New Highway Code

[mjr]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Alex321]

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]

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]

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

 

[mjr]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Strange echo in here ...

 

[MontyVeda]

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

I don't believe MJR suggested otherwise

 

[mjr]

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]

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]

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 .