An updated edition of the Highway Code to be published in the Autumn will see the introduction of a hierarchy of road users, as well as setting out guidance to motorists on issues such as safe passing distances and speeds when overtaking cyclists.
People on bikes will also have priority at junctions when travelling straight ahead, while there will be greater pedestrian priority on pavements and when crossing the road or waiting to do so.
Under the hierarchy of road users, those with potential to cause the most danger to others will be deemed to have greater responsibility to those who are more vulnerable than them.
For example, a motorist will have greater responsibility for ensuring the safety of a cyclist, who would likewise be responsible for safeguarding any pedestrians with whom they come into contact.
The concept is well-established on the continent, including in countries such as the Netherlands, where it also applies in insurance through the application of presumed liability, although that will not be brought into force under the changes, which apply to England, Scotland and Wales but not Northern Ireland.
The changes, which follow a consultation launched last year, were announced today by transport secretary Grant Shapps, who also unveiled £338 million in funding for cycling and walking scheme in England.
> Consultation launched on proposed changes to Highway Code
“Millions of us have found over the past year how cycling and walking are great ways to stay fit, ease congestion on the roads and do your bit for the environment,” Shapps said.
“As we build back greener from the pandemic, we’re determined to keep that trend going by making active travel easier and safer for everyone.
“This £338 million package marks the start of what promises to be a great summer of cycling and walking, enabling more people to make those sustainable travel choices that make our air cleaner and cities greener,” he added.
We've seen a huge increase in the number of people adopting active travel as a healthier and more environmentally-friendly way to get around.
We want to keep that trend going with our £338m package to make cycling and walking easier and safer ???https://t.co/yZG07OVeqe pic.twitter.com/OTLS1zZetI
— Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP (@grantshapps) July 30, 2021
> Department for Transport say councils must give walking and cycling schemes time
Also announced today are a new scheme that aims to increase awareness of e-cycles and help overcome barriers to using them, with an e-cycle support programme to be launched later this year, plans for a new road safety strategic framework, and looking at how historic railway infrastructure can be turned into cycling routes.
Xavier Brice, chief executive of Sustrans, said: “This funding will bring major improvements to the National Cycle Network in England by linking communities together and enhancing valued and well-used cycling and walking routes. Most importantly of all, this vital boost will further enable those who want to cycle or walk to do so.
“The pandemic has highlighted the huge benefits of active forms of travel to people’s personal health and wellbeing, to local communities and to the environment. We’ve seen a marked increase in numbers using the cycle network and this commitment to funding underlines its importance.
“We welcome the government’s continued focus on cycling and walking,” he added. “The time is right to ensure we’re able to carry on working with our volunteers and other organisations in our role as a proud custodian of the network, to create and offer a safe, accessible and traffic-free travel environment for everyone’s benefit.”

73 thoughts on “Cycle safety in focus as Highway Code changes revealed, including setting out hierarchy of road users”
“People on bikes will also
“People on bikes will also have priority at junctions when travelling straight ahead”
Sorry, was this not already the case? What am I missing here
I think this means that they
I think this means that they will have priority even if they are on a parallel cycle track or shared path. As you say, cyclists on the road (including an on-road cycle lane) already do have priority.
Yes, also at the moment, the
Yes, also at the moment, the wording is that pedestrians have priority at junctions or Zebras if they’re already crossing (the legal requirement).
The new proposed wording is along the lines that road users should also give way to people waiting to cross and includes side roads, as well as crossings.
As for cycle lanes/paths, the proposed wording was:
You should give way to any cyclists in a cycle lane, including when they are approaching from behind you – do not cut across them when turning or when changing lane (see Rule H3). Be prepared to stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists before crossing the cycle lane.
Cycle tracks are routes for cyclists that are physically protected or located away from motor traffic, other than where they cross side roads. Cycle tracks may be shared with pedestrians. You should give way to cyclists approaching or using the cycle track when turning into or out of a junction (see Rule H3). Be prepared to stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists before crossing the cycle track, which may be used by cyclists travelling in both directions.
Bear in mind that cyclists are not obliged to use cycle lanes or cycle tracks.
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
The current regs are a bit stupid. You have to step on to a crossing to enforce your right of way.
I once had someone have a go at me, they were waiting on the opposite side of the road to use a zebra crossing and I cycled straight through. I appreciate that if I was in a car I would have stopped out of courtesy. I didn’t go back and point out that they were technically wrong and I had no obligation to stop.
I’ve had it the other way round. I stepped on to a crossing and a car flew across on the opposite side of the road. I gave them the finger. They got angry, started to pull over I kept on walking towards them so I could explain the law to them and they changed their mind and drove off.
Mark B wrote:
Cyclists on a shared path and pedestrians on a shared path or pavement, continuing straight across a junction, already had priority – but only once they stepped/cycled onto the road. It was far too ambiguous and also not something that many people seemed to be aware of.
What they really need is some images that illustrate how ridiculous it is to expect someone who is travelling straight forward, to check for approaching vehicles from three or four different directions – especially when those who are approaching to turn, have much better visibility of those who are continuing straight.
I was envisaging an entirely
I was envisaging an entirely different situation, where cyclists going straight on at a Give Way line would be given priority over the main road. A sort of “Idaho stop plus-plus-plus”! I was wondering how on earth it could possibly work in practice… So this makes much more sense. Shame it couldn’t have been explained more clearly in the text.
jh2727 wrote:
How many degrees is it to look backwards for traffic coming up behind me to turn left in front of me, when the road is seven feet over to my right because the cycle path is set away from the road….? While simultaneously checking ahead and to my right for traffic turning (edit) right into the same entrance. While simultaneously checking for oncoming cycle traffic. Makes my head spin 😉
Mark B wrote:
I obviously hope to see the removal of give way signs on cycle lanes and shared paths when they cross side roads. What could possibly go wrong once the HC has been changed.
Go and read the Daily Mail
Go and read the Daily Mail Comments on this subject if you want a depressing view on this country and some of the morons that inhabit it.
Dont need to bother with the
Dont need to bother with the Daily Mail comments,we get enough in the local paper whenever cycling gets mentioned, the worst part being I’m far more likely to be sharing the local roads with them when out riding https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/lifestyle/cycling-and-cyclists-good-news-8185524
Are you rowan
Are you rowan 😀
Not just the DM, the Sun has
Not just the DM, the Sun has similar:
“In news sure to anger drivers who already face long delays whenever they get behind the wheel, ministers are planning to make sweeping changes to rules on where to give way.”
So, no mention of the fact that the main reason for delays is, errm, traffic! Great, so a load of worthless words printed in the HC which no one will read…and a greater sense of injustice and entitlement by those driving around on the roads. Hoorah!
So, no mention of the fact
So, no mention of the fact that the main reason for delays is, errm, traffic! Great, so a load of worthless words printed in the HC which no one will read…and a greater sense of injustice and entitlement by those driving around on the roads
The head-in-the-sand experts seem to have failed to notice that there is nothing to even pretend that there will be an improvement in the safety feature we spend all that time on here complaining about: close passing. The main enemy of the cyclist, the police, will continue to demand blood on the road before they will even think about taking action, and will continue to think that if the motorist didn’t hit the cyclist hard then there is leeway for him to come even closer- meanwhile the number on the repetitive NMotD topics rises remorselessly to the 1000 mark while the odd cyclist is killed and the legal process delivers community service penalties. I am pleased to say that I shunned that worthless and insincere ‘consultation’.
bobbinogs wrote:
My favourite is if I’m on the bike in a queue of traffic and let someone out of a side road, and then the motorist behind me starts hooting their car’s horn as if I’ve done the most dastardly thing.
Ditto on if I (shock! horror!) stop and let someone use a zebra crossing, or brake to a stop as the lights are amber.
All those things that you’d think motorists would be doing too, so why do so many of them get so angry about it…?
Got to be very careful when
Got to be very careful when stopping at changing lights, keep a listen to the following cars engine noise, I’ve had to swerve out the way on many occasions.
I fed back on the
I fed back on the consultation.
I have to say, I hate this government of snakes with a passion, but the ideas in the consultation were 95% brilliant, and it’s good to see this carried forward.
Meanwhile LibDem and Labour
Meanwhile LibDem and Labour councils in Liverpool are ripping out cycle lanes.
Remind me, who’s the pro- eco-friendly low-cost travel party?
A purely factual statement
A purely factual statement here – the Liberal Party (found at Liberal.org.uk) that’s removing the bike lanes is not the Liberal Democrat Party (found at LibDems.org.uk).
Carior wrote:
Ok, that’s confusing. Also confusing is that they seem to also be known as the Scottish Liberal Party whilst Steve Radford is in Liverpool.
Does ‘bloke exercising on a
Does ‘someone exercising on a velodrome’ count as ‘active travel’ nowadays? Or is that what DfT thinks is going on??
I also thought that was an
I also thought that was an own goal when I saw the tumbnail of the video but, to be fair, if you watch the video, it’s just a hook – along the lines of “we’ve done really well in the velodrome, but cycling isn’t just an elite sport, it’s also for people getting around”. It then goes on to discuss the latter.
Oh, fair enough then (I didn
Oh, fair enough then (I didn’t actually watch the video…).
I’ve always had a pretty low
I’ve always had a pretty low opinion of Grant Shapps (or whatever name he is currently using) but the DfT have been bringing out consistently sensible policies for active travel recently.
I may have to reconsider.
Rich_cb wrote:
It might be dangerous to reassign values to someone because of a couple of actions when their whole life has been spent doing the exact opposite. Boris the Liar for instance.
I agree.
I agree.
If somebody has been consistently and demonstrably dishonest then you can probably dismiss their opinion on most things…
Rich_cb wrote:
Cool, thanks. I will yours then.
Give one example where I’ve
Give one example where I’ve been dishonest.
I’ll wait.
I thought you were a paid-up
I thought you were a paid-up member of the fan club of the Conservative & Brexit Party.
Maybe Michael Green leaves you cold, but you love the dynamic and modern attitude of Rees-Mogg, or the integrity and honesty of Alexander Johnson (or whatever name he is currently using).
Looks like you thought wrong.
Looks like you thought wrong.
Given your track record, that’s hardly a surprise.
This news has caused the
This news has caused the Daily Mail comments section to go into meltdown. I’ve had to print off another dozen bingo cards!
Haha. Did they miss the
Haha. Did they miss the consultation stage.
It did strike me as odd that the anti-cycling media didn’t point out there was a consultation until the consultation had closed. I guess they just like moaning more than actually being pro-active.
4332 comments and counting !
4332 comments and counting !
” theres going to be a motorists Revolt soon if this peresecution doesnt stop – the French wouldnt put up with this s..it – they’d push their Citroens and Peugeots into the centre of Paris and leave them there”
Someone tell them about Paris’ active travel plan !
“This country is quickly becoming uninhabitable mainly because the government went mad.”
(hope that’s not too political rich_cb !)
“As we build back greener
“As we build back greener from the pandemic, we’re determined to keep that trend going by making active travel easier and safer for everyone”
Disingenuous tripe and bollocks, when the police just ignore what are essentially attacks on cyclists like this
Blimey that’s awful. – that’s
Blimey that’s awful. – that’s no “essentially attacks”, that’s “Does Attack”. Surely the police took some action on that?
that’s not “essentially
that’s not “essentially attacks”, that’s “Does Attack”. Surely the police took some action on that?
You should watch out after giving an invitation like that! You may get some hate mail from people who are sick of hearing about the evils of Lancashire Constabulary, an organisation so hostile to cyclists and so desperate to forgive motorists for serious offences that it makes the Daily Mail look like a combination of Sustrans, Greta Thunberg and St Francis of Assisi. Suffice it to say: you will see that the incident occurred on 13th July. LC is currently not even looking at reports until 3 weeks after the incident – if you were to say that it is then not possible for them to send out NIPs, you would be right because that’s the plan of the loathsome idle b******s. There has been no response at all from LC to that report, despite 2 ‘reminders’ (I’m collecting evidence for complaints about this abysmal worthless travesty of a police force), and there is unlikely to be any response to this Audi Q5 T90 JDT crashing through red lights at 50+ while towing the large caravan- the rear of the caravan crossed the line 2.2 seconds after the light turned red. I extract from the video the first frame with the light at red- in this case the vehicle was so far back none of it is seen on the frame
“All of us what voted leave
“All of us what voted leave and save OUR country from the tyrancial EU know that this EU cyclist nonsense has no part in Britain, OUR Britain, cyclists don’t pay NO road tax so THEY have NO rights on the road, OUR road. If YOU see a cyclist on the road, then YOU know two things, to wit (1) he is a remainer vote and (2) it is ALL his fault, so don’t be bullied by HIM. All the best, UKIPPER Dave (Continuity UKIP)”
Please tell me this a wind up !
hirsute wrote:
Sadly not. I’ve spent almost an entire day educating idiots on social media about how the roads are funded, why cyclists don’t use cycle lanes, etc. Probably the most ridiculous response I had was from someone that used an article of a cyclist being killed by a motorist in Gloucestershire to justify their point that “cyclists are a menace”.
When you see the vast levels of ignorance, entitlement and downright dangerous attitudes on show you really have to question how these people ever got their driving license and how much they really value it.
sensei wrote:
Worryingly, my wife and her father join them. I’m trying not to make a big thing of it…
brooksby wrote:
Difficult, you have to tow the line a little bit with family. Although I’m the type of individual that will call anyone out irrespective of who they are. If I met the queen and she started whinging about cyclists not paying road tax then she too would receive a dose of stern but undeniable logic, even if it cost me my knighthood!
brooksby wrote:
Difficult, you have to tow the line a little bit with family. Although I’m the type of individual that will call anyone out irrespective of who they are. If I met the queen and she started whinging about cyclists not paying road tax then she too would receive a dose of stern but undeniable logic, even if it cost me my knighthood!
sensei wrote:
This is really good news, and
This is really good news, and would hopefully stop the mental distress caused by insurance companies and civil courts when it comes to stuff like this.
In this (still ongoing through civil courts ) incident , the driver, having hit and injured me with his wingmirror, stopping to tell me off, and then leaving the scene, decided to sue me for alleged damages to the side of their van , and the driver’s insurer refused to accept any liability at all; despite the driver having accepted a “driving awareness court” (yeah, i know, that’s all :s) , so we’re now at the point of setting a court date.
Each and every time i get an email, letter or call from my solicitor, the PTSD (formally assessed by the medical assessor) kicks in… it’s no bloody fun, and has removed all joy of cycling, which for 5 years has been my main mode of transport.
Video and report will be written up for Road.cc’s Hit of the Day when it’s all done and dusted.
I can only conclude there is
I can only conclude there is a very high correlation between drivers who need to be removed from the roads and DM readers.
The number of posts claiming there will be more accidents from ‘driving into the car in front as now it will stop suddenly’ beggars belief.
hirsute wrote:
Let’s start by removing DM readers and then hearing their appeals, which might take some time.
You can’t just change the
You can’t just change the rules quite so drastically and not expect there to be accidents. May as well just tell half the coutry to drive on the right and don’t tell the other half. It also seems to encourage undertaking of cars who are about to turn left down a side road. Hmmm
Like the senitment, but poorly thought out or followed through.
Have i got it right? The car has to look in its mirror to see the bike coming from behind and wait for it to come past from the inside?
The car driver has to check
The car driver has to check their mirror before they manoeuvre and only complete the manoeuvre if it is safe to do so.
I don’t think this is new.
The first thing is why the
The first thing is why the hell are you trying to left hook a cyclist?
Secondly, why are you trying to run over a pedestrian?
I got ‘swiped’ by a recently
I got ‘swiped’ by a recently passed Learner, he passed and turned (Left) in front of me and parked, i got up off floor and before i could say a word he says ‘what ja pull a stunt like that for, if id not been pulled back id have hit him…
ads-b wrote:
With that picture, it looks like the driver has just over-taken the cyclist on the left which contravenes rule 182:
Alternatively, the driver may have previously over-taken the cyclist and is waiting to turn left after the pedestrian crosses. In that case, it’s not difficult to have a look in the mirrors whilst waiting so that you know what to expect and you should certainly make a final mirror check before commencing the left-turn.
If I were the cyclist and I’d seen a driver indicating left ahead of me, I’d be looking to pass the car on the right hand side (if safe to do so). The main exception would be if using a cycle lane in which case I’d be wanting to pass the car on the left.
Ha-ah!
Yes.
Next?
Ha-ah!
Yes.
Next?
ads-b wrote:
The rules have not been changed at all. There have been clarifications, and that has been done via well publicised public consultation, which many folk who contribute to this site (myself included) took part in.
The main difference is a clear hierarchy of liability, which puts greater onus on those in charge of a more dangerous means of transport. As should be the case…
Re the situation you just outlined:
It’s called filtering and is already mentioned in the HWC – try rule 160
The road positioning looks like the driver is halfway through an overtake. To turn left in this situation is murderous, and known by cyclists as a left hook. It is also explicitly against the HWC – rule 167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
The driver should wait for the ped in any case – Rule 170 HWC
Take extra care at junctions. You should
……
The safe course of action is to come to a stop until the way is clear. You would then perform checks all around the vehicle before moving off again. There is never a situation where it is acceptable to fail to make adequate checks before manoeuvring cos you think “my right of way”. Relying on other people to follow your (in this case incorrect) interpretation of the rules is a bum move, and likely to maim or kill vulnerable road users.
If it was that well highly
If it was that well highly publicised I think I would have heard of it. And I can’t be the only one. Nobody else I know seems to have a clue this was coming along.
Having to wait for pedestrians even if they hadn’t started to cross is new.
Most people don’t look in their near side mirror when turning in. That won’t change. It just now means a load of cyclists will be expecting to be given right of way when undertaking if they had seen them or not. And they shouldn’t be undertaking in any case.
ads-b wrote:
What, didn’t Shapps put you on the mailing list? My gold embossed invite to the consultation (which was open for weeks….) came through fine.
Only joking, I haven’t really got a direct line to the DoT (but the consultation was open for weeks). That you and your friends failed to take part is hardly evidence of secrecy, especially considering that many people did respond.
Fair enough I’ll take that on the chin. Hardly difficult to account for though. Any driver who is is basing decisions to proceed round a corner on whether a peds foot is actually on the tarmac or not is asking for trouble. Or rather, is going to dish out trouble to those more vulnerable than them. I’m always wary of peds waiting by the side of the road for this exact reason, especially when there are kids there.
You’re supposed to. I’d start if I were you, regardless of clarification. Remember, like your instructor told you. If in doubt try HWC 182 for explicit instruction, and pretty much the entirety of the HWC for drivers, where observation is mentioned too many times to cite here.
In the picture you show the rider is not undertaking. Road position clearly shows that the driver is in mid overtake. If they intend to turn left they are in breach of HWC (pre-update), and as previously implied, murderously incompetent. This is the more common occurrence – very common in fact. If you don’t overtake on the approach to junctions or r’abouts (remember HWC167, current issue) you’ll rarely be bothered by this, and proper checks will ensure that the times that you are you’ll be able to take mitigating action that is safe and stress-free for all.
The HWC is already clear, these clarifications just spell it out to numpties who can’t seem to put 2 and 2 together. If you don’t already get safe driving, I suggest you read the HWC now – you clearly don’t understand it currently, but with some revision (pun intended), you will be 99.9% prepared for these clarifications anyway.
I genuinely scared to be on
I genuinely scared to be on the roads sometime when I know drivers like ads-b are around who posts the crapness of the original picture as an excuse to make up shit about how bad the new rules are when all aspects of his example are already covered by the current HC.
Reminded me of someone moaning about this section of the new bike lane put in near me because the cyclists had priority across the side road. “It will cause accidents because cars will have to slow to a stop on a 40 mile section of road to check behind them before they turn”. Apart from the fact they have plenty of room to turn in and then giveway, the actual lane on the turn is 30 and 40 is only the flyover section. But they should be checking anyway before making any moves. Afterall they are also turning over a bus lane as well.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
As a driver, I think anyone moaning about this kind of shit should be identified by the DVLA and have their licences (LICENSES? whatever…) automatically removed as they are clearly incompetent drivers who can’t handle normal road conditions.
What do you think the dotted
What do you think the dotted lines means?
My main concern is: is any of
My main concern is: is any of that big pot of money going to go towards enforcing these changes? On paper, there are already a number of rules on the highway code which protect pedestrians and cyclists from cars, for example in the case of close passes, the fact that jaywalking is NOT an offence and pedestrians can cross where they want, even the fact people can’t drive drunk…
Yet we see close passes ignored by many forces, and when things get tragic we have on one hand a person riding a bike through a red light and fatally hitting a pedestrian get 2 years and on the other often drunk drivers exceeding speed limits and/or going through red lights murdering people on an all too regular basis getting a handful of months’ worth of driving ban and some court costs.
People need to be scared to fall foul of the rules for them to be observed as regrettably respect for human life is not a common character trait, nor is common sense, and that is simply not the case right now.
Unless you ride a bike apparently, in which case the chances of doing any harm are actually tiny compared to a car since you travel at much lower speed, weight a tenth of a car, are much more nimble and take up less than 2 foot in width.
That big pot of money is
That big pot of money is largely a re-announcement of cycle funding already announced. It has gone up from £257M to £338M. That’s quite good.
Less good is the fact that government ministers deliberately mislead people into thinking it’s all new money.
We know that the greatest
We know that the greatest deterrent to crime is getting caught not necessarily the severity of the punishment. It seems, in the case of road safety, the police have forgotten this.
Or, as the Sun puts it:
Or, as the Sun puts it:
brooksby wrote:
It’s facking nuts. When I was training drivers, this question used to come up occasionally. Some numpty (who in fairness just hadn’t thought it through) would say something like “so if I’m turning left I have to stop if some pedestrian decides to step into the road??”
To which my response would be “YES!! what else are you going to do, run ’em over??”. Watching the pieces falling into place and light dawn was quite satisfying, and in most cases they realised that the HWC actually reflected what they would do anyway.
There was always one though who would still argue with “rules” that they’d read in eh HWC, which they could surprisingly never find in the copy that I’d just issued them with…..
And the stupid thing is, they
And the stupid thing is, they’re indirectly calling their readership that in how they’re reporting it lol
“ITS TIME we have universal
“ITS TIME we have universal licence, covers, pedestrians, cycling, driving throughout life, starts from childhood greencross code, then with your first cycling licence from primary school to adulthood. Accountability or having the responbibility to look after yourself has long been forgotton by this government and we need it BACK.”
Have to sya I have not come across the concept of a univeral licence before from cradle to grave !
6245 comments in the DM.
You do find some gems such as ‘we have been doing it like this on the continent for years and everyone gets on with it’.
The universal licence is a
The universal licence is a good one, that would include any taxation, at the end of the day we’re all on the same road…this would stop lots of problems to I’m sure someone will pick/suggest some ?
So the Highway code is being
So the Highway code is being updated, is the underlying Highways Act also being updated ? As far as I am aware the Highways Code is not the Law, the Highways Act is (Should, Could), the Musts I believe are enforced by the underlying Act
I suspect this will have very little change in the mindset of many entitled road users whome feel the payment of road tax gives them ownership and elevated rights (Regardless of the fact most of us also have cars, pay VED, Insurance etc,,etc,,etc).
If the Highways ACT is also being updated to Presumed Liability, then thats a whole different kettle of fish
What is need is punishements that match the crime….
I was knocked of my bike in Feb this year on a nice clear sunny sunday morning , I was stopped at a T junction giving way to a car on the road, camera showed car cutting corner and driving straight in to me, witnesses, police statement, bent bike, Afternoon in A&E (I was lucky to be alive let alone walking), Car shown as SORN, Insurance showing as under insured (askmid), The police are still evidece collecting! 5 months later!
If by mid August I have not had a positive outcome from teh above incident I will be sending the video to Raod.cc and anybody else interested!
what is needed is proper punishement and training….. Whilst driving standards continue to fall, unless people think they are going to get caught and punished, they will continue (And thats regardless of the form of transport)
I was stopped at a T junction
I was stopped at a T junction giving way to a car on the road, camera showed car cutting corner and driving straight in to me, witnesses, police statement
Like what happened to me (without the witnesses and the bent bike), that began my hatred of Lancashire Constabulary and my acquisition of the camera. Their initial conclusion was that ‘it was only a momentary loss of concentration by the driver; no further action’.
The Highways Act only deals
The Highways Act only deals with who’s responsible for which roads, maintenance, new roads etc. The Road Traffic Act is what regulates the behaviour of traffic and is what underpins the Highway Code.
I was cycling along a road
I was cycling along a road guy turning left onto my road, slows, looks – goes, brakes last min. didn’t see you he says, how i ask?, he didn’t know, its this mindset and other matters that need to change, tho we all know this..
“Outrage as new Highway Code
“Outrage as new Highway Code make it an offence to run down cyclists”
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/outrage-as-new-highway-code-makes-it-an-offence-to-run-down-cyclists-20210730210672?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3MVXfalZuTsRAdQsq134W1W1svtHm0d9Bgq1rSKkYe8lg_bda15ZX_jBk#Echobox=1627639009
Anything’s better than
Anything’s better than nothing, tho i hope it doesnt cause too much friction as the atmosphere is bad enough as it is, itll take a while as the mindset within the vehicle user is very defiant..best not to take anything to granted whilst on the road!
White van man and his wife
White van man and his wife are up in arms about this on our local facebook page.
Cant seem to grasp the concept of looking out for others when they’re in their metal boxes but completely change their attitude when on foot.
31 errors, 161 warnings,
31 errors, 234 warnings, scores of failed to load, memory use 228Mb. This website is slow and badly built.
bikeman01 wrote:
Without having your technical knowledge, loading it is painfully slow.