Walking and cycling prioritised in new Highway code.

[rpmmatt]

You are hardly in a position to get on the high horse about people posting constructively...

I rarely ever post anything on these forums, as most of the time there plenty of others who know more than I do so I can bring little to discussion.

However, as someone whos been driving professionally for more than 20 years, 19 of them in HGV's, mostly delivering in the middle of towns and cities, I think I have something to add.

This thread is about changes to the highway code,which, rightly or wrongly, aim to address the safety of vunerable road users.

Some seem to worry that the changes will increase conflict by giving cyclists/peds entitlement or a false sense of security buy placing more responsibilty on drivers of cars and large vehicles.

I disagree, as from my point of view, any good driver should always use defensive driving skills to avoid the kind of conflicts that arise between different road users and that, these rule changes shouldn't be a problem for good drivers.

For reasons I won't discuss with you, I personally take road safety very seriously. There was a time when I didn't, but experiences changed that. I also work for an employer who invests millions in training and safety all over the world, and a genuine attitude that safety comes before getting the job done. At work, we are assessed and get regular training, most of it pointless, but some of it very useful and transferable to driving cars or even riding bikes. Thats in addition to the legally mandated regulations I work under.

Haulage companies by law and now required to invest millions of pounds in updating their fleets to meet latest requirements with extra visability for drivers, warning signs, warning lights, audible warnings, camera systems and there are even new cab designs being rolled out which are more like low level bin lorry cabs, all in effort to stop drivers killing cyclists.

For a multitude of reasons none of that is working, and cyclists are still not heading the warnings either. So with bad drivers one side, and bad riders on the other, and no money for infrastructure, there are very few tools left for the authorities to use to improve safety quickly.

Will these changes help? I've no idea. Will it make some drivers think harder if they know they are now gonna carry the can in an accident? Maybe. Will it change the behaviour of cyclists? Unlikely.

I don't think these changes will do nothing for road safety, as the idiots will carry on being idiots, and those of us driving correctly aren't the problem in the first place. In a few years, the authorties will try something else, likely further restrictions on motor traffic while pushing cycling, walking and mass transit.

The only real solution is strict enforcement of all rules of the road for ALL road users, drivers, cyclists and peds alike. This is expensive, impractical and unpopular and won't ever happen, so ever more blunt instruments will be used none of which will make a significant difference.

 

[adolf hamster]

Which is why as a pedestrian you should take care. This rule is just going to get Karen's and the like killed through self entitlement. I will continue to be careful when crossing the road. Last thing I want to be is meat patty even though it is my "right of way".

that's my thinking, the laws of physics tend to have their arrest, trial, conviction and sentencing applied much faster than the laws of man ever could.
whether the other guy is right or wrong is of very little use to the dead.

as for the left-hand passing, am i the only one wondering what happened to overtaking on the right?

 

[Rroff]

I rarely ever post anything on these forums, as most of the time there plenty of others who know more than I do so I can bring little to discussion.

However, as someone whos been driving professionally for more than 20 years, 19 of them in HGV's, mostly delivering in the middle of towns and cities, I think I have something to add.

This thread is about changes to the highway code,which, rightly or wrongly, aim to address the safety of vunerable road users.

Some seem to worry that the changes will increase conflict by giving cyclists/peds entitlement or a false sense of security buy placing more responsibilty on drivers of cars and large vehicles.

I disagree, as from my point of view, any good driver should always use defensive driving skills to avoid the kind of conflicts that arise between different road users and that, these rule changes shouldn't be a problem for good drivers.

For reasons I won't discuss with you, I personally take road safety very seriously. There was a time when I didn't, but experiences changed that. I also work for an employer who invests millions in training and safety all over the world, and a genuine attitude that safety comes before getting the job done. At work, we are assessed and get regular training, most of it pointless, but some of it very useful and transferable to driving cars or even riding bikes. Thats in addition to the legally mandated regulations I work under.

Haulage companies by law and now required to invest millions of pounds in updating their fleets to meet latest requirements with extra visability for drivers, warning signs, warning lights, audible warnings, camera systems and there are even new cab designs being rolled out which are more like low level bin lorry cabs, all in effort to stop drivers killing cyclists.

For a multitude of reasons none of that is working, and cyclists are still not heading the warnings either. So with bad drivers one side, and bad riders on the other, and no money for infrastructure, there are very few tools left for the authorities to use to improve safety quickly.

Will these changes help? I've no idea. Will it make some drivers think harder if they know they are now gonna carry the can in an accident? Maybe. Will it change the behaviour of cyclists? Unlikely.

I don't think these changes will do nothing for road safety, as the idiots will carry on being idiots, and those of us driving correctly aren't the problem in the first place. In a few years, the authorties will try something else, likely further restrictions on motor traffic while pushing cycling, walking and mass transit.

The only real solution is strict enforcement of all rules of the road for ALL road users, drivers, cyclists and peds alike. This is expensive, impractical and unpopular and won't ever happen, so ever more blunt instruments will be used none of which will make a significant difference.

I agree with the bigger picture but this change to giving cyclists priority straight over on junctions is utterly daft - for instance if someone holds their left turn to allow the cyclist past them on the left it could appear to someone on the right or ahead looking to join, cross or turn like they were letting them go putting them on a collision course with the cyclist who was obscured from view by the vehicle holding off on their left turn or other traffic in the queue.

This change to cyclists and junctions is going to put more cyclists into a position, and feeling like they have a right to be in that position, which is inherently dangerous even if every motorist was driving to perfection. There is a reason why we encourage our drivers at work to use straight and late where they can rather than swinging out right into a left turn.

Ultimately these days many roads are just too busy for this mix of road users and there isn't really an easy answer but the suggestion of them having priority straight ahead at a junction isn't an answer it is just daft and going to produce more accidents. Ideally they'd build a lot more cycle ways, a lot more, but that is limited in practicality.

Then there is the issue of getting the information out there - there are still a lot of drivers ignorant to the changes to rule 134 never mind stuff like this - not to say that means things shouldn't change but this change for cyclists this creates an incredibly dangerous situation when the change isn't widely known.

as for the left-hand passing, am i the only one wondering what happened to overtaking on the right?

Same - there is a reason for that advice and it hasn't changed.

 

[Rroff]

To illustrate here is a still from the Cycling UK video on it:

Imagine there is a reasonable bit of traffic going both ways, the red mini is a tatty pickup and behind it is a removals van and then Karen in her whacking great SUV taking the kids to school, meanwhile coming the other way is a vehicle which has been sitting just up from the street lamp indicating to turn right and waiting for a gap in the traffic for awhile - the red mini holds their left turn because they see the cyclist coming up but to the person waiting to turn from the other direction it looks like the red mini is being nice and letting them go. The cyclist on the left is blocked from the turning car's view by the queue of traffic and vice versa. Even if the turning car uses caution and assumes there might be a cyclist there neither see the other until very late and if the cyclist is proceeding at their normal road speed, which they likely will be, have minimal chance of stopping even if the turning vehicle is going slowly enough to not contribute to the accident from their speed (which is also unlikely as the turning vehicle will probably go fairly briskly to allow other people to get going again).

And that is only one of several issues with it.

The whole situation has been oversimplified by a nice trite message and doesn't seem to have been thought through by people who actually drive.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

I hate to point out the obvious but why would the mini be in that position if it intends to make a left turn? It's a good 1.5m from the curb, if it was turning left but waiting for the pedestrian it would have started to turn but stopped partially turned into the side road just before it's bumper crosses the white line to stop precisely that from happening. There wouldn't be space for a cyclist to come up the inside between the car and the curb, it would have to pass on the right.

If the car hadn't fully cleared the cyclist before wanting to make the left turn, the car should hung back behind the cyclist before turning left as a normal person would now.

The cyclist should also not be riding on the left side of a road like that unless moving over to be over taken per the same rules we are talking about.

EDIT: in that same video the van turning in and waiting for the lady with the pram is an example of what I meant. The red mini is driving poorly regardless of the new code, overtook a cyclist and immediately turned left into it before even completing the overtake. It never had right of way to do that even under the old code. The correct procedure is not to overtake the cyclist in the first place and turn in behind it.

That video was published in 2020 and is a campaign video for getting something like this implemented.

 

[Rroff]

For pedestrians I think it makes sense what they are talking about and if you are positioning for pedestrians most of the time you end up with the vehicle in a blocking position which precisely prevents what I'm talking about above happening.

For cyclists though it is another matter as that blocking position just impedes the cyclist. What you (and to an extent Cycling UK) are saying makes sense in free flowing traffic but in denser, slower, traffic the dynamic changes a lot and you will have people if they are abiding by the letter of the proposed changes holding out in that position for the cyclist to clear.

The whole thing is a mess really but the problem at the moment largely ends in a bit of embarrassment or some scrapes and bruises - the proposed changes are going to trade some of that for an increased risk of incidents where serious injury or death might occur - usually where a motorist has been inconsiderate in turning left the cyclist at least has some idea it is about to happen and can mitigate some of the impact and/or they are partially travelling with the vehicle they collide with/hits them. Under these changes the chances of incidents involving higher speeds and collisions of two objects travelling towards each other, with less time to see the problem, increase.

If the car hadn't fully cleared the cyclist before wanting to make the left turn, the car should hung back behind the cyclist before turning left as a normal person would now.

I see it a lot where a driver brushes past a cyclist then pulled across them into a left turn, which is against rule 182 anyhow, and understand the frustration with that but in many cases to prevent more serious incidents happening you'd need to stop well clear of the junction to make sure the cyclist can come past before you are at any point of the turn and that they are visible to any other traffic that might be using the junction - it is just daft.

 

[Bear]

I see it a lot where a driver brushes past a cyclist then pulled across them into a left turn, which is against rule 182 anyhow, and understand the frustration with that but in many cases to prevent more serious incidents happening you'd need to stop well clear of the junction to make sure the cyclist can come past before you are at any point of the turn and that they are visible to any other traffic that might be using the junction - it is just daft.

Surely in that scenario, the driver should just hang back behind the cyclist until they reach the junction to make the turn, then the situation you state above doesn’t happen. For some reason drivers insist on trying to get in front even when there is nothing to be gained. If you overtake a cyclist and have to stop to turn left to let the cyclist pass then you have done it wrong IMO.

If you are driving under normal conditions waiting to turn left then you can indicate and take position which could prevent or deter a cyclist to undertake. Many cyclists use road positioning to prevent overtakes by cars at potential hazards like pinch points etc. but due to many drivers ignorance of road craft they get angry at the cyclist for hogging the road.

 

[Rroff]

Surely in that scenario, the driver should just hang back behind the cyclist until they reach the junction to make the turn, then the situation you state above doesn’t happen. For some reason drivers insist on trying to get in front even when there is nothing to be gained. If you overtake a cyclist and have to stop to turn left to let the cyclist pass then you have done it wrong IMO.

Ideally that would happen and under the current rules you shouldn't overtake a cyclist just before making a turn anyway but in reality traffic flow and the way cyclists behave isn't that simple. Under the proposed changes it makes it more likely if the turning driver holds back the cyclist will continue on possibly into a dangerous situation.

 

[One More Solo]

To illustrate here is a still from the Cycling UK video on it:

Imagine there is a reasonable bit of traffic going both ways, the red mini is a tatty pickup and behind it is a removals van and then Karen in her whacking great SUV taking the kids to school, meanwhile coming the other way is a vehicle which has been sitting just up from the street lamp indicating to turn right and waiting for a gap in the traffic for awhile - the red mini holds their left turn because they see the cyclist coming up but to the person waiting to turn from the other direction it looks like the red mini is being nice and letting them go. The cyclist on the left is blocked from the turning car's view by the queue of traffic and vice versa. Even if the turning car uses caution and assumes there might be a cyclist there neither see the other until very late and if the cyclist is proceeding at their normal road speed, which they likely will be, have minimal chance of stopping even if the turning vehicle is going slowly enough to not contribute to the accident from their speed (which is also unlikely as the turning vehicle will probably go fairly briskly to allow other people to get going again).

And that is only one of several issues with it.

The whole situation has been oversimplified by a nice trite message and doesn't seem to have been thought through by people who actually drive.

This situation already happens. It’s avoided by the car turning left not pointlessly overtaking the cyclist only to wait/slow down in front of them in order to make a left hand turn when it’s clear to do so. In this situation, I would proceed through the junction with extreme caution because of the risk of an unseen vehicle turning across me like you say.

The car turning right is in the wrong regardless of the changes to the law because it made a manoeuvre when it wasn’t safe to do so. In most accidents everyone contributes but the changes do at least clarify that the cyclist is least in the wrong on this occasion.

Making the roads safer for vulnerable users is quick, cost effective and benefits everybody by freeing up space for those that “need” to drive. Dedicated cycling infrastructure would be great but the cost would be huge and I don’t think there is a genuine appetite to put the work in to introduce it.

 

[Rroff]

Yeah it does to a degree happen already - take this situation here for instance

driver should really have started indicating at ~19 seconds and fallen in behind the cyclist with panniers but the cyclist in orange didn't really give him much room to do so and would have likely ended up alongside the driver - with the result that either the cyclist(s) behind held back to let the car turn or the car came to a stop (similar to the proposed changes) and held the turn until the cyclists were clear on the left - if it was a bigger vehicle and there was someone waiting to turn into the fuel station from the other direction in both cases that could make for a bad situation but it becomes more likely with the proposed changes.

The whole situation is a mess but without more cycling infrastructure and more people feeling safer to cycle rather than get in a car when then stuff like this just changes around where the danger is rather than solve anything.

Dedicated cycling infrastructure would be great but the cost would be huge and I don’t think there is a genuine appetite to put the work in to introduce it.

It is weird - anything else which has an environmental benefit there is a huge song and dance about it but actually improving and encouraging more people to cycle where that is an option nope. Most of the cycleways around where I work are abortive implementations with big gaps between them and planned by an idiot for the most part.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

That was some poor driving and not that uncommon. The car both cut up the cyclists on the left and the car on the right to get through. I’m not sure the new rule is going to ever change anything like that as the driver is obviously breaking the old rules as well.

I certainly wouldn’t be lining up to stick by bike up the left side of drivers like that to find out, not in my car would I bully riders out of the way to get where I’m going. At the end of the day I drive and ride with the intention to get to the other end in one piece rather than first. If it takes 30 seconds longer because I waited for a cyclist/car to do its thing, I’m really not bothered at all.

I agree with you on the infrastructure, I live in a small town now on a relatively new development and it has great segregated cycle lanes throughout, the issue of you get to the end of the development and it just stops dead. By the time you get into town there isn’t actually anywhere to park safe your bike. Getting down to the train station you have to go down a narrow road with parked cars all down one side, drivers don’t wait for cyclists and just dive at them head on with no space to pass. They have to dive for the pavement when it happens, completely bonkers.

 

[Nasher]

Thing is you shouldn't be undertaking moving traffic anyway, that has never really been allowed. You are supposed to move to the center. The problem around people turning in to junctions is them cutting up cyclists who are moving with the traffic flow.

If I'm in traffic and approaching a junction I'm turning left in to, I block the left side so they can't pass without going on the pavement or moving to the middle.

 

[jpaul]

yes - had seemed they are also improving that

A proposed rule change to clarify that cyclists may pass slower-moving traffic on their right or left as already detailed in Rule 163 may be amended, says the government. “It was felt that clarity is needed to explain that cyclists should only pass on the left if they are in a cycle lane or if traffic is stationary,” says the government which could mean cyclists having to queue in standing motor traffic rather than being able to filter to the right or left, which is currently allowed.

plus the clarification of cyclist over-taking space

 

[adam cool dude]

Just make cyclists that use the road take a test and need a licence. Job solved. £££ for the government as well. I think they would be a lot less self righteous and follow rules better if they had some sort of accountability.

 

[tom_nieto]

To illustrate here is a still from the Cycling UK video on it:

And that is only one of several issues with it.

The whole situation has been oversimplified by a nice trite message and doesn't seem to have been thought through by people who actually drive.

This would assume that the cyclist undertakes a car indicating left. It would seem that the new message hasn’t been written by people who cycle either.

Undertaking moving traffic on a bicycle = death

 

[tom_nieto]

Just make cyclists that use the road take a test and need a licence. Job solved. £££ for the government as well. I think they would be a lot less self righteous and follow rules better if they had some sort of accountability.

Thanks, I have a driving licence and pay VED on a number of cars so I have solved your problem.

 

[Resident]

I wonder if this will take into account whether the cyclist went through a red light when yours was green?

Ask Charlie Austin. Charged with due care and attention after he collided with a cyclist who ran a red light, despite Mr Austin driving legally through a green light.

Absolutely wrong IMO. 100% the cyclist at fault. Had he complied with the law and stopped at the red there would have been no collision.

 

[Nasher]

We once saw a cyclist jump a red light and get hit pretty hard right outside the office. The police arrived and blamed the cyclist as he was being dragged in to an Ambulance.

What does need changing is the punishment for cyclists killing pedestrians. They get a very light sentence compared to death by dangerous driving. It should be equal.

 

[Rroff]

Thing is you shouldn't be undertaking moving traffic anyway, that has never really been allowed. You are supposed to move to the center. The problem around people turning in to junctions is them cutting up cyclists who are moving with the traffic flow.

If I'm in traffic and approaching a junction I'm turning left in to, I block the left side so they can't pass without going on the pavement or moving to the middle.

Depends a lot on the skill, experience and outlook of the rider but often things aren't so simple and this change is going to encourage progress on the left with a known dangerous area.

Something which makes a big difference is visibility of the rider but even then many of these videos of cyclists getting cut up by drivers turning left are in high vis. But there are still far too many cycling in drab coloured clothing and it really does make a big difference to how quickly you spot them even if attentive.

 

[Nasher]

Depends a lot on the skill, experience and outlook of the rider but often things aren't so simple and this change is going to encourage progress on the left with a known dangerous area.

Something which makes a big difference is visibility of the rider but even then many of these videos of cyclists getting cut up by drivers turning left are in high vis. But there are still far too many cycling in drab coloured clothing and it really does make a big difference to how quickly you spot them even if attentive.

Many of them also approach way to fast or are weaving between traffic. The driver can't look in the mirror and move at the same time. If they make a dumb move in that small window they are getting squashed.