Highway Code to be updated to highlight danger of close passes

[Drago]

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.

I didn't answer, because I didn't see it. I hate to disappoint, but I dont read every single post on this forum.

My source was the Dutch transport and infrastructure minister, who was mildly amused that it was being attributed to her government and ministry. Some driving instructors there doubtless teach it (as imcreasingly in many western countries today) but she was saying its not part of their test and not a requirement that it be taught. It is not promoted on any official ministry training or guidance. As far as officialdom goes, it is simply not dutch.

That was in the Guardian not long back, no longer than September. I mean, who are we to believe if not Cora Van Unpronouncable?

It was named the Dutch reach in 2016 by Dr Michael Charney following the death of a cyclist in Somerville, Massachusetts. The Doctor got the idea for the name from a blog in 2011 by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, in which they discussed child cycle training and, importantly, car users opening doors with the opposite hand. Although Thaler and Sunstein did not call it the 'Dutch Reach', they did erroneously imply that all motorists were taught this as part of the official driver training syllabus in Holland. This is the first time is was - erroneously - suggested that it was universally and officially taught in Holland. This was pounced on by campaigners and the media, and a vague implication in a blog quickly mutated into "fact". And therein lies the origin of the myth of legions of Dutch learner drivers standing in neat ranks while Drill Sergeant Reachie shouts at them to open their car doors with the opposite hand.

So there you go - names and dates, just for you.

So that's the origins of 'The Dutch Reach' as an entity. As for its effectiveness, you must decide for yourself - I've tried it, and opening the door with the opposite hand did not require me to turn my torso a single degree - hand across lower chest/upper stomach and onto the handle required no movement of my upper body whatsoever.

 

[icowden]

Going back to the OP, the important thing about updating the Highway code is:

Any rule using wording like "MUST" or "MUST NOT" is supported by a law, which will usually be referenced at the bottom of the sub-section.
Road users who ignore these guidelines could find themselves slapped with numerous traffic offences including careless or dangerous driving, and be prosecuted under the laws they are associated with.

Guidelines in the Code using the words "should" or "should not" act as advice, and don't have legal weighting behind them.
But these sections can still be used as supporting evidence in court.

So the Highway code is not optional.

 

[Gary E]

I think this may come in handy after the event i.e. to apportion blame after an accident, but I'd rather something was done to minimise the risk in the first place.

 

[presta]

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

But that still leaves another twenty references.

nowhere in this country has ever built a whole decent-size priority cycleway network, has it?

Wasn't Stevenage built as a bit of cycling utopia? I don't know it, I've never been there, but I see Franklin claims that it never attracted the level of cycling that the cycle paths were supposed to promote.

he does the usual tricks like allocating collisions at cycleway-road interfaces to cycleways

Quite right too. It's the intersections with roads that create the danger with cycle paths. They often are safer between junctions, but intersections (where most accidents occur) get more dangerous. (See Jensen et al, Leden et al, Wegman et al, Schnull et al above) It might be possible to avoid intersections when building a new town from scratch on a greenfield site, but that will only ever account for a tiny fraction of the routes cycled nationwide. Everywhere else, cycle paths will be forced to cross roads, and that's precisely what makes them more dangerous.

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

I followed up all the ones that are available online, and I didn't see anything that's obviously being misquoted.

 

[mjr]

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.

It's incorrect to suggest that those who wish to see cycleways are unable to cycle on the roads, just like those who call for motorways aren't drivers who are unable to drive on existing roads.

But that still leaves another twenty references. [...]
I followed up all the ones that are available online, and I didn't see anything that's obviously being misquoted.

The one I knew best is biased policy-based evidence-making, so I suspect the rest of the list to be similar flawed vehicularist junk. Which did you feel was the best?

IIRC one of Jensen's papers very dodgily concluded that a decrease in collisions after a cycleway was built was an increase in danger because the number of collisions hadn't fallen as fast as he expected - I don't think it's the one cited above, but presence of his name also rings alarm bells.

Wasn't Stevenage built as a bit of cycling utopia? I don't know it, I've never been there, but I see Franklin claims that it never attracted the level of cycling that the cycle paths were supposed to promote.

Well, a bit of Stevenage was built as a 1960s idea of a cycling utopia, but like most New Towns, it was built around an unreconstructed nucleus of Stevenage Old Town with small streets that they were slow to restrict motorists from, plus the motorists got most of the straight and level routes, while cycle routes ducked and dived, zigged and zagged. Franklin's right that it never attracted the level of cycling its designers wanted, but it's still about national average and I disagree with the conclusions he draws. Carlton Reid makes much more balanced summaries in his articles in various places like https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/sep/19/britains-1960s-cycling-revolution-flopped-stevenage

I heartily suggest visiting Stevenage, Milton Keynes, Harlow and heck, while we're at it, Flanders, Holland and Denmark if you can afford it, before condemning them so heartily. They're not all brilliant - especially MK being left to rot by its council - but it suggests how it could be done.

Quite right too. It's the intersections with roads that create the danger with cycle paths. They often are safer between junctions, but intersections (where most accidents occur) get more dangerous. (See Jensen et al, Leden et al, Wegman et al, Schnull et al above) It might be possible to avoid intersections when building a new town from scratch on a greenfield site, but that will only ever account for a tiny fraction of the routes cycled nationwide. Everywhere else, cycle paths will be forced to cross roads, and that's precisely what makes them more dangerous.

It's not right because one could just as easily say that it's the carriageways crossing the cycleways which create the danger. We could remove the carriageways to remove the danger. So the collisions should be either split evenly or attributed to their own category. Placing them all on either side of the balance is a bit naughty.

If I remember rightly, Jensen grudgingly acknowledges in one of his papers that the designs of crossings can make a big difference. It's fairly obvious that it's possible for cycleways to reduce the number of intersections on existing roads where they're doing things like proceeding along the straight edge of a T junction. Truly, the devil's in the detail of the designs - sadly, UK designers aren't very good at them yet. IAN 195/16 should help but I've yet to see it obeyed.

 

[mjr]

I rode through Harlow on a cycle path a couple of months ago. It was blimmin awful. It kept disappearing and reappearing and the surface was awful. Although that one ride hardly constitutes a detailed survey. To balance things up, later in the ride I went along some re-purposed railway approaching St Albans and it was quite nice.

It sounds like you managed to find only the rubbish and none of the surviving decent bits. I last rode through Harlow on this route https://cycle.travel/map/journey/82230 which was a pretty typical mix: I've no idea how they expect arriving cyclists to join the network, so we coasted down from a bus stop, then the one alongside Tithelands was in pretty good condition, alongside Katherine's Way was root-damaged, there wasn't a sensible junction with Harberts Road, along Fourth Avenue was OK I think, then the bit past Sainsbury's was as bad as any other Sainsbury's-provided cycleway, then another OK bit and finally it sort of petered out and fed us onto the right-hand-side of a country lane out of town... like all the English new towns, it's not right but you could get an idea of how it could be right.

And just in case it wasn't clear: with the rotting of MK, I'm not sure any of the English town cycleway networks is suitable for skinny-tyred road bikes any more. Take something with at least 35mm width tyres if you can.

Oh, did you get to St Albans where the re-purposed railway reached a T junction and turning right towards the centre just dumps you back onto a road with footpaths resigned+repainted as awful stop-start cycling farcilities? An English town steals defeat from the jaws of victory, yet again.

 

[classic33]

It's incorrect to suggest that those who wish to see cycleways are unable to cycle on the roads, just like those who call for motorways aren't drivers who are unable to drive on existing roads.


The one I knew best is biased policy-based evidence-making, so I suspect the rest of the list to be similar flawed vehicularist junk. Which did you feel was the best?

IIRC one of Jensen's papers very dodgily concluded that a decrease in collisions after a cycleway was built was an increase in danger because the number of collisions hadn't fallen as fast as he expected - I don't think it's the one cited above, but presence of his name also rings alarm bells.


Well, a bit of Stevenage was built as a 1960s idea of a cycling utopia, but like most New Towns, it was built around an unreconstructed nucleus of Stevenage Old Town with small streets that they were slow to restrict motorists from, plus the motorists got most of the straight and level routes, while cycle routes ducked and dived, zigged and zagged. Franklin's right that it never attracted the level of cycling its designers wanted, but it's still about national average and I disagree with the conclusions he draws. Carlton Reid makes much more balanced summaries in his articles in various places like https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/sep/19/britains-1960s-cycling-revolution-flopped-stevenage

I heartily suggest visiting Stevenage, Milton Keynes, Harlow and heck, while we're at it, Flanders, Holland and Denmark if you can afford it, before condemning them so heartily. They're not all brilliant - especially MK being left to rot by its council - but it suggests how it could be done.


It's not right because one could just as easily say that it's the carriageways crossing the cycleways which create the danger. We could remove the carriageways to remove the danger. So the collisions should be either split evenly or attributed to their own category. Placing them all on either side of the balance is a bit naughty.

If I remember rightly, Jensen grudgingly acknowledges in one of his papers that the designs of crossings can make a big difference. It's fairly obvious that it's possible for cycleways to reduce the number of intersections on existing roads where they're doing things like proceeding along the straight edge of a T junction. Truly, the devil's in the detail of the designs - sadly, UK designers aren't very good at them yet. IAN 195/16 should help but I've yet to see it obeyed.

Not the same thing though, and a nice twisting of what was said. You can of course now say when you were last passed when cycling on the motorway. To answer the piece in full. If you were to drive on those roads whose traffic were motor vehicles, you'd have qualified to use the road system first. Not motorways first, then the roads.

I've used it, roads built soley for motor vehicles, as an argument when told I don't belong on the roads. If you're going to use a road vehicle, get on the roads. Not the footpaths, or start demanding that you be allowed to cycle on them.

 

[mjr]

No one in this discussion is demanding to be allowed to cycle on footpaths AFAIK. Some of us want cycleways. Cycleways are not footpaths.

 

[classic33]

No one in this discussion is demanding to be allowed to cycle on footpaths AFAIK. Some of us want cycleways. Cycleways are not footpaths.

Seperate cycle facilities, which many seem to feel include footpaths. Cyclists and drivers.

Now maybe you'll answer the question asked with regards motorways. Introduced into this by yourself.

 

[mjr]

Seperate cycle facilities, which many seem to feel include footpaths. Cyclists and drivers.

Now maybe you'll answer the question asked with regards motorways. Introduced into this by yourself.

What question?

Maybe I should make up some flawed nonsense to argue against and justify it with "many seem to feel"!

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

My source was the Dutch transport and infrastructure minister, who was mildly amused that it was being attributed to her government and ministry. Some driving instructors there doubtless teach it (as imcreasingly in many western countries today) but she was saying its not part of their test and not a requirement that it be taught. It is not promoted on any official ministry training or guidance. As far as officialdom goes, it is simply not dutch.

The action is very commonly used in the Netherlands, they learn you during driving lessons that you need to look around you car before you open the door. (and by your parents as a childto look behind you before opening the door) But the defenition and name ''dutch reach'' is indeed not dutch.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

I skimmed across the south of Harlow E-W parallel to the main road on a lumpy concrete cycle path through a housing estate. Included several non-dropped kerbs IIRC. Maybe I just got lost and went off-piste.

In St Albans I peeled off the very pleasant cycle path and jiggled the remaining few hundred metres through some housing to the railway station. I think I had to dismount and walk a steep pedestrianised bit, or some steps or something. I remember that because I had a bad foot and was hobbling a bit.

They did that here too hey build new flats and the cycle lane is moved was perfectly straith coming of the route61(also a former train track) gonna be terrible because you have to cross two roads now instead of one. I do share the opinion that most cycle paths are quite bad, as in overgrown, or just very hardly accessible because it's 10 or more years ago they last resurfaced it.

 

[Heltor Chasca]

More rules to be ignored by the breakers to wind up the obeyers.

Smoking in work vehicles or with kids and mobile phone use hasn’t stopped.

School run last week: massive coach rolling down hill, full of kids towards local notorious double roundabouts. Driver: mobile phone to his ear, engaged in animated conversation.

What do we hope to achieve? They won’t get caught so what’s the point?

 

[classic33]

More rules to be ignored by the breakers to wind up the obeyers.

Smoking in work vehicles or with kids and mobile phone use hasn’t stopped.

School run last week: massive coach rolling down hill, full of kids towards local notorious double roundabouts. Driver: mobile phone to his ear, engaged in animated conversation.

What do we hope to achieve? They won’t get caught so what’s the point?

Camera and get the picture where it'll be seen.