UK haulage industry trade body the RHA claims that forthcoming changes announced last week to the Highway Code are “unfair and unsafe, and could put vulnerable road users at risk.” The assertion was made in a blog post published yesterday, the same day a cyclist was killed in a crash involving a lorry in central London.
The new version of the Highway Code, to be published in the autumn, will set out a hierarchy of road users under which 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.
> Cycle safety in focus as Highway Code changes revealed, including setting out hierarchy of road users
Drivers of large vehicles such as lorries or buses will therefore be held more accountable for the safety of car occupants, for example, who will likewise be viewed as having more responsible for those further down the scale, such as cyclists, followed by pedestrians.
The changes, finalised following a consultation to which stakeholders including the RHA responded, also see cyclists given priority at junctions when travelling straight on, and provide clarification of safe overtaking distances.
They were supported by road safety campaigners, with the RAC’s head of roads policy, Nicholas Lyes, saying: “These proposals should make cycling and walking safer, and this is to be welcomed.
“A concerted effort must now be made to communicate the changes to drivers because as we know, many do not read the Highway Code for long periods after passing their test.”
However, the RHA maintains that the revisions to the Highway Code are “unfair and unsafe, and could put vulnerable road users at risk.”
It expresses particular misgivings over the hierarchy of road users – a common concept on the continent that campaigners have long fought to have introduced in the UK, but described as “inherently unjust” by RHA chief executive Richard Burnett.
“As far as we can see, there is little, if any, justification for these changes,” he insisted.
“The hierarchy of risk created by the operation of cars, vans, coaches, buses and lorries is already reflected in the additional ongoing training undertaken by lorry and coach drivers.”
The RHA said it also objects to giving cyclists priority at junctions when travelling straight ahead, highlighting concerns that it may put riders in the blind spot of left-turning drivers, and calling for the change to be scrapped.
Tom Cotton, the RHA’s head of policy and infrastructure for England and Wales, commented: “The proposal to give cyclists a special rule that gives them a right of way to pass a turning vehicle is dangerous, it simply defies logic to promote a manoeuvre that puts cyclist in the dangerous and vulnerable position on the road.”
> Cyclists to be given “carte blanche to go sailing through red lights,” apparently … except they’re not
By unfortunate coincidence, the blog post was published on the same day that a woman was killed in a collision involving a lorry while cycling through the junction of Theobalds Road and Southampton Row in central London.
> Yet another cyclist killed on London’s Holborn gyratory – the seventh since 2008
As we highlighted in our report yesterday, she is the seventh cyclist to have been killed on the Holborn gyratory system since 2008, with lorries involved in six of those fatal crashes and a coach in the remaining one.
In a statement, London Cycling Campaign (LCC) said: “While it is too soon to speculate on specifics, we note the junction where this happened is part of the Holborn ‘gyratory’ system of one way streets and junctions that has claimed the lives of five people walking and cycling in eight years.
“LCC protested here after Dr Peter Fisher’s death in 2018 also while cycling in a lorry collision. It is horrifying that three years later, nothing has changed.
“Camden Council and Transport for London must urgently make changes to this junction,” it added. “More years of inaction will mean more lives lost.”
Add new comment
37 comments
Of course, and so knowing that, you take care to do whatever it takes (eg move your head) to see into those places. And so seeing, those spots are no longer blind.
What galls me is the blithe acceptance that being in the "blind spot" somehow transfers culpability to the victim and exonerates the driver. It's as if the driver should not be expected to look there, because it's a blind spot.
I also take issue with vehicles designed with genuine blind spots, places large enough to conceal another road user where the driver simply can not see. Forty tonne articulated HGVs are designed with a slab fronted cab because trailer load space is prioritised above being able to see who you're about to kill, and so on. And the sense is, well the fool should not have been in my blind spot.
“The proposal to give cyclists a special rule that gives them a right of way to pass a turning vehicle is dangerous, it simply defies logic to promote a manoeuvre that puts cyclist in the dangerous and vulnerable position on the road.”
That would be mad. Luckily the proposal says nothing of a sort, it simply and sensibly protects cyclists against vehicles overtaking and left-hooking them at junctions. It does not give "cyclists a special rule that gives them right of way to pass a turning vehicle", it gives us a special rule that turning vehicles should wait behind us when approaching a junction rather than attempt to overtake and turn before we get there - something one would have thought was the plainest common sense imaginable.
....and something that something that was surely covered in their "additional ongoing training" under section 167 of the HC "DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road".
There's nothing particularly new to see!
In fact this rule already exists - HWC 182
I'm not sure it's that simple, and unfortunately I think there is still some room for confusion in how the various proposals fit together. E.g, in addition to the one you cite:
Proposed new rule 74: Turning. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists, before signalling. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.
Proposed new rule 76: Going straight ahead. If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road.
Proposed 140: 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.
Proposed 163 (extract): Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left, including at the approach to junctions, but are advised to exercise caution when doing so
That the sub average car driver is alarmed by the clarifications in the new highway code is almost understandable, though not rational. However I'd be amazed that any professional driver, at least any with even a modicum of pride in the job they do would find anything different to the higher standard of driving they are taught to whilst acquiring a HGV licence. The RHA must surely be supportive of any progressive road safety measure and actively seek to disbar the inept, unqualified and downright dangerous road users who cause thousands of tragic and unnecessary deaths and serious injuries each year.
It would be interesting to know how many drivers leave the profession and/or suffer mental health issues as a result of serious crashes involving fatalities or life changing injuries. It's surely the job of the RHA to try to increase road safety to prevent this and think about the wellbeing of their drivers.
Pages