Highway Code Changes

[Amarillo]

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.

That might happen occasionally, but I think it is unlikely in the majority of cases as HGVs generally travel so much faster than cyclists.

A far more likely scenario is a lorry overtaking or partially overtaking a cyclist shortly before turning left; and if indicating left, leaving the cyclist little or no opportunity to see the indicators. And even if indicating, it does not give an HGV driver the right to turn without checking first.

 

[Amarillo]

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?

Difficult one that.

Given that it is unlawful for even a three year old to cycle on the pavement, is it right to expect all cyclists to have the skills and confidence to manoeuvre to the centre of a right hand lane to continue ahead.

I think the best thing would be for drivers to expect cyclists in the left lane to be going ahead.

 

[Borris]

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!?

I was once in the unenviable position of being involved in a fatal accident involving a pedestrian. Who was at fault you may ask? The pedestrian, who was drunk and had climbed over the railings designed to keep people out of the live carriageway. It was also an elevated section of road with no pedestrian pavement! That incident still haunts me to this day and isn't something I usually want to talk about however road safety is very important subject which every one should take very seriously so for this thread I want to say my peice.

It seems to me that standards of driving are definitely deteriorating. On any drive from A to B you will usually witness many blatant departures from the guidance and rules contained in the HC. I'm not singling out any particular group of road users because there is no group that is innocent but it does seem to me that since pedestrians and cyclists potentially have the most to lose then you would naturally expect them to take their own safety seriously.

I live near Canterbury which has several universities and correspondingly has a very high student population and there are many cycles in use. Amongst many other things the HC states that: "At night your cycle MUST have white front and a red rear lights lit". Seeing a bike being ridden at night with lights is very much the exception rather than the norm. Helmets and reflective clothing are almost never seen in use. Several months ago I very nearly collided with one young rider as I turned into an unlit minor road from a main road. He/she was wearing a dark hoody and trousers and was showing no lights at all. It didn't help that this young person was riding at speed and suddenly appeared from the pavement on one side of the minor road across my path to the pavement on the other side. What would have happened if there had been a collision involving an injury or worse? Well I am pretty sure from my previous experience that the police would first have looked for any defect on my car then they'd have probably grilled me on how the controls work and what lights I was showing at the time. I would then have been taken to the nearest available police station where I'd have had my finger prints taken along with a DNA swob. I'd then be asked to make a full statement under caution. Routine proceedure perhaps but none the less very distressing with serious implications for both the rider and motorist. This could also be the prelude to months or possibly years of mental anguish.

And to the golden retriever who only last week suddenly appeared into my path from between two parked cars, please give the individual on the other end of your lead a healthy nip from me because he nearly got you killed. He too was wearing a hoody and was far too busy on his phone to consentrate on his surroundings or you.

Isolated examples I know but my point is that just because the HC now has a "Hierarchy of road users" at its core it doesn't absolve anyone from having regard for their own as well as other road users safety.

 

[WelshGas]

Difficult one that.

Given that it is unlawful for even a three year old to cycle on the pavement, is it right to expect all cyclists to have the skills and confidence to manoeuvre to the centre of a right hand lane to continue ahead.

I think the best thing would be for drivers to expect cyclists in the left lane to be going ahead.

Why?
If the lane is a dedicated Left hand only lane, not a dual lane ( straight ahead or L turn only) then the cyclist is totally at fault as any vehicle in that lane is turning Left only as there is no option for straight ahead.

 

[Amarillo]

Why?
If the lane is a dedicated Left hand only lane, not a dual lane ( straight ahead or L turn only) then the cyclist is totally at fault as any vehicle in that lane is turning Left only as there is no option for straight ahead.

Would you really expect a young or inexperienced cyclist to manoeuvre into a lane on the right.

Around here, most lanes like that have a very sensible “except cyclists” signs. Unfortunately, it seems rare for road planners to consider cyclists when designing road layouts.

 

[GrannyJen]

Frankly the standard of cycling proficiency in this country is abysmal.I'm saying this also as a "born-again cyclist".

The flagrant disregard for other users, especially pedestrians, exhibited by so many is appalling.

The absence of lights at night, audible means of warning etc is pathetic, pathetic because who's going to get hurt when the "invisible" cyclist gets splattered by something 3 times faster and 20 times heavier? I've just returned from a 30 mile trip today and as I reached home Max the dog had to cover his ears with his paws as a juvenile numbnut with ambitions to be a kamikaze pilot rode off a pavement straight into the road in front of me without even looking.

The cycling on pavements, the cycling on "footpath only" is so often undertaken with a sense of entitlement that is breathtaking in it's arrogance.

Strangely enough, my experience with drivers is quite a favourable one, although I doubt if I ever make a trip on a road without someone passing me at least as close as Wayne Humphries, who I have no sympathy for as he could have just gone on a driver awareness course and didn't have to ignore an FPN.

Sorry, I love my bike, I love riding it everywhere, but the disregard that some have for their own lives in riding like complete tossers in traffic does the cycling community no favours.

 

[WelshGas]

Would you really expect a young or inexperienced cyclist to manoeuvre into a lane on the right.

Around here, most lanes like that have a very sensible “except cyclists” signs. Unfortunately, it seems rare for road planners to consider cyclists when designing road layouts.

Yes, if they wish to proceed straight ahead. Otherwise they shouldn’t be on the road .

If they are that young and inexperienced then they should be confined to the garden or public park. Certainly they should not be on the public highway on their own without an understanding of the Highway Code, unless closely supervised by a competent adult.

 

[Perfectos]

When you dead you dead, it won’t be important to you who was right and
who was wrong &if you had right of way ( you dead) simples

 

[Amarillo]

Frankly the standard of cycling proficiency in this country is abysmal.I'm saying this also as a "born-again cyclist".

The flagrant disregard for other users, especially pedestrians, exhibited by so many is appalling.

The absence of lights at night, audible means of warning etc is pathetic, pathetic because who's going to get hurt when the "invisible" cyclist gets splattered by something 3 times faster and 20 times heavier? I've just returned from a 30 mile trip today and as I reached home Max the dog had to cover his ears with his paws as a juvenile numbnut with ambitions to be a kamikaze pilot rode off a pavement straight into the road in front of me without even looking.

The cycling on pavements, the cycling on "footpath only" is so often undertaken with a sense of entitlement that is breathtaking in it's arrogance.

Strangely enough, my experience with drivers is quite a favourable one, although I doubt if I ever make a trip on a road without someone passing me at least as close as Wayne Humphries, who I have no sympathy for as he could have just gone on a driver awareness course and didn't have to ignore an FPN.

Sorry, I love my bike, I love riding it everywhere, but the disregard that some have for their own lives in riding like complete tossers in traffic does the cycling community no favours.

Sorry @GrannyJen but the above is victim blaming by proxy.

Just because some cyclists have no lights at night or ride on pavements is no excuse for fatal driving by some HGV drivers.

The principal that those who can cause the most harm need to take most care and responsibility is sound.

 

[Steve1]

Yes, if they wish to proceed straight ahead. Otherwise they shouldn’t be on the road .

If they are that young and inexperienced then they should be confined to the garden or public park. Certainly they should not be on the public highway on their own without an understanding of the Highway Code, unless closely supervised by a competent adult.

Or looking at it from another point of view perhaps we should be less judgemental and try to cut a bit of slack in situations which are difficult even if it slows us down a little, whether it's your fault or not, or you are right or wrong. It's obvious that cyclists also have a responsibility to be safe but when they make a mistake careful non-aggressive driving can save the situation without any drama. This rule can be applied to cars too.
Moving across to a different lane in traffic, is a difficult maneuver even for experienced cyclists, it's not like anyone let's cyclists over for fear of being held up ! That is why the highway code makes allowance for cyclists to right turn at roundabouts, while staying in the left lane all the way round.
I have cycled a little on the road with my children and it is very sad how dangerous it is, even on slower roads designated as national cycling routes. Massive improvements are needed in that respect. If we are to improve our environment, providing a safe cycling environment, to encourage more people to cycle instead of drive is much more important than most other suggested "solutions".

 

[Amarillo]

Yes, if they wish to proceed straight ahead. Otherwise they shouldn’t be on the road .

If they are that young and inexperienced then they should be confined to the garden or public park. Certainly they should not be on the public highway on their own without an understanding of the Highway Code, unless closely supervised by a competent adult.

Have you ever tried filtering across two lanes of motor traffic at 30mph when at best you can manage 15mph? It’s not easy.

If going straight ahead and there’s a left filter lane and a straight ahead lane to the right it is probably far safer for the cyclist to ride central in the left filter lane to prevent being overtaken in that lane, then go straight ahead at the junction.

It’s a bit more complicated if there’s a left filter traffic light, but hopefully if that is the case the road designers will have thought to include an advance bike box at the lights to give the cyclist some refuge.

 

[GrannyJen]

Sorry @GrannyJen but the above is victim blaming by proxy.

Just because some cyclists have no lights at night or ride on pavements is no excuse for fatal driving by some HGV drivers.

The principal that those who can cause the most harm need to take most care and responsibility is sound.

Well said Tom...

Did you actually read what I posted?

Where in heavens name was I referring to HGV drivers or any other driver?

I was referring to what I see as an overall standard of cycling by so many who sadly put the cycling community into a very poor light.

 

[andyinluton]

Sorry @GrannyJen but the above is victim blaming by proxy.

Just because some cyclists have no lights at night or ride on pavements is no excuse for fatal driving by some HGV drivers.

The principal that those who can cause the most harm need to take most care and responsibility is sound.

Why do you keep banging on about HGV drivers always being at fault ? Between 2015 and 2020 more cyclists were killed without any other vehicle being involved than were killed by HGVs

If a cyclist can’t use common sense to not put themselves in danger - ie ignoring other vehicles signals, using lights at night, obeying traffic signs they should not be allowed on the roads ( or pavement). That’s not victim blaming, it’s taking responsibility for your own actions.

 

[Steve1]

Why do you keep banging on about HGV drivers always being at fault ? Between 2015 and 2020 more cyclists were killed without any other vehicle being involved than were killed by HGVs

If a cyclist can’t use common sense to not put themselves in danger - ie ignoring other vehicles signals, using lights at night, obeying traffic signs they should not be allowed on the roads ( or pavement). That’s not victim blaming, it’s taking responsibility for your own actions.

Although this thread has ended up with the usual suggestions that cyclists get killed because of there own bad cycling, because someone saw one doing something wrong once. I suspect that there are a great many who are also killed through no fault of their own, caused by bad driving (mostly by car drivers rather than HGV, most HGV drivers try to be careful at least). I drive and cycle in roughly equal measures and I rarely see a cyclist behaving in a dangerous way, compared to very often being dangerously overtaken on a straight piece of road where I definitely can't be accused of being in the wrong place. As said earlier, what makes it worse is that some of these are not even poor judgement, but driven by anger cause by slight delay because the road is narrow and drivers may have to wait until it widens out a bit.

 

[Perfectos]

but hopefully

Now there in lies the problem , “but hopefully “

but hopefully cyclist “ me included” can take some responsibility for their actions rather than expect other road users to account for what they might do !
Tom I like your style, but everyone has a responsibility to other road users. bikes included

 

[Perfectos]

Just because some cyclists have no lights at night or ride on pavements is no excuse for fatal driving by some HGV drivers

Think ! If you hit a cyclist with no lights on your vehicle you would be prosecuted!

why would a cyclist who occupies the same road space not have lights on their bike?
Because it’s the other road users responsibility to look out for bikes ! That’s pure BS

everyone has a collective responsibility to look after each other? the most vulnerable should take the most precutations, not because they could but because they should ( with the most to loose) !

edit: ex motor bike rider # if only this applied to motor bikes as well !

 

[Steve1]

Think ! If you hit a cyclist with no lights on your vehicle you would be prosecuted!

why would a cyclist who occupies the same road space not have lights on their bike?
Because it’s the other road users responsibility to look out for bikes ! That’s pure BS

everyone has a collective responsibility to look after each other? the most vulnerable should take the most precutations, not because they could but because they should ( with the most to loose) !

edit: ex motor bike rider # if only this applied to motor bikes as well !

But what if you do use lights at night like you should, and wear visible clothes and all of the safety precautions, but it's still not enough to stop danger caused by bad driving, should we just not cycle in the dark, or on particular roads ... or maybe not at all, to "take responsibility for our safety". Sadly this is the decision many of us have face at certain times and in certain places, but do we all really think that's the way it should be.

 

[Perfectos]

But what if you do use lights at night like you should, and wear visible clothes and all of the safety precautions, but it's still not enough to stop danger caused by bad driving, should we just not cycle in the dark, or on particular roads ... or maybe not at all, to "take responsibility for our safety". Sadly this is the decision many of us have face at certain times and in certain places, but do we all really think that's the way it should be.

Agree, if you do all you can to make yourself visible, (including lights) you have done all you can do, there is. No argument from me that driving standards could be better but as an ex motor cyclist i am aware of how much damage impact with a vehicle does. It should be avoided at all costs and you should do all you can to avoid contact (whom ever is to blame)

it is not the way it should be, but it is the way it is!
right, wrong, indifference, simply avoid the problem and you may live longer!

 

[WelshGas]

But what if you do use lights at night like you should, and wear visible clothes and all of the safety precautions, but it's still not enough to stop danger caused by bad driving, should we just not cycle in the dark, or on particular roads ... or maybe not at all, to "take responsibility for our safety". Sadly this is the decision many of us have face at certain times and in certain places, but do we all really think that's the way it should be.

Driving or cycling is a risk but whether you are a vehicle driver or a cyclist you should be responsible for your actions. Driving/cycling at night without lights is irresponsible, going straight in a L only lane is irresponsible for a vehicle driver/cyclist. Both are responsible for minimising the risk to themselves and others.
Bad, dangerous, irresponsible driving or cycling is a danger to the perpetrator and others. The problem is vehicle drivers can usually be identified and brought to justice, cyclists cannot.
I have dashcam footage of dangerous/irresponsible cycling, but what use is it as the perpetrator cannot be identified.

 

[westfalia]

Bike riders come in 3 categories to me.

Hobby ones
Happy go easy ones
Total wanker ones

I've had a few issues but they've soon shot off after I've pulled over to
discuss the matter, they were all big and brave shouting and waving their arms around but
didn't want a face to face reasonable discussion.

I hate that type

 

[Amarillo]

Now there in lies the problem , “but hopefully “

but hopefully cyclist “ me included” can take some responsibility for their actions rather than expect other road users to account for what they might do !
Tom I like your style, but everyone has a responsibility to other road users. bikes included

No one, as far as I can tell, is not denying that everyone has responsibility to themselves and others.

What the revised Highway Code seeks to do is create a hierarchy of road user where those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others.

This makes perfect sense.

It does not imply that cyclists or pedestrians have no responsibility.

 

[WelshGas]

No one, as far as I can tell, is not denying that everyone has responsibility to themselves and others.

What the revised Highway Code seeks to do is create a hierarchy of road user where those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others.

This makes perfect sense.

It does not imply that cyclists or pedestrians have no responsibility.

How do you suggest the irresponsible members of society be taken to task.
Combined cycle/pedestrian pathway, clearly marked with icons and central white line but large groups of pedestrians walking abreast across both sections with dogs on long leads or no leads obstructing the cycle way. Cyclists exceeding the posted speed limit. Pedestrians stepping out between parked cars glued to their phones.
Cyclists crossing red lights or riding wrong way on One way streets.
These people take no responsibility for their actions depending on others to keep them safe.
At least the vehicle driver who exceeds the speed limit or overtakes in an unsafe manner can be identified and brought to task.

It seems that vehicle drivers are expected to take responsibility for their own actions + the irresponsible actions of these individuals as well especially as they cannot be identified.

We are now in a society where the responsible individuals are subject to increasing supervision and legal measures to protect the idiots in society.
Darwin definitely had a point.

 

[Digger]

The system is unfair as cyclists cannot be identified. They need protection but also require to observe rules and stop behaving in an arrogant, entitled manner. I speak as a cyclist myself. Wbat has happened to good manners and respect?

 

[soulstyledevon]

I cycle and drive in fairly equal amounts, and would say there’s far more bad driving than I see bad cycling.
It’s clear what the issue is. Lack of cycling infrastructure…!!!
Last month I was in Holland and what a breath of fresh air that place is.
Cars, trucks and buses will happily slow down and allow you to cross the road sections, safely, on-ward to another segregated cycle way.
Instead of wasting billions on silly out dated high speed rail, we need decent localised cycling infrastructure.

 

[Borris]

I cycle and drive in fairly equal amounts, and would say there’s far more bad driving than I see bad cycling.
It’s clear what the issue is. Lack of cycling infrastructure…!!!
Last month I was in Holland and what a breath of fresh air that place is.
Cars, trucks and buses will happily slow down and allow you to cross the road sections, safely, on-ward to another segregated cycle way.
Instead of wasting billions on silly out dated high speed rail, we need decent localised cycling infrastructure.

View attachment 94845

View attachment 94846

I agree about the high speed rail but spending yet more millions on a cycling infrastructure that cyclists are not obliged to use?