is probably the way to go.

I wonder what the road tax should be for a pram??


----------



## Electric_Andy (2 Feb 2022)

Joking aside, if anyone had any sense they would make some sort of public information video that a) outlines what you should do around more vulnerable road users and b) that road tax doesn't exisit and c) that many cyclists and pedestrians pay VED for their other vehicles, and d) VED is based on emissions not "potential to damage the road". But of course it's easier to just let things happen and for entitled motorists to rage on about owning the road becasue they pay more, and endangering cyclists because they have no patience


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (2 Feb 2022)

I do think that this could have been publicised a lot better

I knew all about it - but then I look at cycling web sites 

On a different point I just looked at the Daily Express and the comments on the HC article were pretty much wheat I would expect

best was that if there is a cycle lane then it is impossible to leave 1.5m when you pass


----------



## fossyant (2 Feb 2022)

Electric_Andy said:


> Joking aside, if anyone had any sense they would make some sort of public information video that a) outlines what you should do around more vulnerable road users and b) that road tax doesn't exisit and c) that many cyclists and pedestrians pay VED for their other vehicles, and d) VED is based on emissions not "potential to damage the road". But of course it's easier to just let things happen and for entitled motorists to rage on about owning the road becasue they pay more, and endangering cyclists because they have no patience



But when said driver either pays nothing or £20 for VED..... grrrrr


----------



## Solocle (2 Feb 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> I do think that this could have been publicised a lot better
> 
> I knew all about it - but then I look at cycling web sites
> 
> ...


Have to say that they do have a point with the typical murder strips. I'll tend to treat cycle lanes as if they're not there when I'm driving, apart from staying out of them. But the more challenged moton thinks "I haz lane, I is OK". If you cycle out of them, "WTF IS HE DOING IN MUH LANE". It's why they're worse than nothing at all.

Question is - what about narrow pavements? It's also impossible to leave pedestrians 2 metres of space without treating it as an overtaking manoeuvre...

The problem really is the bad infrastructure in those scenarios.


----------



## alchurch (2 Feb 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> Good point
> maybe people wearing high heels should be in this category as well
> and people with leather soled shoes - especially if they have the clicky steel tips on them
> 
> ...


or someone walking a dog. Tax 1 or both?


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (2 Feb 2022)

One thing that motorists do not seem to realise is when a pedestrian is walking very close to the kerb - especially if they have a bag and/or wide shoulders
I have often had to move out from my normal riding position in traffic to stay cler of a pedestrian
Especially as they can, on occasion, be unpredictable

Same actually applied to bushes and trees branches, especially in summer - driver don't really register them but a cyclist will have to ride further out.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (2 Feb 2022)

alchurch said:


> or someone walking a dog. Tax 1 or both?


good point - what about cats as well - roaming around the streets all night

you are probably OK with a budgie - I think they can be exempt


----------



## youngoldbloke (2 Feb 2022)

The really worrying thing about this is that it has become obvious that very large number of drivers have *no idea* what is in the current highway code, and nor do most journalists, and haven't bothered to look. A significant minority have no intention of looking at the new edition either.


----------



## DaveReading (2 Feb 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> Main one seems to be that cyclists are now allowed to undertake a vehicle that is about to turn left into a side street
> which is clearly total rubbish


Be careful how you refute that. 

Seen from the motorist's perspective (in the geometric sense), it's technically true in that a left hook involves a vehicle slowing down to turn and a cyclist (legitimately) maintaining speed, albeit that description totally misses the point.


----------



## KnittyNorah (2 Feb 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> you are probably OK with a budgie - I think they can be exempt


Pets kept in cages _which can be carried around by hand _(either inside or outside its cage) can be exempt, I tend to agree. Perhaps tiny dogs which are exclusively carried can also be exempt? 
Children's scooters and trikes must be licensed, obviously. Clearly there should be a different tax regime for shod horse vs unshod horses, and both horse-drawn carriages and ox-wagons will come under different legislation, whereby there will be a charge for hooves/legs AND wheels. 

Relevant legislation for hamsters will be difficult, though. given the constant use they make of wheels ...


----------



## Ming the Merciless (2 Feb 2022)

Allocation of space for pedestrians is disproportionate


----------



## cyberknight (2 Feb 2022)

and dont forget cars with one occupant are subject to a surcharge


----------



## BoldonLad (2 Feb 2022)

youngoldbloke said:


> The really worrying thing about this is that it has become obvious that very large number of drivers have *no idea* what is in the current highway code, and nor do most journalists, and haven't bothered to look. A significant minority have no intention of looking at the new edition either.



Very true!


----------



## MontyVeda (2 Feb 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> One thing that motorists do not seem to realise is when a pedestrian is walking very close to the kerb - especially if they have a bag and/or wide shoulders
> *I have often had to move out from my normal riding position in traffic to stay clear of a pedestrian*
> Especially as they can, on occasion, be unpredictable
> 
> Same actually applied to bushes and trees branches, especially in summer - driver don't really register them but a cyclist will have to ride further out.


in that case, you're generally cycling too close to the kerb.


----------



## lazybloke (2 Feb 2022)

cyberknight said:


> and dont forget cars with one occupant are subject to a surcharge


Don't stop there.

Surcharges should apply to:
Every empty seat
Each additional exhaust pipe (especially if they are only decorative)
Every decibel of noise above ambient (engine noise and audio system are charged at different rates)
Garish colours
Dazzling lights
Spoilers
Tinting of front windows/windscreen

Etc


----------



## hatler (3 Feb 2022)

Illaveago said:


> Busses can be really infuriating! The Top Gear programme with Richard Hammond was a prime example ! Cutting him up , pulling out in front of him and squeezing him out .
> In the old days bus stops had lay-bys in which a bus would stop allowing the free flow of traffic . In those days they also had conductors which meant that the bus could move off once everyone was aboard . Here the busses stop at the side of the road with the nose near the kerb and the tail blocking the whole road whilst passengers pay the driver .
> It's consideration for other road users . It doesn't take a lot of effort to just to move over to allow a vehicle past.
> A


Not having a layby for a bus stop is all the thing now in the London suburbs.

And rightly so.

Allowing the mostly single-occupancy vehicle traffic to pass the bus means that the bus joins the back of a longer queue at the next set of lights. This effectively prioritises car drivers over bus passengers. That's certainly not what's best for all.

The Downs-Thomson paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs–Thomson_paradox) states that the equilibrium speed of car traffic on a road network is determined by the average door-to-door speed of equivalent journeys taken by public transport.

In other words, get the buses to run a route faster, and all travellers benefit from shorter journey times.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (3 Feb 2022)

MontyVeda said:


> in that case, you're generally cycling too close to the kerb.


If there is constant traffic I generally ride as far to the left as I* reasonably* can - depending, of course, on the road surface, grids, debris and all that
Looking at other cyclists that I see then this seems normal - at least round here


----------



## Solocle (3 Feb 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> If there is constant traffic I generally ride as far to the left as I* reasonably* can - depending, of course, on the road surface, grids, debris and all that
> Looking at other cyclists that I see then this seems normal - at least round here


If that's closer than 0.5m then it's too close according to the new highway code.
​Rule 72​*Road positioning.* When riding on the roads, there are two basic road positions you should adopt, depending on the situation.

1) Ride in the centre of your lane, to make yourself as clearly visible as possible, in the following situations


on quiet roads or streets – if a faster vehicle comes up behind you, move to the left to enable them to overtake, if you can do so safely
in slower-moving traffic - when the traffic around you starts to flow more freely, move over to the left if you can do so safely so that faster vehicles behind you can overtake
at the approach to junctions or road narrowings where it would be unsafe for drivers to overtake you
2) When riding on busy roads, with vehicles moving faster than you, allow them to overtake where it is safe to do so whilst keeping at least 0.5 metres away, and further where it is safer, from the kerb edge. Remember that traffic on most dual carriageways moves quickly. Take extra care crossing slip roads.

Rule 67​You should

watch out for obstructions in the road, such as drains, service covers and potholes, positioning yourself so you can move to the left (as well as to the right) to avoid them safely
I presume that you can't move to the left to avoid a pedestrian's bag!


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (3 Feb 2022)

Solocle said:


> If that's closer than 0.5m then it's too close according to the new highway code.
> ​Rule 72​*Road positioning.* When riding on the roads, there are two basic road positions you should adopt, depending on the situation.
> 
> 1) Ride in the centre of your lane, to make yourself as clearly visible as possible, in the following situations
> ...


No - 0.5 m does sound too close most of the time - too little room for movement to the left if needed - I suppose I would normally be between that and 1m if there is a constant stream of traffic on a good road surface
also - 0.5m is rather close to the dents where the grds have dropped a bit and generated a pothole type thing

sorry if I gave the impression I ride closer - although I had not notice the 0.5m bit before - thanks for pointing that out


----------



## MontyVeda (3 Feb 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> ...
> sorry if I gave the impression I ride closer - although I had not notice the 0.5m bit before - thanks for pointing that out


It was the suggestion of moving out for broad shouldered pedestrians that made it seem like you were riding inches from the kerb


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (3 Feb 2022)

MontyVeda said:


> It was the suggestion of moving out for broad shouldered pedestrians that made it seem like you were riding inches from the kerb


Yes - it did seem a bit that way - I have nearly been hit by a pedestrian walking 4 abreast and using her arms to emphasise something - which would have been OK if she wasn;t walking right on the edge
so basically I give pedestrians walking on the egde a wide berth - apart from anything else you never know it they are just going to suddenly decide to turn directly in front of you.

Which is starting to make me sound like a car driver in the comments section on the Daily Fail on a story about cyclists!
Pedestrians don't pay road tax you know!!!


----------



## KnittyNorah (3 Feb 2022)

MontyVeda said:


> It was the suggestion of moving out for broad shouldered pedestrians that made it seem like you were riding inches from the kerb


I have lived in places where the pavement 'allowance' for pedestrians was so narrow that even slender people could not pass each other on the pavement without checking for traffic coming within inches. Where you could be stuck for what seemed like ages (but was probably a couple of minutes) if someone with a pushchair or shopping trolley was using that bit of pavement and where people in wheelchairs simply did not venture onto the High Street as they would need a police escort to safely get to the Co-op. 
Thankfully I don't live there any more. But there are lots of places like that. 
I can easily see how a cyclist could be knocked off their bike from _either_ side, no matter where on the road they were riding.


----------



## mjr (3 Feb 2022)

KnittyNorah said:


> I have lived in places where the pavement 'allowance' for pedestrians was so narrow that even slender people could not pass each other on the pavement without checking for traffic coming within inches.


<fourth-yorkshireman> One pavement on the main river bridge in our village is so narrow that you cannot walk over it without checking for wide vehicles approaching and it's best walked putting one foot in front of the other. Across the road, the other pavement is marked as a cycleway but the bit over the bridge was not widened like the rest of the route. Because it's a bit narrow, some bright spark put up "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" signs, but it is not wide enough to walk alongside a bike. Maybe 80cm. Tricyclists, cargo bikes and mobility scooters have to use the road and fortunately, the narrow bit is short enough with wide passing places at either end, for give-and-take by the remaining users not to be too awful.
</fourth-yorkshireman>

The highway code is largely silent on this shoot, but it'll be interesting whether Active Travel England start using LTN 1/20 to push for bridge upgrades.


----------



## KnittyNorah (3 Feb 2022)

mjr said:


> <fourth-yorkshireman> One pavement on the main river bridge in our village is so narrow that you cannot walk over it without checking for wide vehicles approaching and it's best walked putting one foot in front of the other. Across the road, the other pavement is marked as a cycleway but the bit over the bridge was not widened like the rest of the route. Because it's a bit narrow, some bright spark put up "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" signs, but it is not wide enough to walk alongside a bike. Maybe 80cm. Tricyclists, cargo bikes and mobility scooters have to use the road and fortunately, the narrow bit is short enough with wide passing places at either end, for give-and-take by the remaining users not to be too awful.
> </fourth-yorkshireman>
> 
> The highway code is largely silent on this shoot, but it'll be interesting whether Active Travel England start using LTN 1/20 to push for bridge upgrades.


We don't need bridge _up_grades - we need them _down_graded to how they used to be. Medieval width - spacious enough for people having a conversation, pack animals and a handcart or two to pass each other going in both directions, and smoothly-surfaced enough so that no-one trips up or bites their tongue. 
That's all. 
If we weren't always having to defer to the ubiquitous tin-box-on-wheels, narrow bridges and narrow pavements would be plenty wide enough. Wide enough even for emergency vehicles in, you know, emergencies - especially without people leaving empty tin boxes all over the place to make the place look hideous.


----------



## cyberknight (4 Feb 2022)




----------



## classic33 (7 Apr 2022)

Now available in WHSmiths.


----------



## Mike_P (4 Jul 2022)

Had to put a motorist right on another forum who was complaining about a cyclist giving him rude gesures after he has left 1.5m in accordance with the highway code (in his opinion) for the cyclist to pass in the opposite direction


----------



## Solocle (4 Jul 2022)

Mike_P said:


> Had to put a motorist right on another forum who was complaining about a cyclist giving him rude gesures after he has left 1.5m in accordance with the highway code (in his opinion) for the cyclist to pass in the opposite direction



I know the thread you mean


----------

