Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Video: Chris Boardman urges people to support British Cycling and AA's petition calling for change to Highway Code to prevent 'left hooks'

More than 18,000 people have signed petition aimed at protecting people on foot and on bikes

British Cycling have issued a video in which their policy advisor, Chris Boardman, urges people to sign the Turn The Corner petition that the organisation launched in partnership with British Cycling last November.

> Junction rule change could prevent left-hook danger, say campaigners

To date, more than 18,000 people have supported the petition, hosted on the British Cycling website, and which reads:

I support the introduction of a universal rule to give way when turning at junctions, to make them simpler and safer for people driving, cycling and walking.

In the video, Boardman explains that junctions are "the single most dangerous places for cyclists and pedestrians on our streets.

“Two thirds of all traffic accidents happen around junctions and it’s not difficult to see why.

“It’s no surprise that cycling is considered intimidating and often unappealing for those who just want to pop to the shops, or that parents such as myself are scared to let their kids cross the road.”

He says that the lack of a ‘universal’ rule to give way when turning to make junctions safer for vulnerable road users means that for people on bikes, "Britain’s junctions are twice as dangerous as those in Europe, where many countries already successfully employ a similar rule.

“I would urge all road users – regardless of whether they get around in cars, on bikes or on foot -  to sign the petition to help us bring safer roads for all of us one step closer and to help make our villages and towns more civilised places, particularly for our older and younger generation.

“Guidance that compels us to treat each other as human beings not obstacles - who wouldn’t want that?”

On its website, British Cycling says: "The Highway Code has not been fully refreshed for nine years. It may be amended by the Secretary of State for Transport before being laid before Parliament."

The current holder of that cabinet post, Chris Grayling, could do with a refresher himself on the Highway Code, which makes it clear that cyclists are road users - a concept he struggled with earlier this month, and which resulted in Boardman inviting him on a bike ride in London to experience first-hand the issues bike riders encounter on a daily basis.

> Boardman: I'll show transport secretary Grayling what it really means to be a road user

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

28 comments

Avatar
beezus fufoon | 7 years ago
0 likes

hm, trying to reason with an evening standard reading tory scum apologist - good luck with that

Avatar
davel | 7 years ago
1 like

So the bit about him dooring a cyclist and then suggesting the cyclist was going too fast: St Chris made that up too? Or is that another Python sketch?

Avatar
Greebo954 | 7 years ago
0 likes

"There are places where they perhaps cause too much of a problem for road users and they could have been designed in a smarter way"

The actual quote from the interview.

Where in that does he exclude cyclists as being road users?

Is it illegal to not be in a cycle lane? No, therefore Grayling must be referring to anyone not in a cycle lane as a road user which of course you have to admit could be a cyclist, or a horse, or a traction engine or any other type of carriage legally allowed to use the highway.

HC63 states that when "leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out". Out of and into what? Out of a cycle lane and into the road is what. If you enter something then you must have logically not been in that thing.

Semantics eh!

You may also directly quote the false quote given by the Danial Zeichner MP who questioned him in parliament and explain why he got it wrong. The quote I give is taken directly from the news paper, Zeichners is false and misleading.

Chris Boardman is guilty of falsely paraphrasing the original statement and starting this hysterical non story in the first place by misappropriating the meaning and intent of the original comment like a character from a Month Python sketch. Picture John Cleese screeching "problem for road users, problem for road users" and you pretty much get the picture.

Chris Grayling is not out to "get" cyclist.

Calm down dears.

 

Beezus fufoon: are you nine?

 

 

Avatar
beezus fufoon replied to Greebo954 | 7 years ago
1 like
Greebo954 wrote:

Beezus fufoon: are you nine?

is that one of your chat up lines? 

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to Greebo954 | 7 years ago
0 likes
Greebo954 wrote:

"There are places where they perhaps cause too much of a problem for road users and they could have been designed in a smarter way"

The actual quote from the interview.

Where in that does he exclude cyclists as being road users?

Because he says the cycle-lane causes a problem for road-users. It's right there in the quote you use!

The logic is pretty clear.

The cycle-lane clearly doesn't cause a problem for the cyclists in the cycle lane, and cyclists are road-users. They are road users even while in the cycle lane, as that is still part of the road, albiet a part reserved for bicycles...but more to the point, cyclists fall into the general category of road-users, because most of the time they are users of the road (even if you sneakily redefine 'road' to mean 'the part of the road that cars are allowed on')

So the only way to claim that the lanes 'cause a problem for road-users' is if you smuggle in the assumption that those in the cycle-lane are not 'road users'.

Besides, in what sense do cycle lanes 'cause a problem for road users', in any way other than how cars (and certainly taxis) 'cause a problem for road users'? i.e. by taking up tarmac space.

Avatar
ktache | 7 years ago
0 likes

Greebo954, you have less of a point this time, I shall repeat what I wrote in another thread, please notice that I quote the parlimentary version of Grayling-

Greebo954, you have a point, but it does all depend on how you define the cycle provision.  Grayling was talking about cycle LANES, HC 63-

Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer. 

And rule 140- 

Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.

Cycle lanes are on the road (carriageway), and users of them, being on the road must be defined as road users.

Now if he had said cycle TRACKS, these are  different HC62-

Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated). When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you. 

Now, and it is my opinion, that Road Traffic regulations may still apply to cycle tracks, for example, not having working lights while on a cycle track, so that may complicate things as this comes under the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989, notice the words Road and Vehicle.   During any of these visability blitzes our forces of law and order do regularly, do they ever do them on a cycle track, shared or otherwise, and do they ever use The Law as part of the arguement on why you need lights?  Has anyone been prosecuted for such an offence, thus setting any precedent?  But I digress.

"Grayling replied: “Where you have cycle lanes, cyclists are the users of cycle lanes.

“And there’s a road alongside – the motorists are the road users, the users of the road.

“It’s fairly straightforward to be honest.”

Grayling, the former Justice secretary and current Transport secretary, should know that these terms are very specific and he should be careful which he uses.  Idiot.  Fairly straightforward to be honest.

 

Sorry to repeat myself. again but...

Oh, and nothing Brexit there, all good British rules and regulations.

Avatar
Greebo954 | 7 years ago
1 like

This forum is just a sounding board for lefty nutcases who turn any conversation into a Brexit whinge. Virtually every topic goes that way. It's done, get over it.

 Chris Grayling did not say anything of the sort, that is completely false.

 None of you have read what he did say ( Google Evening Standard 6th Dec 2016) you are all just hysterical old lefty whingers leaping on a bandwagon.

 The journalist who wrote this piece is no better than a red top rag hack.

 Yes I'll sign the petition.

 Stick to Cycling topics and try to pass within a an inch or so of the truth eh.

Avatar
beezus fufoon replied to Greebo954 | 7 years ago
1 like
Greebo954 wrote:

This forum is just a sounding board for lefty nutcases... 

IKR - I yearn for the days when all the nutters were neo-nazis, you really knew where you stood then, good times. These days it's just so confusing!

 

Avatar
peted76 | 7 years ago
1 like

Well it's quite the week for turning every thread into a Brexit argy bargy.

I do wish we could just get on with what we've voted for and stop sniping. Fuck negativity.

We're one country, deal with that, move forwards, or your petty arguments will ensure it ruins us all. 

It would be nice if someone was suggesting ways how we could engage the country to the public discord and address the issues leading to Brexit. 

Argue for and against global capitalism and the chasms caused between the rich and poor,driven by greed and by being allowed trade  in debt and intangible future pricing of products.... never mind how greed is destroying the very earth upon we live.... all the big issues seem so intangible now... just don't argue about which side of the street you live on or how your neighbour thinks.

 

Friday night rant over - have a good weekend folks, see you on the road!

Avatar
700c | 7 years ago
0 likes

@Handlebarcam, perhaps the most tenuous link to Brexit yet! But I suggest you try facebook if you'd like to share your views with like-minded individuals on the topic - their clever algorithms will feed you news and views to re-affirm all the stereotypes, beliefs and realities you want  1 

Anyway, great petition, duly signed, though not shared as I don't use mainstream social media  3 

 

 

Avatar
davel | 7 years ago
3 likes

@handlebarcam: more lazy stereotyping.

Puhlease, how many times have you actually been bullied by drivers with Brexit stickers? More likely that as you're close-passed by a Range Rover, and probably white vans, but maybe not Priuses, you mutter something about Brexit under your breath, so that all the baddies neatly fit into one racist, little England camp in your worldview.

Like it or not, disenfranchised provincials were the ones who actually took us out. Kicking the elite in the nuts was a factor, as, of course on some radars, will have been 'so the Poles sod off back home'. But Brexiters don't have the monopoly on self-interested voting; I know a few Remainers who were crying into their cornflakes on the morning after over fears about their sharesaves and pension pots. And politicians of all colours need to do better regarding transport - look at that Labour berk running the inquiry into London's congestion. Two issues utterly conflated, there.

There were as many different reasons for voting out as in. My own can be summed up in one word: Greece. I'd stereotype less about you if you didn't post simplistic soundbites about it on a bike site, which you've now said was satire. Once or twice, fair enough, but it's boring now, and the vote was over 6 months ago.

Avatar
handlebarcam | 7 years ago
2 likes

It is funny how Brexiteers can infer all sorts of motivations for why others voted to leave. The airwaves have been full of rich southerners telling everyone they won because the northern poor were hurting from globalisation (which, of course, they totally had nothing to do with themselves.) Yet Remainers cannot likewise make connections to wider societal trends without being accused of stereotyping, even when careful to qualify their comments with phrases like "proportion of". As for it being unrelated to road safety, some people obviously haven't been barged off the road by Range Rovers with Vote Leave stickers in the back window, nor heard the anti-cycling rhetoric from UKIP politicians which has been extensively covered on this web site over several years. Or maybe you just disagree with my opinion that selfishness on the roads is a mirror of selfishness expressed in the voting booths and this is something which will pose a problem for getting proposals such as Chris's into law. That's OK, it is still mostly a free country, so I wouldn't presume to tell anyone what they can and cannot say, or that they should take their views to the Daily Heil web site just because they differ from mine.

Avatar
brakesmadly | 7 years ago
0 likes

In Melbourne turning vehicles routinely have to give way to pedestrians crossing the side streets. Much to my surprise none of the drivers appeared to be the least bit impatient or frustrated by this situation.

In my view the most significant impact is that the motorist does not therefore feel entitled to own the road, and is happy, yes happy, to share.

Avatar
alansmurphy | 7 years ago
1 like

I agree it isn't the place, but this baffles me a bit "Brexit will be what we make of it".

 

No it wont - it will be what a priviliged few make of it, the rest of us just fall into line - unless I can suddenly get Morris Minor's exporting in their millions  3

 

Back to the point - brilliant work by Chris. He makes a good point on being right isn't the thing you'd cling to whilst lying in hospital. However, the face that most of us do act as subserviant to the massive boxes of metal has become part of the problem. Anything that isn't a car is an obstacle, a menace, something to be crushed before it delays getting to a drive through coffee venue...

Avatar
handlebarcam | 7 years ago
1 like
Chris Boardman wrote:

In the vast majority of Europe, and many other places in the world, junctions are dealt with...

By listening to the kind of academics and experts that the English-speaking world has "had enough of"?

Chris Boardman wrote:

Guidence that compels us to treat each other as human beings, and not obstacles, who wouldn't want that?

52% of voters? Or at least the large proportion of them that have bought into a simple-minded, sod-the-rest, winner-takes-all attitude?

Avatar
davel replied to handlebarcam | 7 years ago
0 likes
handlebarcam wrote:
Chris Boardman wrote:

In the vast majority of Europe, and many other places in the world, junctions are dealt with...

By listening to the kind of academics and experts that the English-speaking world has "had enough of"?

Chris Boardman wrote:

Guidence that compels us to treat each other as human beings, and not obstacles, who wouldn't want that?

52% of voters? Or at least the large proportion of them that have bought into a simple-minded, sod-the-rest, winner-takes-all attitude?

Honestly, I get the frustration, but a) there's a lot more to say about it than your trite posts make out and b) here isn't the place.

Might I suggest a visit to the Graun's comments? There, you'll find plenty of people who don't adhere to your apparent stereotypes and who voted out for plenty of reasons other than 'foreigners' - as well as loads of people who come across just like you, so you'll feel right at home. Google 'Lexit'.

Avatar
700c replied to handlebarcam | 7 years ago
1 like
handlebarcam wrote:

52% of voters? Or at least the large proportion of them that have bought into a simple-minded, sod-the-rest, winner-takes-all attitude?

..like all the bankers, fat cats and big business heads who voted along with you, wanting to keep the status quo?

Of course not! and not a nice stereotype is it?

As Davel said, there is a left wing arument for leaving too. And it's a far more nuanced argument than the most of the internet would have you believe.  But I understand that those still angry about the vote find it cathartic to keep trotting out these stereotypes. It's not helpful, we have to move on and Brexit will be what we make of it.

Yes I know this isn't the place, but my favourite cycling forum is being infiltrated with this BS!

Avatar
herohirst | 7 years ago
3 likes

Well said Mr Boardman,

Although, let's not kid ourselves too much - we're preaching to the converted on here arent we? Make a difference folks. Copy the link to this page, and the petition page, then take to the Twitterz & Instagrams & spread the word to The Rest Of Them.

This would be such a simple change and would affect a lot of lives for the better. Things DO actually change when a sufficently unignorable number of people make their opinions known and petition accordingly. 

Go and make the world that little bit better. Do it now. Make it happen.

Avatar
Housecathst | 7 years ago
1 like

I can't see anything which could been seen as offending the great motoring majority getting passed by the likes of Chris grayling, "why do anything for pedestrians and cyclists, there not road users after all" 

Avatar
nicmason | 7 years ago
5 likes

Highway Code

3. Road junctions (170 to 183)

watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way.

A very commonly broken rule I think.

Its not. if they have started go round them .Possibly hoot and wave your fist. Its GIVE WAY

Avatar
kamoshika | 7 years ago
4 likes

Signed and shared.

My biggest bugbear with the genaral standards of driving is the number of people who will approach a potentailly hazardous situation (like a roundabout, junction, overtaking a cyclist etc) assuming they're not going to have to stop, and deal with stopping if they have to, rather than assuming they'll have to stop and continuing if they're able to. How many times do people start an overtaking maneuver only to find something coming the other way and have to brake and pull back in at the last minute?

Avatar
brooksby replied to kamoshika | 7 years ago
1 like
graham_f wrote:

How many times do people start an overtaking maneuver only to find something coming the other way and have to brake and pull back in at the last minute?

Like an HGV the size of Wales...

Or (more commonly) those barely visible moving objects called 'traffic islands' and 'pedestrian refuges'.

Avatar
brooksby replied to kamoshika | 7 years ago
2 likes
graham_f wrote:

... the number of people who will approach a potentailly hazardous situation (like a roundabout, junction, overtaking a cyclist etc) assuming they're not going to have to stop, and deal with stopping if they have to, rather than assuming they'll have to stop and continuing if they're able to.

Very true.  I'm sure when I learned to drive (a few years ago, now) I was told something about 'anticipation', and about assuming that everyone else on the road is an idiot and going to do something really stupid right now, and to drive accordingly.  Clearly that got dropped fromn the curriculum along with 'learning to parallel park' and 'not killing anyone'.

Avatar
tritecommentbot | 7 years ago
5 likes

Signed, shared. 

 

Great quote this by Boardman,

 

“Guidance that compels us to treat each other as human beings not obstacles - who wouldn’t want that?

 

Really like that.

Avatar
Hoffmonkey | 7 years ago
1 like

Wholeheartedly agree with this. Duly signed and shared on fb...

Avatar
dodgy | 7 years ago
6 likes

If a pedestrian is crossing a road near a junction, in almost all cases, they will pull back from the road and let the (usually) beeping car go first. They won't even be angry at it, because they probably do the same when they're driving.

Easily one of most common issues I see daily.

 

 

Avatar
pockstone | 7 years ago
6 likes

Recently T-boned at a junction by a car emerging from a car park, so I welcome this and will be signing. (Although the fact that he should have given way was pretty bloody obvious).

As a pedestrian I'm appalled at how many cars think they can power through when turning left  into a junction as I'm crossing.

If there is one thing I would add, it is that there should be a maximum speed of ,say, 10 mph when approaching a give way. I've lost count of the number of times cars have approached junctions, roundabouts and light controlled crossings so fast that I've feared for my life( often so fast that they've been unable to stop within the give way lines).  There seems to be absolutely no awareness of how dangerous it can be to make someone swerve or clamp on the brakes in moving traffic.

Avatar
dodgy | 7 years ago
6 likes

So much common sense, so well put forward by Chris.

Most people can't imagine a world without multi tonne metal boxes parked in the street or wizzing by with the potential for massive harm.

Filmed in my local town  1

 

Latest Comments