Highway Code changes - 29 Jan 22

Alamo

LE
Am I overreacting, or does this look like a recipe for disaster? (If not loads of compo claims!)

74017887-8FE6-4DDE-B4CC-036FFEB9A64E.jpeg
 

anglo

LE
Am I overreacting, or does this look like a recipe for disaster? (If not loads of compo claims!)

View attachment 634164
Their Illustration of rule 3 is wrong

Rule H3 clarifies cyclists' priorities. ... You should not cut across cyclists going ahead when turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle.
 
What is the point of number 4? Surely the whole point of cycle lanes is that they remove cycles from the carriageway used by motor vehicles, which you’d think would be (a) better/safer for the cyclists and (b) better for the motorists in that they don’t have cyclists clogging up the carriageway.

If you have a cycle lane but with cyclists using the road, then the cycle lane is just wasted space (costly to create and maintain at that), and the hazards it was intended to obviate still exist for both categories of road user.
 

Alamo

LE
Two questions then:

1. When does the junction stop? If I’m turning left off the priority road how far down the side road do pedestrians have priority? 1m? 10m? 25m? (it’s a hypothetical question as it hasn’t been specified?)

2. If I’m coming off an exit on an A Road roundabout (at say 40mph) and there’s a pedestrian at the exit do I have to stop on the roundabout to let them cross? A roundabout’s a junction, but if this rule applies then I foresee A. Shit loads of crashes and B. Major increase in journey times.
 

philc

LE
Looks like loads of accidents, you just dont change the Highway code. who looks at the Highway code after passing, it goes in the bin. If anything it slips from memory, god knows no one seems to know about roundabouts. Here, 10 years ago there were none, the nearest one being maybe 50 miles away, sure the instructor may of passed on the basics, but use one, never. Now we have a couple and they are like who breaks first.

If I was a pedestrian I would not be stepping of the kerb at a junction in front of a car just because its in the highway code.

As for cyclists, no change they behave like cocks anyway.
 

clanky

War Hero
Rear end shunts are entirely the responsibility of the shunter driving too close to the car in front. If the new rules result in a few extra insurance claims while drivers learn better habits then so be it.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
What is the point of number 4? Surely the whole point of cycle lanes is that they remove cycles from the carriageway used by motor vehicles, which you’d think would be (a) better/safer for the cyclists and (b) better for the motorists in that they don’t have cyclists clogging up the carriageway.

If you have a cycle lane but with cyclists using the road, then the cycle lane is just wasted space (costly to create and maintain at that), and the hazards it was intended to obviate still exist for both categories of road user.
The problem is going to be the self-righteous.

I've got a road bike with clip-in pedals. There's a stretch of road near me with lights at the foot of a dip. I don't want to unclip as trying to clip in while pulling away up a hill doesn't work - I'll fall off. So, I stay in the saddle. That sometimes means drifting over the line when on red but I've never jumped the lights. I've been serially abused by drivers who don't know the mechanics/reality of things and I can't stop them to explain what and why.

Equally, I see the two-wheeled díckheads who jump lights, use pedestrian crossings and generally behave badly. I get as angry at them as anyone else.

As a motorist and cyclist, I see the idiots on both sides. The problem with not obliging cyclists to use cycle lanes is going to have the cycle Nazis out in the running lanes purely to demonstrate their 'rights'. Stand by for lots of Go-Pro footage on social media.

There's another example here of how in society courtesy cuts both ways - or should. If two cyclists are cycling abreast, there's nothing to stop them occasionally dropping in line to let people past. You know it won't happen, though.

This is going to bugger traffic flows.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Two questions then:

1. When does the junction stop? If I’m turning left off the priority road how far down the side road do pedestrians have priority? 1m? 10m? 25m? (it’s a hypothetical question as it hasn’t been specified?)

2. If I’m coming off an exit on an A Road roundabout (at say 40mph) and there’s a pedestrian at the exit do I have to stop on the roundabout to let them cross? A roundabout’s a junction, but if this rule applies then I foresee A. Shit loads of crashes and B. Major increase in journey times.
Rear end shunts are entirely the responsibility of the shunter driving too close to the car in front. If the new rules result in a few extra insurance claims while drivers learn better habits then so be it.
@ clanky, yes that's the theory and the practice. And a bit self-righteous.

Having the traffic on a priority route effectively stop to let someone crossing take priority is going to cause far more accidents.

It'll also increase pollution, as you lock everyone on that priority route into deceleration/acceleration.

Also, all well and good if it's only one, fit individual crossing. What about a family, or a walking school bus, or someone who's infirm. That's actually quite a time delay in real terms.
 

anglo

LE
No 5 is wrong, the cyclist on the driver's RHS is not allowed,

Rule H3 clarifies cyclists' priorities. ... You should not cut across cyclists going ahead when turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle.
Another motor vehicle wouldn't be on the RHS on a single lane road, as in No 5
 
If I was a pedestrian I would not be stepping of the kerb at a junction in front of a car just because its in the highway code.
You might not, but kids probably will. Even though they are smaller their skulls can leave a dent in your bonnet.
It seems an odd rule.
 
Am I overreacting, or does this look like a recipe for disaster? (If not loads of compo claims!)
Yes, you are overreacting.

No, it’s not a recipe for disaster.

It’s setting out what was good practice anyway, all new rules are “should” not “shall” or “must”
Other rules still exist, for instance while a car should not cut across a cyclist, a cyclist should not attempt to pass a car which is signalling to turn.
It would probably help if media coverage included the existing rules which limit the new ones rather than going for controversy.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
No 5 is wrong, the cyclist on the driver's RHS is not allowed,

Rule H3 clarifies cyclists' priorities. ... You should not cut across cyclists going ahead when turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle.
Another motor vehicle wouldn't be on the RHS on a single lane road, as in No 5
In the good old days (i.e. yesterday). It now looks as though cyclists can sit where they like in the lane.

Stand by for the two abreasts to see it as their 'right' to overtake cars by passing either side... and the cretinous to do it just to prove a point.

Someone is going to end up dead because of this.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Yes, you are overreacting.

No, it’s not a recipe for disaster.

It’s setting out what was good practice anyway, all new rules are “should” not “shall” or “must”
Other rules still exist, for instance while a car should not cut across a cyclist, a cyclist should not attempt to pass a car which is signalling to turn.
It would probably help if media coverage included the existing rules which limit the new ones rather than going for controversy.
A lot of work has gone on near me to turn previously narrow pavements into wider, dual-use (cyclist/pedestrian) thoroughfares.

It's previously been regarded as good practice, where possible, to have a median strip between cyclists and vehicles, rather than a painted line. The dual-use thoroughfares accomplish that with a kerb, although it should be pointed out that a bicycle can still kill a pedestrian.*

The main problem here is going to be pace. Motorcycles are told to sit higher in the lane to assert their presence and prevent themselves being ploughed into the kerb by cars and lorries. But motorcycles can shift.

Another thing that's not being considered here is road surface quality. My road bike has wheels barely an inch wide. If people are going to be hogging the crown of the lane on similar, they'll be going even slower because of potholes or just because the surface quality is shaking them to death. Been there, done that.





*Anything smaller than a motorcycle is classed as a VRU - 'Vulnerable Road User'. A friend and colleague is an expert on cycle lanes and is scathing about this. It's about mass and velocity. A bicycle can still be very dangerous but they tend to be regarded as, and lumped together with, pedestrians.
 

GDog

War Hero
What is the point of number 4? Surely the whole point of cycle lanes is that they remove cycles from the carriageway used by motor vehicles, which you’d think would be (a) better/safer for the cyclists and (b) better for the motorists in that they don’t have cyclists clogging up the carriageway.

If you have a cycle lane but with cyclists using the road, then the cycle lane is just wasted space (costly to create and maintain at that), and the hazards it was intended to obviate still exist for both categories of road user.
Most cycle lanes are shit, so we just use the road.
 
Top