Highway Code revision

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

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

Open bank app, swipe finger. Massively difficult task

 

[mjr]

Open bank app, swipe finger. Massively difficult task

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

 

[recumbentpanda]

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




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

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

This seems to me to be extremely dangerous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for considering this proposal.

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

^Hopefully the respondents as such will outnumber the 💩 ones

 

[matticus]

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

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

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

<sigh>

 

[ianrauk]

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

<sigh>

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

 

[matticus]

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

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

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

 

[ianrauk]

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

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

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

 

[recumbentpanda]

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

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

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

 

[matticus]

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

I could misleadingly quote from the current HC:

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

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

Frying pan into the fire.

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

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

 

[raleighnut]

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

I could misleadingly quote from the current HC:

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

 

[matticus]

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

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

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

Single out if there's a vehicle behind and the road is clear, but don't single out if the view forward isn't clear as that could invite close passes and potentially being hit by a driver taking evasive action when they discover the way is not clear.

I do understand it could be misread as "get out of the way immediately when there's a vehicle behind you". But that's not what it says, and frankly, whatever it says could and will get misread and misinterpreted by those who want to do so. I've thought about it and I can't come up with an un-misinterpretable improvement.

btw I'm assuming that the "never ride more than two abreast" rule isn't going to be removed. But it's hard to tell with the way it has been presented.

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

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

 

[mjr]

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

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