- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Two abreast - cheltenham flyer tori and skardy 2"If you're a competent driver it shouldn't cause any issues": Cyclists react to Highway Code change outrage
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?
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."
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- mdavidford 1 hour 51 min ago
You can't have more than 100% of a finite thing, but you can have an increase of more than 100% in a thing that's not finite. It's just that in...
- David9694 2 hours 38 min ago
One Stop in Evesham ram raided on Christmas Day by thieves https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/24821392.one-stop-evesham-ram-raide...
- Spangly Shiny 5 hours 54 min ago
Bullseye!
- chrisonabike 6 hours 46 min ago
Shurely "we have to build more housing! But developers won't build 'affordable housing'. And where can we find land anyway (lots of nimbys)?"...
- RoubaixCube 6 hours 54 min ago
Its an Garmin'less Garmin for a lot less Garmin money.
- hawkinspeter 11 hours 27 min ago
I've noticed previously that it can take a couple of hours for the post to show up in the forum posts section, but if it's not appearing at all,...
- wtjs 11 hours 35 min ago
Unable to trust it... My solution to this problem began a few years ago- just get another one when they're cheap and light enough
- Dnnnnnn 1 day 2 hours ago
The CUK members' own stories about their travels in the mag make me wonder whether road.cc could built up a bank of readers' favourite routes? It...
- Hirsute 1 day 4 hours ago
There is no way on that terrain the wheels would clog up.
- TempleOrion 1 day 5 hours ago
No. But do you think Trump is? 🤡💩🤣
Add new comment
73 comments
Man drove without licence for more than 70 years
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-60159649
Or insurance
!!!!
...and still refused to stop and ask for directions.
I tend to think that if someone can do that and not be caught then they're probably a careful driver.
What snaps my cranks is when drivers think that passing their driving test should be the pinnacle of their skill and knowledge rather than treating it as a baseline to be improved with experience.
You should see the accidents in the rear view mirror.
Probably don't do much mileage but you'd think an anpr would have picked it up before.
I usually read the comments on articles like this but never comment. This is my first post.
I've been road riding since 2018 and I've had my fair share of drivers cutting me up or (what feels like) driving too close to me on fast/slow roads when there's clearly room on the opposite side of the road to allow me space. I've come to learn that this is just part and parcel of being a cyclist. There's always a minority who are 'out to get you' for reasons of their own.
One thing that really infuriates me is when I get hailed down or cut up by a driver who genuinely doesn't know the highway code. I recently rode down a 50mph dual carriageway (unplanned but completely legal) after making a wrong turn and planned to get off as soon as I could and return to my route. This led to a driver screaming at me saying I shouldn't be on this rode, blah, blah, blah. This then led to two drivers behind him following suit at speeds in excess of 50mph staying in the left lane, to 'teach me a lesson'. Safe to say I was infuriated.
Caught the guy at the lights and we exchanged words and he genuinely had no idea I was allowed to ride on a dual carriageway. His actions in turn, caused other idiots to follow suit therefore putting my life at risk.
Ultimately, as of this week, road cycling is coming to an end for me as it's not the laws/legislation that's the issue. It's the culture of the select few on the road, who are setting a bad example to other (ill-educated) motorists to follow suit and turn the whole scenario in to an 'us and them' shouting match.
There's a fundamental issue at a cultural level that'll never change in the UK for years to come.
Having read lots of depressing comments on social media about these changes, there are a staggering number of motorists who seem to believe that the Heirarchy of Road users means that in all instances drivers will be liable for any accident involving cyclists.
Typically this manifests with drivers going "I was driving the other night and almost hit a cyclist who was riding at night with no lights on..... these new rules mean that if I hit the cyclist I will be liable", or "if I hit a cyclist who runs a red light I will be liable".
Unfortunately they cannot grasp the fact that if the cyclist is breaking the law that the cyclist is the one liable.
It also shows a massive ignorance about the difference between civil and criminal law, and the terms liability and culpability. I've noticed a number of eejits banging on about "innocent until proven guilty"( Which in itself suggests they're no strangers to, or planning on, using their cars to assault other people).
Even when you go through the differences between civil and criminal law with them, and that we already have presumed liability in certain cases, they can't comprehend it, let alone that the updates regarding hierarchy (at this stage) have no legal weight in the situations they're manufacturing in their tiny, limited, yet fevered, imaginations.
Edit: although one hopes that the hierarchy will find a back door into being the standard presumed liability, as it will be now (fingers crossed) explicitly part of the ACOP.
Pretty much my experience as well. I've had people ranting that they don't understand the new rules or how ridiculous they are and it turns out they've not even read the proof copy of the proposed changes. They've been basing their knowledge on all the falsehoods published by various papers. Even when you correct them you're met with silence or a rant of but but but!
They seem to have convinced themselves that the HC has been completely it's unreal.
Are you suffering from car culture? Take our ten point quiz to find out.
I've not succeeded in landing too many punches on Local FB today. Car culture takes hold of people so comprehensively that every avenue to suggesting that cars might be a bit of a problem is blocked-off. It gives its sufferers an answer to everything, an ability to alight on the minor and ignore the gross, or an ability to shut off anything they just don't want to hear.
In the worst cases, you have in the HC a rule book saying "please try to be careful" with some pretty abject SM responses that I hope police or lawyers are resourceful enough to bring up when the time comes.
The sense of grievance from paying c£200 annual VED is transferred to cyclists before you can say 'Tesla' - all to do with being different, I know.
Today, it was "what if 150 school children all come out on bikes?" Gosh, whatever will you do? I didn't get on to kids waking to school or playing in the street today.
Certain things are parroted endlessly - cyclists contribute nothing (my monthly PAYE, anyone?), pavements, RLJ, and 3/4 abreast ("for miles" it was today).
If you lie and exaggerate to yourself enough that something has befallen you, always does, always will, you start to believe your own hype. A bad encounter with a cyclist months ago plays now as "I don't like cyclists".
You get a bit of "well I'm going to give up driving then" - not sure what if anything that is meant to elicit: "brilliant idea" I say, and they sound a bit lost for words after that. You get told you're "anti-car", and it's "you don't drive you do you?" As the exchange is nearing its end, you get "we'd better all go back to horses, then" - maybe they're exhausted too. I know I find it so.
It's tiring indeed. Sometimes it's good to give yourself time off from being "that cyclist" - indeed people then may see you as another person again. When challenged the other day about the actions of some cyclist I was able to spot the pattern and just say "well, I wasn't there and didn't see that. Sounds like you thought they were being a bit of an arse though" and we moved on.
There's probably some profound stuff that you could draw on at this point from some impressive people's experiences of engaging with people with drastically different belief systems (including the radicalised) and meeting them on common human ground. About gently exploring their assumptions and the right time to suggest asking them if they can see their stereotypes in you... but stuff it, it's just t'internets.
Yup - that one turned up on my village FB group.
There was a lot of 'OMG if I have to give way to people crossing at junctions I'm just gonna get rear-ended all the time <sad face>', too
And they don't even realise that is what they have to do now.
If only there were a remedy to not hitting objects in front of you.
The Gruniad did a decent column this morning which was quite refreshing after being subjected to much of the other media meltdown https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/24/common-myths-about-what...
These days I find that about 80% of drivers behave responsibly and give adequate space when passing. Approx 18% breach the 1.5m gap and about 2% give me the genuine fear when passing. But the group who have most often caused me to crash are pedestrians and pedestrians with dogs. Over the years 4 people have walked out in front of me from behind parked vehicles, sometimes with eyes glued to their smartphones. Worst of all is the dog walkers with those insane extending leads. Only last weekend a woman with her dog caused me to crash when the dog ran out across me with no warning.
My opinion: "All road users need to show respect and consideration for all other road users."
Where does it say that in the new code?
If this isn't a rhetorical question the answer is in the introduction to the Hierarchy of Users and in paragraph 4 of Rule H1
Exactly why the HC is there and why it needs more publicity.
Rule 56
Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders.
Rules like that show exactly why people can't be left to their own devices - the old just use common sense, when it is well known that they don't.
Motorists complain of ever decreasing speed limits - again they'll say, apparently reasonably, that people should be allowed to drive to the road conditions, when it is quite clear a substantial minority are incapable of moderating their driving accordingly.
As the headline hints, drive properly and there shouldn't be a problem, but too many road users are incapable. Many seem to be untrainable - how many drivers risk their lives on 9 points and bemoan their jobs being at risk? Why is driving to the speed limit or below such an impossible challenge for so many?
Pedestrians (AKA normal people including you and me) are at the top of the hierarchy. Yes, we are annoying, and sometimes look at our phones, and walk where we shouldn't.
And kids! don't get me started. worst of the lot. messing around, pushing each other, not looking , darting out when you're not expecting it. Where are the parents, eh? Kids shouldn't be allowed out unless accompanied , ney shackled, to their parents until thy're 18.
And they're everywhere! can't get away from them. It's almost like whenever there is a pavement, there's kids. And sometimes where there's not. How am I supposed to drive at the speed limit when there might be kids that would fall under my wheels, eh?
But what can you do eh? drive to teh conditions?? There'd be grid lock!!
Isn't the real problem not that motorists have to stop running people over but that these changes suggest cyclists are higher up the hierarchy (that means less culpable, right?) than motorists? But everyone knows that cyclists ride on the pavements - and jump red lights - so they've gotta be far more dangerous to pedestrians, right? One nearly killed me the other day!
And they aren't even taxed or licenced - and if one killed and rode off there's no way of telling who they were - no number plates, see?
Well I for one can assure all motorists that I only run people over on my moutnainbike - teh road bike wheels just arent built for it
Make life easy for yourself - noted TdF fan Dieter Senft has got you (and the pedestrians) covered:
Cool. Is that on Etsy?
Number plates... if they've been in a collision with a cycle that's that serious they really expect the cyclist to be in a suitable condition to get up and run off? 🤦♂️
The problem is irresponsible click bait "journalists" working for "newspapers" like the Express selling the idea that cyclists are all going to be cycling down the middle of the road. This is whipping up anger towards cyclists.
not just tabloids the times too
Strictly speaking, the times is a tabloid.
Tabloid refers to the dimensions of the paper used in printing. The times ceased printing its broadsheet edition in 2004.
Ooh, was forgetting...
WINGMIRRORS
though technically the story was published in the Sunday Times, which is still a broadsheet in size
Touche!
Might be a "Berliner". The old broadsheet was big enough for a duvet cover, if somewhat crinkly.
What a donut? Greasy, stodgy, no nutritional value, likely to promote diabetes and heart disease..... Hmmmm
Pages