Highway Code to be updated to highlight danger of close passes

[tom73]

Government plans to revise the Highway Code to highlight the danger of motorists overtaking cyclists too closely, and to encourage the ‘Dutch Reach’ technique to prevent cyclists being ‘doored’.

Only time will tell it's a start at least.

https://road.cc/content/news/250211...l-highlight-danger-close-passes-and-encourage

 

[Drago]

An, the Highway Code that no one reads? A start. A miniscule one, but a start nevertheless I guess.

 

[tom73]

True but at least you have to read it at least once now as perp for the theory test. So we can hope at least one driver remembers.

 

[Milkfloat]

It is a reasonable (and cheap) first step, but unless it is backed up with law and strong enforcement, then it will achieve very little except to give Norman an excuse to say he is doing something about the problem.

 

[snorri]

Once again a politician repeats this nonsensical 'safest roads' statement.
Announcing the update to the Highway Code, roads minister Jesse Norman said in a statement: “Britain has some of the safest roads in the world, but we need them to be safer still ......

Edit
The quote was from this announcement of revised HC.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlto...ue-added-to-britains-road-rules/#1d1f736535e8

 

[Drago]

Theres a bit in the current Highway Code about not dooring cyclists, but it seems our tranport minister didnt read that edition. Even transport ministers don't read it, so it makes you wonder who they think will.

 

[alicat]

I hope the driver of the police car that close passed me the other day reads it too.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

This is just tinkering with the edges. It might be called the Dutch reach but the reason for such a low KSI rate in Holland, and the high volume of cycling journeys, is down to safe infrastructure that's been built over the last 40+ years, not the method used to open a car door.

This is a token gesture, supposed to pacify cycling campaigners, dressed up as a positive step by a government seeking to spend as little as possible on cycling.

So they'll add a sentence to the HC, big deal.

 

[Drago]

Of course, despite the hysteria earlier in the year, the Dutch Reach is not actually Dutch - it was merely named that way by its American inventor on honour of what he thought was the greatest cycling nation on Earth - and is not taught in Holland or part of their driving test. Its all bunkum.

 

[Bodhbh]

I thought it already said you cyclists and horseriders should be given as much space as a car?

I nearly doored a cyclist a few months back. He was doing 15-20mph downhill on the pavement.

 

[presta]

the reason for such a low KSI rate in Holland, and the high volume of cycling journeys, is down to safe infrastructure

Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bicycle User
Kaplan. Federal Highway Administration, US, 1975.
Cycle paths 292 accidents per million cycle miles, against 104 for minor roads and 111 for major roads.

The Risks of Cycling
Pasenen, Helsinki City Planning Department 2001
In Helsinki, using a road-side cycle path is nearly 2.5 times more likely to result in injury than cycling on the carriageway with traffic.

Signalised Intersections Function and Accident Risk for Unprotected Road Users
Linderholm. University of Lund, Sweden, 1984
Cycle tracks are 3.4 times more dangerous than using the road at junctions, rising to 11.9 times when riding against the traffic flow.

Traffic Accidents Involving Cyclists
Berlin Police, Germany, 1987.
Cyclists four times more likely to have accident on roads with cycle paths. Likelihood of serious or fatal injury similarly increased.

Safety of Cycling Children – Effect of the Street Environment
Leden. Technical Research Centre of Finland 1989.
Overall risk of collision is 1.3 crashes/100,000km on a cycle track, but 0.5 crashes/100,000km on the carriageway

Cycle Routes
Harland, Gercans. Transport Research Laboratory, UK, 1993.
No evidence that cycle routes lead to more cycling or improved safety.

Two Decades of the Redway Cycle Paths of Milton Keynes
Franklin. Traffic Engineering & Control, 1999.
Injury accidents on UK's largest purpose-built cycle path network per million km cycled:
Cycle paths 166, local roads 149, main roads 31.

Junctions and Cyclists
Jensen, Andersen, Nielsen. Velo City, Barcelona, 1997.
Cyclists particularly vulnerable at non-signalised junctions where study indicates a nearly fourfold increase in risk. Cycle lanes in Denmark realise accident savings between junctions, but this is more than outweighed by additional accidents at junctions.

Measuring the Safety Effect of Raised Bicycle Crossings
Leden, Gårdner, Pulkkinen. Swedish Transportation Research Board, 1998.
Conventional cycle tracks increase cyclists' risk at junctions.

Toronto Bicycle Commuter Safety Rates
Aultman-Hall, Kaltenecker. Transportation Research Board, 1998.
Injuries 1.8 times more likely on cycle paths than roads and 6 times on footways.

Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections
Wachtel, Lewiston. Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, USA. September 1994
“Sidewalks or paths adjacent to a roadway are usually not, as non-cyclists expect, safer than the road but much less safe. This conclusion is already well established in existing standards for bikeway design, although in our experience it is not widely known or observed.”
Risk on average 1.8 times greater.

How to Decrease the Number of Bicycle Accidents?
Räsänen, Traffic Safety Committee of Insurance Companies, Finland, 1995.
Study of 234 bicycle crashes in four Finnish cities. 63% of collisions between a cyclist and a motor vehicle took place at cycle track crossings.

Safety Effects of Bicycle Facilities
Wegman, Dijkstra. SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, Netherlands, 1992.
In built-up areas cycle tracks 25% safer than unsegregated road between junctions, but 32% more dangerous at junctions. Cycle lanes 36% more dangerous between junctions, 19% safer at junctions. Seriousness of accidents greater if tracks or lanes present compared with no facilities.

Safety for Cyclists at Urban Road Junctions
Schnull, Alrutz et al. German Federal Highways Institute Report 262, 1993.
Proportion of junction accidents significantly higher with cycle tracks. HGV conflicts more common with segregation. Without signals, cyclists nearly 5 times more at risk on a cycle track; contrasting surfaces only reduces this to 1.5. With signals, cyclists are 1.7 to 2.7 times more at risk on cycle track, 1.3 times on a cycle lane. At roundabouts cycle tracks increase risk by 30%, cycle lanes by 25%.

Bicycle Paths in Cities - The Safety Effect
Bach, Rosbach, Joergensen. Danish Road Directorate, Denmark, 1988
Cyclist casualties increased 48% following introduction of paths. Bicycle traffic volume did not increase during the study period.

Typical Patterns of Accidents Involving Bicycles and Recommendations for the Safe Design of Bicycle Traffic Facilities
Alrutz, HUK-Verband, Köln, Germany, 1980.
A study of 4,000 accidents in Köln 1976 - 1978. Cycle paths as traditionally built do not guarantee a reduction in casualties. The risk cyclists face depends on how often their unimpeded ride is interrupted.

Report on accidents to cyclists
Transport Advisory Council, Ministry of Transport, UK, 1938.
Cycle tracks increase danger at every road junction. Considers cycle tracks provide safety benefit between junctions but provides no evidence.

Cycle safety
Hass-Klau et al. Environmental & Transport Planning, UK/Germany 1991.
Number of motor vehicles and in particular number of cyclists has much stronger influence on safety than cycle facilities. Some main roads with cycle facilities have higher cycle accident rate than without. Visibility and care crucial; cycle facility may contribute to accidents by making cyclist over-confident. Facilities cause many problems; bad cycle facilities are worse than none.
Peterborough: high accident rate in residential areas casts doubt on independent cycle facilities. York and Oxford: high serious accident rates.
Preferred policy of cyclists is better junction design and safety education.

Study of Milton Keynes Cycle Accidents, 1980 - 1990
Ketteridge. Milton Keynes Development Corporation, UK, 1991.
Includes one-month hospital survey which showed 14 cycle path accidents against 1 minor road accident and no major road accidents in equivalent area. All 3 serious accidents were cycle path.

National trends in cycling and cycle accidents
Morgan. TRL/Institute of Civil Engineers, UK, 1995.
Only 3% of injury accidents on cycle tracks and off-road are recorded.
Cycle facilities not improving use or safety. What we are doing now is either insufficient or just plainly wrong.

Redways and Leisure Routes
Franklin. Milton Keynes Cycle Users Group, UK, 1998.
Redways nearly 7 times more dangerous per mile cycled. 6 deaths to cyclists off-road in 10 years against just one in comparable area on roads.

 

[Drago]

My friends dad was killed on the Redway.

 

[mjr]

Of course, despite the hysteria earlier in the year, the Dutch Reach is not actually Dutch - it was merely named that way by its American inventor on honour of what he thought was the greatest cycling nation on Earth - and is not taught in Holland or part of their driving test. Its all bunkum.

What's bunkum is your claim it's not taught in Holland. I asked you about this before but you didn't answer.

The important thing is the slow-open at the end, but calling this "Dutch Reach" de-emphasises that.

I think it's probably a bit of a distraction, but at least it's addressing the perpetrators rather than the victims. Does anyone know if they're removing any of the other now-debunked victim-blaming junk from the Highway Code to make space for this questionable bit?

There seems not much detail in the reports about what may be changed, but one good thing IMO is it sounds like turning traffic may be more explicitly required to give way to traffic continuing straight ahead along the footways/cycleways and adjacent lanes they turn across. That could do far more good than the Dutch Reach.

 

[mjr]

Redways and Leisure Routes[/SIZE]
Franklin. Milton Keynes Cycle Users Group, UK, 1998.
Redways nearly 7 times more dangerous per mile cycled. 6 deaths to cyclists off-road in 10 years against just one in comparable area on roads.

That one's rather untrustworthy, as is his earlier 1989 paper making the same argument.

Even ignoring Franklin's reputation as a total vehicularist who advises cyclists to avoid cycleways in general, in his 1989 paper, Franklin described the Redway network as "constructed with few limitations of space or finance" which simply doesn't ring true - the Redways were fitted in between houses and grid roads, never built to plan and the "secondary grid" of Redways between district centres mentioned in the 1998 paper has simply never appeared. Actually, it's a pretty sorry situation that such a squeezed-in second-class cycleway network is one of the best in the UK - nowhere in this country has ever built a whole decent-size priority cycleway network, has it?

And I don't trust the user number and preference estimates in Franklin's redway papers - there were no cycle counters on the Redways at the times the data was collected. The main source of cycle use data seems to be surveys rather than counters. A survey with 120 responses has quite some potential for error when used to estimate a city catchment area of 200,000 people. An "accident rate" equals "accidents per use", so an incorrect use estimate can make a very big difference, especially if use is still sadly small. Even Franklin notes at one point that he has no accurate usage figures for the Redways. Another survey is included in his references, so I find it surprising that no usage information is quoted from that survey. Perhaps it would help to explain the figures in some way unwelcoming to the general tone of the piece?

Cyclist preferences seem to be taken from one cycle user group screenline count, rather than a cordon census or survey, which I also found surprising. I often rode parts of a trip on the 'least-bad' option for connecting the best route overall, not on the type of route I would have chosen if I had a realistic choice. After all, when in my car, I'd probably choose to drive along a dual-carriageway from the edge of my old village if I had the choice, but I didn't, so I used a winding lane for the first mile or two. I don't prefer the winding lane to the alternative quarry road or the toll road: it was just a connection in a better route overall.

And then if I remember rightly, he does the usual tricks like allocating collisions at cycleway-road interfaces to cycleways and so on.

I've written what I think about them in much more detail on http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/cyclynn/redways

Are all that list of references as weak as Franklin's Redways one?

 

[classic33]

Prefer the road network to off-road networks. The off-road routes/networks gives people another reason to say that we, as cyclists shouldn't be on the roads.

We certainly don't belong on footpaths, with a road vehicle. Much is said about drivers "who can't drive", the same can be said for those who are unable to cycle on the roads. Demanding seperate facilities instead.