[IHateSummer]

A friend linked me to this Government consultation on the review of the Highway Code, published today – https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-to-improve-road-safety-for-cyclists-pedestrians-and-horse-riders/summary-of-the-consultation-proposals-on-a-review-of-the-highway-code#rules-for-cyclists

About halfway down – this bit has me concerned;
[quote]update Rule 66 …
[cyclists’ should] ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so. When riding in larger groups on narrow lanes, it is sometimes safer to ride two abreast
[/quote]

which is a change from, as far as I can see, [quote][should] ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends[/quote]
Whilst I appreciate the second part of the revision (narrow lanes), does the first not open cyclists up to receiving a lot of abuse/dangerous passes from drivers who ‘wish to overtake’ and there is a difference of opinion about whether that is safe or not?

(The main consultation page is https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-to-improve-road-safety-for-cyclists-pedestrians-and-horse-riders)

Topic

[quiff]

Rule 66 could do with more

Rule 66 could do with more work, but that’s exactly what the consultation is for. Also, as you note, the Highway Code is a package and different rules have to be read together. Better work has been done on the complementary rules more relevant to motorists, e.g. 

[quote Rule 213]

On narrow sections of road, 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. Allow them to do so for their own safety, to ensure they can see and be seen. Cyclists are also advised to ride at least a door’s width or 0.5m from parked cars for their own safety

[/quote] [quote Rule 163]

give motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215). As a guide: ─ leave a minimum distance of 1.5 metres at speeds under 30 mph ─ leave a minimum distance of 2.0 metres at speeds over 30 mph

[/quote]

[quiff]

It’s not presumed liability

It’s not presumed liability but, to be fair, it does propose introducing an express concept of a hierarchy or road users ~bigger vehicle more responsibility  

[LetsBePartOfTheSolution]

Yes I’m really upset by that

Yes I’m really upset by that suggested rule 66 change

Your snippet is the clearest explanation I’ve ever seen regarding appropriate lane-use in relation to cyclists

Why on earth couldn’t they just incorporate words to that same effect in the HC, rather than their take-all-subclauses-into-account mish-mash

To me it’s pretty simple ( and I’m sure someone could come up with a better version ):

Cyclists may chose their lane position as appropriate or necessary: this includes riding in the primary position, or up to two abreast.

Other road users Must only overtake either:    
1. On the right in a separate lane, or     
2. On the right by leaving at least 1.5m lateral clearance. With additional clearance when at high speed.

 

 

[mdavidford]

CXR94Di2 wrote:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

Where is presumed liability, mass advertising campaign to public to drum it into stupid drivers that they need to stay clear of cyclists

Those would be separate things. If you’ve been tasked with reviewing the Highway Code, you can only reflect the current law and add surrounding advice. You can’t go around creating new law and policy – those are someone else’s responsibility.

[CXR94Di2]

Where is presumed liability,
Where is presumed liability, mass advertising campaign to public to drum it into stupid drivers that they need to stay clear of cyclists

[Hirsute]

I thought this was widely

I thought this was widely known by interested parties, but it isn’t made use of in that rule 66 change.

[Hirsute]

Just don’t tell burt about

Just don’t tell burt about rule 59

[IHateSummer]

Good point. Although I don’t

Good point. Although I don’t think the revision rules out two abreast on non-narrow lanes, just that cyclists should move back to single file, if, drivers want to overtake AND it’s safe AND when not on narrow lanes in larger groups (sometimes). 
You’re right, it doesn’t make sense!

[mdavidford]

I’m not sure the second part

I’m not sure the second part makes sense either. Whereas the previous text implied that two abreast was fine except on narrow lanes, busy roads, and bends, the revised text suggests that it’s only appropriate to ride two abreast when on narrow lanes and in a large group.

[Awavey]

no wait,the ‘gear change’
no wait,the ‘gear change’ stuff today just announced consultation on the highway code for updates for cycling…whether it results in any change is another matter but its there

[brooksby]

Interesting point; well made.

Interesting point; well made.

However – I think that the chances of any revision of the HC actually happening are pretty slim.  I suspect there’ll be this consultation and then it’ll get kicked out into the long grass…

[Author]

Replies