Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Changes to Highway Code could cut journey times for cyclists says British Cycling infrastructure advisor

Comments come as part of organisation’s Turning the Corner campaign

British Cycling’s infrastructure advisor says that the introduction of a universal rule to give way when turning at junctions would help address the issue whereby many cycle lanes are currently less convenient to use than the road.

British Cycling, the AA and pedestrian groups are calling for a universal rule to give way when turning to reduce the risk of cyclists and pedestrians falling victim to left hooks and have launched a petition to drum up support. Over 14,000 people have signed so far.

Transport planning consultant Adrian Lord says the reason why many cycle lanes disappear at junctions is because there is no clear rule on giving way, so engineers protect themselves by not providing anything at all.

Lord said:

“Designers already have various options to provide priority to pedestrians and cyclists crossing side roads using various give-way signs, crossings and other physical features such as speed humps depending on the exact circumstances.

“They are reluctant to deploy these however, for the simple reason that drivers may not ‘give way’ as intended. This is despite 14 separate existing Highway Code rules that are meant to deter drivers from overtaking, cutting in and running into pedestrians and cyclists crossing side road junctions.

“This simple change in the Highway Code would be the first step of embedding this custom in the UK and help to deliver better cycling infrastructure.”

Lord says that he spends a good deal of time riding on the road next to ‘cycling infrastructure’ but not on it. “Due to the deficiencies in the Highway Code, cycle lanes are frequently less convenient than using the main road so will often only ever be used by beginners,” he said.

He points out that many cycle lanes involve stopping at every side road and they often disappear at junctions just when cyclists need the most protection.

“They can be inconvenient and uncomfortable as they require you to slow or stop, look behind for cars turning, look ahead for cars turning in from your right, look into the side road for cars approaching.

“It is estimated that the human effort required to stop moving and then start again on a bicycle is equivalent to adding on over 200m (almost a lap of Manchester Velodrome) to the journey. Stop at five side roads or more and you’ve added the equivalent of 1km and several minutes to a journey.”

Lord therefore concludes that a change in the wording of the Highway Code would help cut journey times for cyclists and deliver better cycling infrastructure.

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

10 comments

Avatar
Spencer_G | 7 years ago
0 likes

Are you referring to Cycle 'Lanes' (i.e. marked on the carriageway) or Cycle Tracks/Paths?

Avatar
urbane | 7 years ago
0 likes

I'd have thought that a better change would be to add extra solid and single dash line markings on the road to indicate that cyclists have priority around the corner and across the junction.

Avatar
Jharrison5 | 7 years ago
2 likes

Do insurers refer to the Highway Code, or the Road Traffic Act?

I thought that presumed liability could only be pursued in civil courts, not criminal ones. Does that mean that legal action would only be an option for those wealthy enough to persue it independently?

Avatar
Simon_MacMichael replied to Jharrison5 | 7 years ago
3 likes

Jharrison5 wrote:

Do insurers refer to the Highway Code, or the Road Traffic Act? I thought that presumed liability could only be pursued in civil courts, not criminal ones. Does that mean that legal action would only be an option for those wealthy enough to persue it independently?

Neither. A motor insurance policy, at minimum (though AFAIK it's almost impossible to get that these days) will cover the driver for legal liability for causing bodily injury or property damage to third parties.

That's civil law, while the RTA creates criminal offences (which are uninsurable as counter to public policy).

Presumed liability is a civil, not criminal, concept, correct.

Most household insurance policies will have an extension - automatically included, or available at extra cost - to pursue a claim for bodily injury, and access to legal advice to be able to pursue a claim is also a benefit of eg British Cycling or Cycling UK membership.

Avatar
ktache | 7 years ago
1 like

Maybe, but then it would go against the principle of might is right so probably will not be enforced.

If the former justice secretary and current transport secretary can't be bothered to follow the current rules in the highway code what hope is there for the rest of them.

Motorists already know that speeding, drink driving, phone use and driving without insurance or a licence are all illegal, but it doesn't tend to stop them doing it.

 

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 7 years ago
5 likes

Call me a cynic, but the problem motorists are unlikely to read a new Highway Code when they don't follow the rules in the existing one.

Although this is a good idea, it's like fixing a broken leg with a band-aid. Presumed liability would be the most effective way to change road users' attitudes (and would probably give a boost to the dash-cam industry too).

Avatar
Bluebug replied to hawkinspeter | 7 years ago
1 like

hawkinspeter wrote:

Call me a cynic, but the problem motorists are unlikely to read a new Highway Code when they don't follow the rules in the existing one.

Although this is a good idea, it's like fixing a broken leg with a band-aid. Presumed liability would be the most effective way to change road users' attitudes (and would probably give a boost to the dash-cam industry too).

If the position was clarified in the Highway Code e.g. "MUST" being used rather than "SHOULD" then insurance company lawyers wouldn't be able to argue for no or lower payouts to vunerable road users who are injured.  

Presumed liabilty is never codified in UK laws but with insurance companies certain common rules are agreed. For example as a driver if you go into the back of another vehicle, whether they did an emergency stop or not for no good reason, you are at automatically at fault unless you can show  otherwise and that is otherwise is extremely difficult to justify.   This is why the "crash for cash" works.

Once a few motorists get done for running over cyclists and pediastrians then believe me people will be aware.

Avatar
brooksby | 7 years ago
5 likes

Quote:

...help address the issue whereby many cycle lanes are currently less convenient to use than the road...

But isn't the problem that many authorities really couldn't care less about whether it is less convenient? They've ticked the box for 'putting in a cycle lane' and that's all that matters.

Avatar
Jharrison5 | 7 years ago
0 likes

That 15th rule will make all the difference.

Avatar
I love my bike | 7 years ago
0 likes

Hurrah!

If it does happen, hopefully there will be some funds to inform everybody of the change, so vehicles don't continue to bully those smaller than themselves.

Latest Comments