Highway Code Changes

[Lightning]

As a cyclist in a city, I really like these changes.

Highway code changes 2022: everything you need to know

Some changes were made to the highway code at the beginning of 2022, mainly focussed around protecting vulnerable road users like cyclists. Read on for everything you need to know.

www.carwow.co.uk

 

[Cali Phillip]

As a cyclist in a city, I really like these changes.

Highway code changes 2022: everything you need to know

Some changes were made to the highway code at the beginning of 2022, mainly focussed around protecting vulnerable road users like cyclists. Read on for everything you need to know.

www.carwow.co.uk

All sounds very sensible from what i have seen. While out running yesterday had a women (thats not important) in a Mercedes 4x4 tying to bully me out the way on a very short (20metres) and narrow section of road just because I was holding them up by seconds and there was a car coming. Theres no walkway due to recent construction.

 

[kurienp]

Definitely sounds positive and a step in the right direction.

You cannot do much about "stupid" be it cyclists or drivers. There can be no code for that. White vans are the worst for passing cyclists without due care.

 

[Snowball1935]

Definitely sounds positive and a step in the right direction.

You cannot do much about "stupid" be it cyclists or drivers. There can be no code for that. White vans are the worst for passing cyclists without due care.

So very true. Having looked at the new rules in depth, I’m afraid that I cannot help wondering if the (panel?) who thought them up had any idea of what ‘driving’ is really about.
I have been driving for 69 years. Always being a cyclist too, I give due regard to cyclists, as well as pedestrians and riders on horseback.
The problem with the law is that many cyclists have no idea about road safety, and break numerous laws which places them in danger by their own actions.
I also agree that there are drivers who show blatant disregard for the safety of other users of the highway, but the new rules will be hard to enforce. Is this why the government have indicated heavy punishment, especially if the police are challenged?
Just one example - the Code says a driver must give a pedestrian 2 metres of clearance when passing. Since pedestrians often walk as a group, with those nearest to the road being very close to the kerb, there are many busy two-way roads where this clearance is absolutely impossible.
And when a driver is following a large commercial vehicle in busy traffic, the car driver will not see any such pedestrian(s) until the very last minute.

Another example: In slowing traffic, a cyclist catches up with, and passes between car and kerb. The cyclist’s balance deteriorates as he/she also slows down, and then they wobble, make contact with the car, and tumble over.
Who are you going to blame?

And there lies the dilemma. In both cases, the need for care is addressed to the driver, and the pedestrian or cyclist is absolved from any responsibility for causing an accident.
My view is that, whilst proper due care and attention is an obvious necessity (by all parties) it seems that, in the event of incidents occurring under this difficult-to-police ruling, the outcome of blame is heavily loaded towards the driver.

 

[WelshGas]

So very true. Having looked at the new rules in depth, I’m afraid that I cannot help wondering if the (panel?) who thought them up had any idea of what ‘driving’ is really about.
I have been driving for 69 years. Always being a cyclist too, I give due regard to cyclists, as well as pedestrians and riders on horseback.
The problem with the law is that many cyclists have no idea about road safety, and break numerous laws which places them in danger by their own actions.
I also agree that there are drivers who show blatant disregard for the safety of other users of the highway, but the new rules will be hard to enforce. Is this why the government have indicated heavy punishment, especially if the police are challenged?
Just one example - the Code says a driver must give a pedestrian 2 metres of clearance when passing. Since pedestrians often walk as a group, with those nearest to the road being very close to the kerb, there are many busy two-way roads where this clearance is absolutely impossible.
And when a driver is following a large commercial vehicle in busy traffic, the car driver will not see any such pedestrian(s) until the very last minute.

Another example: In slowing traffic, a cyclist catches up with, and passes between car and kerb. The cyclist’s balance deteriorates as he/she also slows down, and then they wobble, make contact with the car, and tumble over.
Who are you going to blame?

And there lies the dilemma. In both cases, the need for care is addressed to the driver, and the pedestrian or cyclist is absolved from any responsibility for causing an accident.
My view is that, whilst proper due care and attention is an obvious necessity (by all parties) it seems that, in the event of incidents occurring under this difficult-to-police ruling, the outcome of blame is heavily loaded towards the driver.

Man hit with fine for driving too close to cyclist

Wayne Humphreys is fined £1,152 and ordered to pay £620 costs and a £115 victim surcharge.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Georgeo]

Yes but only because he would not do the awareness course and went to court. In the video it is difficult to measure the distance he did give the cyclist. Who have now become the “Guardians” of the road rules.

 

[Amarillo]

Man hit with fine for driving too close to cyclist

Wayne Humphreys is fined £1,152 and ordered to pay £620 costs and a £115 victim surcharge.

www.bbc.co.uk

No sympathy for the driver from me. As evidenced by the following car the first driver passed unnecessarily close.

It seems obvious to me that those who can do most harm on the road should show a greater level of care to those who can do least harm.

That applies equally to cyclists on shared use paths such as canal tow paths when passing pedestrians as it does to car drivers passing cyclists on the road.

 

[GrumpyGranddad]

No sympathy for the driver from me. As evidenced by the following car the first driver passed unnecessarily close.

It seems obvious to me that those who can do most harm on the road should show a greater level of care to those who can do least harm.

That applies equally to cyclists on shared use paths such as canal tow paths when passing pedestrians as it does to car drivers passing cyclists on the road.

As a cyclist i’m with you on that @Amarillo BUT on the way out of Henley earlier this week on Remenham Hill a cyclist shot out of a side turning to join the main road. He didn’t even look to see if the road was clear. It wasn’t, I was almost on top of him!!! Tempted to send my dashcam footage to Thames Valley Police but of course with no identifier on the cyclist or bike, what’s the point.

 

[Snowball1935]

Yes but only because he would not do the awareness course and went to court. In the video it is difficult to measure the distance he did give the cyclist. Who have now become the “Guardians” of the road rules.

Cyclists and motorcyclists frequently wear head cams. The problems with these are that they do not accurately record the scene. For example, the camera deliberately turned towards the “incident” will not always provide the measurements needed to determine the exact closeness to say whether it was a ‘near miss’ or sufficient room was given.

Recently, I had a cyclist pass fast on my inside as the traffic slowed, then he cut across my front and passed the next vehicle on its offside. He then cut across oncoming traffic to reach the pavement on the opposite side.
At any point during this manoeuvre, had he come to grief there is no way he could have claimed not to have been the cause of the accident.

To complete this mockery of road sense, further along a lot with following cyclist passed me on the inside, then also attempted to pass the car in front of me which was still reducing speed to turn left, AND with the trafficators clearly showing that intention.
I think a lot of innocent drivers are likely to suffer from some changes to the Highway Code. Because, in the final analysis, the police/courts are going to measure the success on the basis of profit. And this will pursued by using bias.

 

[Snowball1935]

It seems obvious to me that those who can do most harm on the road should show a greater level of care to those who can do least harm.

Who says a cyclist cannot do the most harm. If a cyclist acted dangerously in the path of an HGV, and the driver’s emergency braking caused a jackknife which resulted in a major accident, then that cyclist has caused the most harm.
The greatest mistake by the lawmakers is that of assuming all road users (from pedestrians to wheeled traffic) will be familiar with the HC, and all will obey the rules in the face of punitive consequences.

 

[Steve1]

Cyclists and motorcyclists frequently wear head cams. The problems with these are that they do not accurately record the scene. For example, the camera deliberately turned towards the “incident” will not always provide the measurements needed to determine the exact closeness to say whether it was a ‘near miss’ or sufficient room was given.

Recently, I had a cyclist pass fast on my inside as the traffic slowed, then he cut across my front and passed the next vehicle on its offside. He then cut across oncoming traffic to reach the pavement on the opposite side.
At any point during this manoeuvre, had he come to grief there is no way he could have claimed not to have been the cause of the accident.

To complete this mockery of road sense, further along a lot with following cyclist passed me on the inside, then also attempted to pass the car in front of me which was still reducing speed to turn left, AND with the trafficators clearly showing that intention.
I think a lot of innocent drivers are likely to suffer from some changes to the Highway Code. Because, in the final analysis, the police/courts are going to measure the success on the basis of profit. And this will pursued by using bias.

I think there are always excuses, and yes there will always be extreme cases and bad cyclists as much as bad car drivers, what always surprises me though is the level of anger, often followed by aggressive driving that can come from what must amount to seconds of delay to motorists.
I cycle about 10 miles a day on the road, I am not a particularly fussy cyclist, no helmet cam (or even helmet) I am not overly bothered by the terribly close over taking manoeuvres, there will be at least one each day amongst the mostly good ones. What really bothers me is when someone who feels you held them up too long purposely tries to get so close and pull in so sharply, in an attempt to purposely scare you. Sometimes this is accompanied by some shouting out of their window too !
I often find it hard to believe that these people don't have some level of empathy to compensate there terrible irrational anger, do none of their loved ones ever cycle ?

 

[Steve1]

Who says a cyclist cannot do the most harm. If a cyclist acted dangerously in the path of an HGV, and the driver’s emergency braking caused a jackknife which resulted in a major accident, then that cyclist has caused the most harm.
The greatest mistake by the lawmakers is that of assuming all road users (from pedestrians to wheeled traffic) will be familiar with the HC, and all will obey the rules in the face of punitive consequences.

I wonder how many cases of the situation you describe there are per year vs. cyclists killed by cars just knocking them off, be an interesting statistical comparison.

 

[Amarillo]

Who says a cyclist cannot do the most harm.

The statistics do (not hypothetical scenarios).

HGV. drivers kill about 100 cyclists per year.

Cyclists kill zero HGV drivers per year.

(Cyclists kill about 1 pedestrian every two years).

 

[andyinluton]

I don’t agree with your statistics.
A quick google points to the .gov statistics site, their records show between 2015 and 2020 hgvs were involved in 92 fatal accidents with cyclists. That is a huge amount less than 100 a year.

There is no breakdown showing how many of those 92 put themselves in precarious positions, riding up the inside of a vehicle indicating and turning right, jumping red lights etc.

The Guardian in 2018 stated the average number of pedestrians killed by cyclists is 2.5 per year.
In 2020 there were 5 fatalities caused by cyclists.

 

[owen_h]

In 2020 there were 5 fatalities caused by cyclists.

And if I’m looking at the same gov.co.uk chart 559 caused by car drivers. (140 by HGV).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andyinluton]

And if I’m looking at the same gov.co.uk chart 559 caused by car drivers. (140 by HGV).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It doesn’t say caused by, it’s killed in an accident involving.

 

[Amarillo]

I don’t agree with your statistics.
A quick google points to the .gov statistics site, their records show between 2015 and 2020 hgvs were involved in 92 fatal accidents with cyclists. That is a huge amount less than 100 a year.

There is no breakdown showing how many of those 92 put themselves in precarious positions, riding up the inside of a vehicle indicating and turning right, jumping red lights etc.

The Guardian in 2018 stated the average number of pedestrians killed by cyclists is 2.5 per year.
In 2020 there were 5 fatalities caused by cyclists.

My bad. I read the figures as a single year, not over five years.

I’ve still to learn of a single HGV driver killed after a collision with a cyclist - which suggests that HGV drivers behind the wheel are infinitely more dangerous to cyclists than cyclists are to HGV drivers.

 

[owen_h]

It doesn’t say caused by, it’s killed in an accident involving.

True, my bad. It also doesn’t say the cyclist vs pedestrian fatalities were caused by the cyclist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Amarillo]

There is no breakdown showing how many of those 92 put themselves in precarious positions, riding up the inside of a vehicle indicating and turning right

You say that as if indicating gives a motorist a right to turn. It doesn’t. It should be used to indicate a desire, and certainly does not absolve a motorist of a duty to only manoeuvre if it is safe to do so.

That said, lorry design is also very poor, restricting divers’ view of hazards. Vehicles such as coaches and bin lorries have found a way to resolve this with much bigger front screens enabling drivers to see much closer to the front and large side windows.

It is possible to improve visibility for HGV drivers.

 

[Amarillo]

True, my bad. It also doesn’t say the cyclist vs pedestrian fatalities were caused by the cyclist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A good article here:

The road users most likely to kill others driving, cycling or on foot

The report uses road casualty data for 2019 and splits road users into cars, HGVs, vans, buses and coaches, small- and larger-capacity motorcycles and scooters, cyclists and pedestrians.

www.thisismoney.co.uk

 

[Snowball1935]

Nowhere in the HC does it refer to a trafficator being in indication of a desire to turn. Anyone ignoring such indication would be taking a huge chance of causing a road safety hazard.
Road safety is all about positives, which means that road users complete their manoeuvres in accordance with the intention indicated.
Would you pull out into traffic flow because no indication was only a driver’s desire to travel straight on? Of course you wouldn’t - such an act would be foolish in the extreme, in the same way that ignoring a trafficator would be.

 

[andyinluton]

You say that as if indicating gives a motorist a right to turn. It doesn’t. It should be used to indicate a desire, and certainly does not absolve a motorist of a duty to only manoeuvre if it is safe to do so.

No, I am saying that there are a large number of cyclists who decide its sensible to undertake down the left hand side of a lorry when it’s already indicating left as it slows down to do a very careful left turn.

 

[WelshGas]

I have seen innumerable cyclists undertaking vehicles on the Left side, intending to go straight on, when that lane is LEFT turn ONLY and complaining vociferously when the vehicle turns LEFT as it has to do.

So who is at fault in that scenario?

Cyclists and vehicle drivers should have the same rights and obligations regarding road safety etc: WHEN the driver/cyclist and vehicle/cycle can be Identified . At the moment the law is skewed against the vehicle/vehicle driver as they can be identified.

 

[SamSara]

Perhaps as more of us are taking up our bikes (196.9p diesel ) the understanding of the legislation will increase. whatever the law I am a very defensive cyclist- I can’t argue my right of way from a coma

 

[Amarillo]

Nowhere in the HC does it refer to a trafficator being in indication of a desire to turn. Anyone ignoring such indication would be taking a huge chance of causing a road safety hazard.
Road safety is all about positives, which means that road users complete their manoeuvres in accordance with the intention indicated.
Would you pull out into traffic flow because no indication was only a driver’s desire to travel straight on? Of course you wouldn’t - such an act would be foolish in the extreme, in the same way that ignoring a trafficator would be.

Neither does indicating give a motorist a right to turn. Especially not if it is unsafe to do so. The onus is (or should be) on the person turning to only do so if it is safe, and it is certainly not safe to do so if there is a cyclist alongside.

A relatively common error of HGV drivers is to pull right alongside a slower moving cyclist shortly before swinging left into a narrow side road. It seems unjustly unfair to blame the cyclist for the dangerous manoeuvring of killer HGV drivers when perhaps they haven’t even had an opportunity to see the indicators.

And HGV drivers kill more pedestrians each year than they kill cyclists. Are those pedestrians to blame also? And what about the countless railings and corner bollards taken out by HGV drivers: are they to blame too!?