Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

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

A friend linked me to this Government consultation on the review of the Highway Code, published today - https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-t...

About halfway down - this bit has me concerned;

Quote:

update Rule 66 ...
[cyclists’ should] ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so. When riding in larger groups on narrow lanes, it is sometimes safer to ride two abreast

which is a change from, as far as I can see,

Quote:

[should] ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends

Whilst I appreciate the second part of the revision (narrow lanes), does the first not open cyclists up to receiving a lot of abuse/dangerous passes from drivers who 'wish to overtake' and there is a difference of opinion about whether that is safe or not?

(The main consultation page is https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-t...)

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

26 comments

Avatar
mdavidford | 3 years ago
0 likes

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

Avatar
Hirsute replied to mdavidford | 3 years ago
0 likes

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.

 

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Hirsute | 3 years ago
2 likes

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

Avatar
LetsBePartOfThe... replied to Hirsute | 3 years ago
2 likes

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   1    
 

 

 

 

 

 

Avatar
Hirsute replied to LetsBePartOfTheSolution | 3 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
LetsBePartOfThe... replied to Hirsute | 3 years ago
1 like

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 

Avatar
Sriracha | 3 years ago
4 likes

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

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Sriracha | 3 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Sriracha | 3 years ago
0 likes

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

Although, unfortunately, so are cycles.

Avatar
LetsBePartOfThe... replied to Sriracha | 3 years ago
1 like

Don't they call it a "footway" ?

Avatar
EK Spinner | 3 years ago
3 likes

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"

Avatar
Hirsute replied to EK Spinner | 3 years ago
7 likes

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.

Avatar
Sriracha replied to Hirsute | 3 years ago
3 likes

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.

Avatar
CXR94Di2 | 3 years ago
0 likes

Where is presumed liability, mass advertising campaign to public to drum it into stupid drivers that they need to stay clear of cyclists

Avatar
mdavidford replied to CXR94Di2 | 3 years ago
0 likes

CXR94Di2 wrote:

Where is presumed liability, mass advertising campaign to public to drum it into stupid drivers that they need to stay clear of cyclists

Those would be separate things. If you've been tasked with reviewing the Highway Code, you can only reflect the current law and add surrounding advice. You can't go around creating new law and policy - those are someone else's responsibility.

Avatar
quiff replied to CXR94Di2 | 3 years ago
0 likes

It's not presumed liability but, to be fair, it does propose introducing an express concept of a hierarchy or road users ~bigger vehicle more responsibility  

Avatar
Hirsute | 3 years ago
0 likes

//pbs.twimg.com/media/Dl1a_ZOW4AATC7Y.jpg)

I thought this was widely known by interested parties, but it isn't made use of in that rule 66 change.

Avatar
LetsBePartOfThe... replied to Hirsute | 3 years ago
2 likes

Yes I'm really upset by that suggested rule 66 change

Your snippet is the clearest explanation I've ever seen regarding appropriate lane-use in relation to cyclists

Why on earth couldn't they just incorporate words to that same effect in the HC, rather than their take-all-subclauses-into-account mish-mash

To me it's pretty simple ( and I'm sure someone could come up with a better version ):

Cyclists may chose their lane position as appropriate or necessary: this includes riding in the primary position, or up to two abreast.

Other road users Must only overtake either:    
1. On the right in a separate lane, or     
2. On the right by leaving at least 1.5m lateral clearance. With additional clearance when at high speed.

 

 

Avatar
quiff replied to LetsBePartOfTheSolution | 3 years ago
1 like

Rule 66 could do with more work, but that's exactly what the consultation is for. Also, as you note, the Highway Code is a package and different rules have to be read together. Better work has been done on the complementary rules more relevant to motorists, e.g. 

Rule 213 wrote:

On narrow sections of road, at road junctions and in slower-moving traffic, cyclists may sometimes ride in the centre of the lane, rather than towards the side of the road. Allow them to do so for their own safety, to ensure they can see and be seen. Cyclists are also advised to ride at least a door’s width or 0.5m from parked cars for their own safety

Rule 163 wrote:

give motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215). As a guide: ─ leave a minimum distance of 1.5 metres at speeds under 30 mph ─ leave a minimum distance of 2.0 metres at speeds over 30 mph

Avatar
mdavidford replied to quiff | 3 years ago
1 like

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

Quote:

Cyclists may sometimes ride in the centre of the lane...

Avatar
LetsBePartOfThe... replied to quiff | 3 years ago
2 likes

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 

 

 

Avatar
Hirsute | 3 years ago
0 likes

Just don't tell burt about rule 59

Avatar
mdavidford | 3 years ago
0 likes

I'm not sure the second part makes sense either. Whereas the previous text implied that two abreast was fine except on narrow lanes, busy roads, and bends, the revised text suggests that it's only appropriate to ride two abreast when on narrow lanes and in a large group.

Avatar
IHateSummer replied to mdavidford | 3 years ago
0 likes

Good point. Although I don't think the revision rules out two abreast on non-narrow lanes, just that cyclists should move back to single file, if, drivers want to overtake AND it's safe AND when not on narrow lanes in larger groups (sometimes). 
You're right, it doesn't make sense!

Avatar
brooksby | 3 years ago
0 likes

Interesting point; well made.

However - I think that the chances of any revision of the HC actually happening are pretty slim.  I suspect there'll be this consultation and then it'll get kicked out into the long grass...

Avatar
Awavey replied to brooksby | 3 years ago
0 likes

no wait,the 'gear change' stuff today just announced consultation on the highway code for updates for cycling...whether it results in any change is another matter but its there

Latest Comments