Cyclists called on to support “10 key changes” to Highway Code

I modified the standard template with my take on riding in groups.

"I also strongly support a new wording relating to riding in a group, given that it is often safer for cyclists to ride two abreast and that doing so can make overtaking easier for faster road users. Where possible, drivers should be encouraged to overtake cyclists using the opposite lane or carriageway rather than straddling lane dividers. On narrower roads, where safe (for the cyclists) a single file formation may assist a driver to overtake safely giving sufficient room. On very narrow country roads especially at bends, cyclists should consider single file with respect to leaving sufficient room for oncoming vehicles to pass safely. (Rule 66)."

This is great and hopefully we'll see the changes, but the most critical part of all of this is how is communicated to the public. . . simply putting a leaflet through a door saying 'please read the highway code' wont suffice, nor will anything in that ballpark. . .this needs to be a full on media assault repeated at key times, a tv ad explaining the basic changes and legal implicaitons for people who know nothing about cycling ... half-arseing it will change nothing

I am pleased that someone below experienced a satisfactory response from Lancashire Constabulary. I haven't. As for this consultation: we already have a very good Highway Code which is completely ignored, so the merit of changing it so that it can be completely ignored by drivers and the police all over again escapes me. All this '2 metres for over 30 mph and for large vehicles' tripe does is convince the legislators that they have done all they can, thereby passing the buck to the police who have not the slightest intention of ever enforcing it even with the very best evidence. Lancashire Constabulary has never prosecuted anyone for close passing because they think the offence does not exist without photographic proof that the vehicle has hit the cyclist hard. You won't have that because you've been ejected onto the road and the headcam is probably broken, or will be if the driver can get to it, and most people don't have a rear facing camera. 2 metres?! I'd be very happy with 1 (I've just checked the ruler) if it actually happened. This is the way it really is- and this one was doing at least 40. The way the police appear to view it when they describe this sort of thing (there was no response to this incident report) as 'plenty of room' is to look at the gap between the vehicle and the kerb and say 'I could easily cycle through there' safely, why can't you?' 

This 'consultation' is worthless because it's the solution to the problem we don't have: that there aren't enough laws. I am not responding to it, on principle.

Not in full agreement,  H of R should be disgarded.  Junction priority could be kept as now if road positioning was more adhered to without the stupidity of undertaking.  Otherwise about right.

Used to have a friend at university who insisted on riding a bread-bike with a helmet and a Sam Brown, day lights, etc.... Hilariously he seemed to be involved in more collisions and accidents than the rest of us put together.  I've never quite worked out whether he was such a bad cyclist that he would, indeed, be toast without this safety equipment or whether - in the early-90s - it merely served to distract drivers who veered towards him like moths to a lamp...

Surely if car manufacturers wanted to excercise corporate reaponsibility they could just move the door handle further back on the door so it literally has to be opened with the left hand?

The photo of the car overtaking the cyclist by a safe distance is clearly Photoshopped

Strongly recommend that you choose to promote the Primary Position one because in doing so that also covers close passing and addresses the hierarchy of road users point. If you're in primary, and legally allowed to be there, then you're effectively a car

A couple of the proposed changes could be worded slightly better, but in general these changes should be welcomed.

It hardly matters in Lancashire, where the Highway Code has been suspended by the police for years. The new Highway Code will have met the same fate before it is  even published. If you  can't even get them to  take crashing red lights seriously, what hope is there for mandatory  passing distances which just have Lancashire TacOps officers collapsing in fits of mirth?

The link shoul be:

www.cyclinguk.org/highwaycode

Need to fix the link at the foot of the article.

I think Cycling UK have dropped the ball with the safe passing distances.

It tells motorists that they should be trying to estimate their lateral distance to a moving cyclist, rather than simply overtake clear on the other side of the lane marker - which any fool can judge accurately.

Moreover, it feeds into the idea that if only the cyclist were to move over then there would be enough room to overtake; the cyclist is choosing to hold me up, it's their choice if I have to squeeze by.

It's not that the measurements of 1.5m or 2m are wrong, but that to respect them necessarily means that a car must move far enough across into the other lane as to preclude any oncoming traffic, so they might as well take the other lane. Draw yourself a diagram if you think otherwise.

Given the difficulty motorists will have accurately judging the gap, the mentality that it engenders, and the fact that it anyway results in them having to wait for the other lane to clear, why not have done with it an have one simple, unambiguous rule - overtake on the other side.

While I support these measures and Cycling UK, I can't help thinking that it would have been better to inform the debate by having an inquiry into road safety and laws first; you know, the one promised all those years ago.

That said, I'll certainly be voting for them.