Flak jackets at the ready
Discussion
Proposed changes to the highway code, put forward by cycling UK. I was wondering about posting it in General Gassing. What do you think?
https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/docu...
Starting as it means to go on:
Rule 1 - Hierarchy of responsibility / users
This would introduce the concept of a “hierarchy of users”, putting road users most at risk in the
event of a collision at the top of the hierarchy. That’s pedestrians, in particular children, older
adults and disabled people, followed by cyclists, horse riders and motorcyclists.
(Just to add that I'd like to think I'm a considerate motorist and cyclist but I also wanted to see if I can create a thread that runs to several pages
)
https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/docu...
Starting as it means to go on:
Rule 1 - Hierarchy of responsibility / users
This would introduce the concept of a “hierarchy of users”, putting road users most at risk in the
event of a collision at the top of the hierarchy. That’s pedestrians, in particular children, older
adults and disabled people, followed by cyclists, horse riders and motorcyclists.
(Just to add that I'd like to think I'm a considerate motorist and cyclist but I also wanted to see if I can create a thread that runs to several pages
)I had a brief look earlier and most of it seems to be for the benefit of cyclists, although I think some will oppose the prescriptive nature of how cyclists should ride.
The full text is here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review...
New text in the drivers section, something similar was in the cyclists section before, but it has been reworded in the same way:
"Bear in mind that cyclists are not obliged to use cycle lanes or cycle tracks."
In the hierarchy:
"Pedestrians may use any part of the road and use cycle tracks as well as the pavement, unless there are signs prohibiting pedestrians."
The specified minimum passing distances is welcome, also the text "you should wait behind the motorcyclist, cyclist, horse rider, horse drawn vehicle or pedestrian and not overtake if it is unsafe or not possible to meet these clearances"
Obviously few existing drivers will read this, and new drivers barely read it either, but it should all help with guidance as to whether specific driving is poor - eg. I hear that some police forces refuse to look at close passes because there is no minimum distance for a "safe pass".
The full text is here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review...
New text in the drivers section, something similar was in the cyclists section before, but it has been reworded in the same way:
"Bear in mind that cyclists are not obliged to use cycle lanes or cycle tracks."
In the hierarchy:
"Pedestrians may use any part of the road and use cycle tracks as well as the pavement, unless there are signs prohibiting pedestrians."
The specified minimum passing distances is welcome, also the text "you should wait behind the motorcyclist, cyclist, horse rider, horse drawn vehicle or pedestrian and not overtake if it is unsafe or not possible to meet these clearances"
Obviously few existing drivers will read this, and new drivers barely read it either, but it should all help with guidance as to whether specific driving is poor - eg. I hear that some police forces refuse to look at close passes because there is no minimum distance for a "safe pass".
Mastodon2 said:
Nothing in there seems unusual nor should it prove controversial, though it probably will. No doubt there will be some people screaming until they are red in the face about cyclists not paying "road tax" etc.
This always makes me laugh. My second car is a 1.5 tdci Ford Mondeo and guess what? The road tax is free so it doesn’t cost me a penny. That’s essentially how things work over here. The least vulnerable (eg car) is assumed at fault vs the more vulnerable (eg bike) unless they can prove otherwise. Same for bike vs pedestrian etc etc. This can lead to things where a car passing a green traffic light and hitting a bike which went through on red is at fault because they should have anticipated the bike would jump the lights.
gl20 said:
Rule 1 - Hierarchy of responsibility / users
This would introduce the concept of a “hierarchy of users”, putting road users most at risk in the
event of a collision at the top of the hierarchy. That’s pedestrians, in particular children, older
adults and disabled people, followed by cyclists, horse riders and motorcyclists.
As far as i am aware, thats roughly how it is out here in Germany. I see it as basically as the larger thing i have to keep an eye out for weaker things. So if im on a bike its checking for peds. In the car its peds, bikes, horses etc. This would introduce the concept of a “hierarchy of users”, putting road users most at risk in the
event of a collision at the top of the hierarchy. That’s pedestrians, in particular children, older
adults and disabled people, followed by cyclists, horse riders and motorcyclists.
Cycling out here is amazing, but there are a lot more cycle paths, lanes and dedicated cycle streets than the uk. Riding on bike lanes in the cities can by hairy when tourists wander onto the bike path... they only do it once after being scoulded by irate germans.
Also, give way to the right at minor junctions does a lot to keep speeds down in high risk areas.
Good that the HC is being re-written but what we need to do next is get all the existing road users, including cyclists who don't drive, to read the bloody thing. Only then will the changes made be understood by some. The type of person who will sit down and read the revised HC is the kind of driver who is unlikely to give you just enough room while overtaking you.
Most of that looks eminently sensible, but I can see the straight on has priority causing a lot of cyclist/pedestrian deaths until people got used it, despite it being standard in other countries.
Although I generally find Dutch cyclists, and even more so pedestrians, a lot less likely to cross on red than in the UK. It's the cycle paths on exits of roundabouts that always worry me as it can be an awkward angle to check.
troc said:
That’s essentially how things work over here. The least vulnerable (eg car) is assumed at fault vs the more vulnerable (eg bike) unless they can prove otherwise. Same for bike vs pedestrian etc etc. This can lead to things where a car passing a green traffic light and hitting a bike which went through on red is at fault because they should have anticipated the bike would jump the lights.
I wasn't aware the driver could get done for a cyclist jumping a red. Although I generally find Dutch cyclists, and even more so pedestrians, a lot less likely to cross on red than in the UK. It's the cycle paths on exits of roundabouts that always worry me as it can be an awkward angle to check.I need to read it but it's not a bad shout. At sea, you have IRPCS, International Regulations for the Prevention Of Collisions at Sea, also known as the Colregs. It gets a bit more interesting as obviously there are no lanes, and at night no headlights as such. It would be the same as having a large carpark with no markings, and at night people would be driving in all directions, with nothing more than sidelights on, in everything from a bike to a juggernaut.
It generally tends to work, and a lot of it is founded on the principle of vulnerability and ability to manoeuvre. That's massively simplifying it, but it's the basic foundations of it!
It generally tends to work, and a lot of it is founded on the principle of vulnerability and ability to manoeuvre. That's massively simplifying it, but it's the basic foundations of it!
This thread should probably be in General Gassing as the new advice affects car drivers more than cyclists in my opinion.
I think it is all fairly sensible stuff to be honest, and I say that as someone who mostly drives a car and rarely uses my bicycle.
The world of personal transport is changing rapidly, and everyone just needs to get used to it.
In and around urban areas: Bicycles, Electric bicycles, Electric scooters will become ever more common forms of transport.
Motorcycle ownership has been almost totally flat/constant for 20 years now, however I think will their use will dwindle as the average age of a motorcyclist increases. The same as it is for cars, younger people are much less interested in obtaining a licence for a motorcycle. The government moving the goalposts for motorcycle licensing every few years, making it more difficult, is also having an impact.
I don't think new rules or codes of conduct that make the roads safer is a bad thing.
I think it is all fairly sensible stuff to be honest, and I say that as someone who mostly drives a car and rarely uses my bicycle.
The world of personal transport is changing rapidly, and everyone just needs to get used to it.
In and around urban areas: Bicycles, Electric bicycles, Electric scooters will become ever more common forms of transport.
Motorcycle ownership has been almost totally flat/constant for 20 years now, however I think will their use will dwindle as the average age of a motorcyclist increases. The same as it is for cars, younger people are much less interested in obtaining a licence for a motorcycle. The government moving the goalposts for motorcycle licensing every few years, making it more difficult, is also having an impact.
I don't think new rules or codes of conduct that make the roads safer is a bad thing.
troc said:
That’s essentially how things work over here. The least vulnerable (eg car) is assumed at fault vs the more vulnerable (eg bike) unless they can prove otherwise. Same for bike vs pedestrian etc etc. This can lead to things where a car passing a green traffic light and hitting a bike which went through on red is at fault because they should have anticipated the bike would jump the lights.
Do you have anything other than anecdotal evidence for that assertion?The new rules seem very sensible to me.
MrBarry123 said:
Do you have anything other than anecdotal evidence for that assertion?
The new rules seem very sensible to me.
Sorry, nothing concrete - just the experience of a friend of mine who was held liable for exactly that situation. Nothing bad, nobody was hurt (badly or permanently, just scrapes and bruises) but he was held to be at fault. The new rules seem very sensible to me.
Essentially it’s up to the car driver to prove they did everything possible to avoid the accident. It’s one reason why everyone in Holland has liability insurance.
I thought we already had a system fairly similar already in law of those who have the greater propensity to do harm have the greater responsibility, hence how the cyclist in London who hit a pedestrian who crossed when they shouldn't while looking at their phone was still found liable for the pedestrians £100k compensation (or whatever large amount it was), with the ruling they should have anticipated pedestrians potentially crossing (when they shouldn't) and driven / ridden accordingly (slowed down), as opposed to going full speed and blowing their horn.
As I understand it you never have the right to drive over someone, but as long as you drove in a responsible manner taking reasonable measures you won't be prosecuted. Which seems fair to me.
As I understand it you never have the right to drive over someone, but as long as you drove in a responsible manner taking reasonable measures you won't be prosecuted. Which seems fair to me.
Only part I'm concerned about is the overtaking distance because if the cyclists, horses or whatever are side by side or on a narrow single track lane, the rule either needs to allow the overtake where there is no longer space to give 2m clearance or describe how the road users should interact in this case. e.g. when encountering a group of horse riders or cyclists, they need to stick to their lane and the overtaker needs to be completely in the oncoming lane for the duration of the manoeuvre. Or some speed limit while overtaking.
Or something.
Or something.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff