log in
register

Gov.uk consultation proposals on a review of The Highway Code

Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)
1 2
  • Author
    Replies
  • July 29, 2020 at 9:37 pm #962849
    0
    LetsBePartOfTheSolution

    I don’t have much knowledge

    I don’t have much knowledge of horses and their temperament. But today I ( totally honestly) had a pedestrian side-step dramatically right into my intended path – a wasp caused that.

    So I guess we’re all vulnerable users in some way, and need extra consideration. But I think our planet would be poorer if we were to exclude rather than make allowances.
     

    I think lockdown largely calmed everything down.  So maybe we are able to be more accommodating.

    Putting my transport cards on the table:  

    Pedestrians – yes please.  
    Horses and riders – yes please.  
    Cyclists – yes please   
    Motoring – necessary, but please try to reduce, and please try to be a good neighbour and not a bully.  Would welcome cleaner modes, and automation.
    Flying – in moderation   
    Trains – seem sensible 

    July 29, 2020 at 9:02 pm #962845
    0
    LetsBePartOfTheSolution

    People here with far more

    People here with far more knowledge than me are doing an excellent job of going over the rights and wrongs of the proposed code changes.

    But I would at least like to focus on the really poor, and ambiguous,  style. The words should stand on their own feet ( even without diagrams ) but instead are so imprecise as to often mean something totally unintended.

    Eg.   ( all three conditions must be met )
    “On narrow sections of road, at road junctions and in slower-moving traffic, cyclists may….”

    Should be:  ( any of three )
    “On narrow sections of road;  or
    at road junctions;   or
    in slower-moving traffic;   
     cyclists may….”

    My experience of the HC is that its wording is so open to multiple interpretations that one could drive a coach and horses through it ( where carriage-driving is safe and permitted )

    eg:     
    “As a guide: ─ leave a minimum distance of 1.5 metres at”…

    (   “As a guide” what does that mean ?   if their style is to use “Should” or “Must” … then they Must do so consistently, this clause needs to be “should leave” or “must leave” )
    and   
    (   “a minimum distance”…  I wouldn’t want to be overtaken in an arc of only 1.5m – ie the approach from the rear would be terrifying )

    They can’t even describe clearance  for a car door unambiguously:  
    “ride at least a door’s width or 0.5m from parked cars”   
    ( they mean a door’s length, not its width, of a few cm.  And which do they mean…at least the door’s length, or at least 0.5m…about half a door. Why state both, they are totally different distances )

    Banging my forehead on the newly delivered refrigerator 

     

     

    July 29, 2020 at 8:37 pm #962847
    0
    LetsBePartOfTheSolution

    Don’t they call it a “footway

    Don’t they call it a “footway” ?

    July 29, 2020 at 7:58 pm #962843
    0
    Hirsute

    Have horses ever been safe on

    Have horses ever been safe on roads ? I’ve read a few comments on here about how startled they get, one was about a crisp packet being blown around.

    July 29, 2020 at 6:18 pm #962841
    0
    LetsBePartOfTheSolution

    Sorry. I still make that 2

    Sorry. I still make that 2 brains. I keep re-reading it and nope still only 2.   
    Oh hang on. They’re actually counting it as a further 1 brain for any driver who is in need of HC reminding them that horses can be startled by their ( poor ) pass.

    So yes it is 3 after all, and I agree with your point that they should not all be given equivalence. Which of them did you down-rate ?

    Being sensible for a moment – given that roads started with people, livestock, horses, drawn-vehicles… 
    And then came bicycles… 
    And finally arrived motorised vehicles….             

    ….it might be somewhat ungracious to start a progression to delete the original permissions in favour of each successive more-recent inclusion. Better if each new inclusion is permitted only whilst maintaining the safety and privileges of the incumbents – foibles and all.  That’s how most assimilation works in the world  🙂    
     

     

     

     

     

     

    July 29, 2020 at 6:09 pm #962839
    0
    mdavidford

    You can’t just leave it there

    You can’t just leave it there. You have to tell us which one you think is not equivalent.

    July 29, 2020 at 4:51 pm #962837
    0
    Hirsute

    When I read things such as

    When I read things such as

    ‘Take great care and treat all horses as a potential hazard; they can be unpredictable
    despite the efforts of their rider/driver. Remember there are three brains at work
    when you pass a horse; the rider’s, the driver’s and the horse’s. Don’t forget
    horses are flight animals and can move incredibly quickly if startled.’

    It’s hard not to conclude that horses should not be on roads.

    Saying there are 3 brains at work seems to give equivalence to the brains.

     

    July 29, 2020 at 4:32 pm #962835
    0
    mdavidford

    Strangely, they don’t appear

    Strangely, they don’t appear to be proposing to amend Rule 53, which gives the identical advice to horse riders.

    July 29, 2020 at 4:03 pm #962829
    0
    Sriracha

    Indeed, the two-abreast thing
    Indeed, the two-abreast thing is a distraction and should be eliminated. It plays into the motorist’s psychology that the cyclist is not entitled to the lane and is a hinderance to be suffered only to the extent of the motorist’s forbearance.

    July 29, 2020 at 3:59 pm #962833
    0
    mdavidford

    Well a pavement is any hard

    Well a pavement is any hard surfacing, so technically I think that means cars are banned from most roads.

    Although, unfortunately, so are cycles.

    July 29, 2020 at 3:57 pm #962831
    0
    Hirsute

    You can in London where it is

    You can in London where it is specifically marked

    https://goo.gl/maps/JVgAznvqZ8VHfCbR7

    You park in the dashed bit and you can just see the blue P sign.

    July 29, 2020 at 3:48 pm #962827
    0
    Sriracha

    “Only pedestrians may use the
    “Only pedestrians may use the pavement.”
    Seems clear enough. So motorists can not use the pavement, for parking cars on?

    July 29, 2020 at 12:28 pm #962825
    0
    Hirsute

    The whole 2 abreast thing

    The whole 2 abreast thing needs to be ditched and just say a group of cyclists may take up the whole width of a lane (just like a car).

    A fair point about single lanes.

    July 29, 2020 at 11:57 am #962823
    0
    EK Spinner

    I think it should take the

    I think it should take the form of

    “Motor vehicles overtaking cyclists (and horses) should pass (once safe and clear) in the next lane to the right, except on single track roads” clearing up the definition of how close the pass should be and the slightly wooly definition of narrow lanes

    along with something like this “Groups of cyclists should normally ride 2 abreast except when passing (or being passed by) motor vehicles on single track roads”

    July 29, 2020 at 11:53 am #962821
    0
    mdavidford

    They could just leave off the

    They could just leave off the first couple of clauses of Rule 213 though:

    Cyclists may sometimes ride in the centre of the lane…
  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)
1 2
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.