- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Highway Code.PNGCycle safety in focus as Highway Code changes revealed, including setting out hierarchy of road users
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.”
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.
Latest Comments
- mitsky 2 min 20 sec ago
CyclingMikey's brilliant explanation of the difference between cyclists filtering and drivers passing too closely:...
- Dunnoeither 1 min 7 sec ago
The differences in geometry between a touring bike and a gravel bike may be subtle but I think they result in a ride that justifies a separate...
- BalladOfStruth 41 min 11 sec ago
Despite your anecdotal assertions that cyclists are all a bunch of murderous bastards that have to be “saved by eagle-eyed drivers” – an utterly...
- perce 1 hour 11 min ago
I think it's quite sad that you have to reply to your own comments.
- timscottellis 1 hour 21 min ago
As someone who has spent a considerable amount of time moving trees, I can say it can be done with a good chance of survival. It need some care...
- jaymack 2 hours 1 min ago
I had my appendix out two years ago, I was 56. I remember the medics describing it as keyhole surgery as I writhed in agony, bloody big keys mind...
- redimp 2 hours 15 min ago
Perhaps Tony Devenish can outline all the benefits to bio-diversity and the species that rely on Palm Trees
- KDee 2 hours 30 min ago
Is it though? I recently replaced the gear cables on my 2021 Scott Addict (not the RC), which has the cables and hoses entering at the side of the...
- essexian 6 hours 55 min ago
Looking at the shaddows, I feel the Sun must have been in the car drivers eyes.....
- wtjs 16 hours 32 min ago
It's a surprising approach by the rozzers, simply closing the case...
Add new comment
73 comments
31 errors, 234 warnings, scores of failed to load, memory use 228Mb. This website is slow and badly built.
Without having your technical knowledge, loading it is painfully slow.
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.
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!
"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-...
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 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 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 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..
"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 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 🤔
Or, as the Sun puts it:
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're indirectly calling their readership that in how they're reporting it lol
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 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 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.
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 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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
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 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...
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?
What do you think the dotted lines means?
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.
Pages