You have probably heard how everyone else feels about the Highway Code changes coming into force in a few days — but what do cyclists think?
FDJ pro Jake Stewart, who is a regular on the lanes of the Peak District, this weekend proclaimed "cycling in the UK is doomed. Society is broken" after reading some thoughts from motorists.
> Highway Code changes: “Cycling in the UK is doomed,” says pro
But what about you or I? The ordinary UK-based cyclist who also deals with junctions, roundabouts and other road users on a daily basis. How do we feel about the changes?
There have been plenty of news stories about the Highway Code changes on road.cc over the past few days, so we thought we would round-up some of your thoughts to balance out the negativity...
mancrider was pleasantly surprised by the BBC Breakfast show coverage yesterday: "I particularly liked the very reasonable comments made by Edmund King (President of the AA) - hopefully he is an individual motorists may respect and listen to.
> Press misrepresents Highway Code changes – just days before they come into force
"Everything focused on these changes being common sense made official, that they we being made to ensure everyone looks after the more vulnerable (not just making change for cyclists, which I know can send the conversation in unfortunate directions), and just generally being more kind to each other on the roads."
One common theme was questions about the 'Dutch Reach', the technique of opening your car door to better see vulnerable road users approaching. You can expect to hear more from us in the coming days on that particular point.
Richard Baruch, and others, asked why the Department for Transport's publicity campaign is only set to begin in mid-February?
> Government slammed for not informing public of Highway Code changes aimed at protecting cyclists and pedestrians just days before they come into effect
On the issue of provocative TV interviews and social media debate, Aidan R concluded: "It really is depressing that sensible and nuanced changes to the Highway Code have been hijacked by some to sow division."
While Velophaart_95 added: "If you're a good and competent driver, any changes shouldn't cause any issues. The only people who it will affect are those who probably need more training and education."
The discussion has continued on Facebook, where Stan Kollar replied to Mr Loophole's comments about cyclists and pedestrians being entitled: "Shocking really, a vulnerable group of actual human beings to finally have some legislative support behind them to stop them being killed on the regular. The audacity!"
Steve Brill said: "Anything that makes it safer for us cyclists (and horse riders) can only be a good thing. Motorists' aggression and impatience towards those on two wheels has to be changed. Surely not killing a cyclist must come before saving 10 seconds on your car journey?"
Graham Snook commented: "The number of drivers going apoplectic about this and the rest of the rule changes is both worrying and funny as hell. All the Highway Code is asking, is for people to drive with more consideration, yet it's like many drivers feel put out because it means they will have to operate their vehicle in a safe manner, and that's just not fair."
Add new comment
73 comments
The jobs will boost the economy.
Seriously though a theory test won't triple the examiners surely?
NO, theory tests arenot a problem and probably not a bad idea, and as we must all now renew our licenses every 10 years when the photocards expire, this could be a good chance to ensure drivers are up to date with theory.
triple the examiners would be if everyone needed a practical test every ten years.
"If you're a competent driver it shouldn't cause any issues".
But as we know, most drivers are "in" 😉
It is a more general issue than cyclists vs cars. We seem to have a small minority of belligerent members of society who have decided that their opinions trump other people's safety or well-being.
On the road I see a growing division between courteous drivers and those who like to bully and intimidate and will aggressively attack those who dare to complain of their behaviour.
I would say the problem drivers number about 1% of road users - so we can guarantee that we will have a negative encounter. Unfortunately the number of people who talk the talk are a lot higher, which entitles the 1%.
At the same time, there are probably 1% of problem cyclists - yet it is considered acceptable to apply the behaviour of that 1% to all cyclists. Oddly, the 1% of drivers who drive recklessly (regardless of cyclists) aren't considered to be representative of drivers as a whole.
My only complaint about the new Highway Code is Rule 66 now includes the phrase riders should consider "riding in single file or stopping" if a vehicle wishes to overtake.
The stopping bit was added at the last revision by the DfT.
This bit will be used by the motor lobby to argue cyclists should just get out of the way by getting off the road.
CyclingUK also didn't like this amendment which went against their suggested wording.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/new-highway-code-and-hierarchy
But other than that, overall the changes are very welcome.
Thanks. I'd somehow missed the "or stopping" part. Yes, that will doubtless be misinterpreted by some.
Yes, it's very odd. The stopping bit wasn't in DfT's original proposal, nor was it in Cycling UK's proposal, parts of which appear in the final wording. (Incidentally, Cycling UK endorsed DfT's original proposal on rule 66, but then took on board comments from their members and sought amendments.)
On the bright side, it's worth noting that Rule 66 is for cyclists. The companion rule for drivers doesn't mention that cyclists should get out of the way, so it's clearly cyclist's choice, not driver's right:
New Rule 213 (extract):
On narrow sections of road, on quiet roads or streets, 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. It can be safer for groups of cyclists to ride two abreast in these situations. Allow them to do so for their own safety, to ensure they can see and be seen.
Yes Rule 213 is well written. Just a shame about rule 66 and the strange text addition.
It does use the words "should consider".
So, if you , as a single rider or in a group do not consider it to be safe to single up (likely that the following vehicle will try to perform a manouver that is likely to put you at risk), or consider it safe to stop (no where to stop without causeing an obstruction; I'd suggest that a stationary cyclist with one foot on the floor poses a greater obstruction than a moving one) - then you don't have to single up or stop.
Though to be fair this is something that I do and am sure others on the forum do of their own volition as it is simply good road craft. A number of my loops have resulted me doing this to receive a wave or flash of hazard lights.
The wording regarding 'stopping' is concerning and possibly an action demanded by motorists when the occasion arises. Though it does say should and when you feel it is safe. That would be my defence when an irate motorist gets torn into me. Whether they calm down enough to listen to reason is another issue altogether.
its something I do as a lone rider more because Id rather have the car with the frustrated driver infront of me, than behind me where I cant see them properly and what they are doing next, knowing theyll inevitably pick a really bad spot to try and force their way past if just left there, than out of some moral duty on my part to let faster vehicles past.
Though I rarely get thanked even when I let them by,and take my reward as a simple well at least I dont have to put up with them behind me anymore.
So Id argue Im already complying with the way the words are written in the HC, but group rides are probably more awkward, be interesting to see if clubs change their advice on rides or if its just carry on as normal, though most I dont think ride down the kinds of single track roads I do on their cafe runs
I think the wording "consider going to single file if safe to do so" (paraphrased, haven't got the copy to hand at the mo) doesn't require you to do it in all circumstances.
I can't imagine a situation where it is possible to safely single out a group of say 12 in the amount of time to make a difference to an impatient motrist, or how you would actually do it, before even considering teh practice required to choreograph that on demand
Not that incompetent drivers will be able to comprehend that....
I will sometimes stop out of the way if, for example, I've been followed considerately by a driver for some time and there is really nowhere to overtake safely. Particularly HGVs on hills. They usually appreciate it, and I'd rather they continued on their way thinking that cyclists are lovely people.
Pages