Highway Code revisions: Consultation open until 27 October 2020


ChrisButch
Posts: 992
Joined: 24 Feb 2009, 12:10pm

Highway Code Revision - hierarchy of road users.

Postby ChrisButch » 28 Jul 2020, 5:29pm

Hard to keep up with today's sequence of government pro-active travel announcements. Now consultation lanched on Highway Code revision, to include:

" An explicit road user hierarchy, with vulnerable road users at the top. This means priority for those walking and cycling over those turning at side roads.

"Rules on giving enough space when overtaking cyclists.

" Detail on road positioning and riding two abreast, which aim to clarify a common source of conflict and confusion, even with roads police."

Summary analysis here:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2020/jul/28/what-do-the-highway-code-proposals-mean-for-pedestrians-and-cyclists]

Full consultation document here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-to-improve-road-safety-for-cyclists-pedestrians-and-horse-riders

Cyril Haearn
Posts: 13848
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am
Location: Leafy suburbia

Re: Highway Code Revision - heirarchy of road users.

Postby Cyril Haearn » 28 Jul 2020, 6:10pm

Hierarchy with vulnerable users at the top
+1
Simple enough to understand
Entertainer, intellectual, idealist, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we dislike mortons

ratherbeintobago
Posts: 457
Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm

Re: Highway Code Revision - hierarchy of road users.

Postby ratherbeintobago » 28 Jul 2020, 7:00pm

Looks eminently sensible.

Tangled Metal
Posts: 6869
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Highway Code Revision - hierarchy of road users.

Postby Tangled Metal » 28 Jul 2020, 7:10pm

Only it won't stop cyclists moaning about pedestrians on mixed use paths just for not getting out of their way quick enough!! :lol:

Horses or cyclist's, which is higher up the hierarchy?

Cyclists are more vulnerable to larger horses but horses are more skittish so have a different kind of vulnerability. I mean you're not going to get your bike suddenly this you off and run because a horse came up behind it!!

Cake Man
Posts: 4
Joined: 28 Jul 2020, 7:40pm

Re: Highway Code revision - hierarchy of road users

Postby Cake Man » 28 Jul 2020, 8:02pm

vii.Rule 140 –Cycle lanes and cycle tracks

The new rule would advise drivers that cyclists don’t have to use cycle lanes or cycle tracks(a common misconception)

Yes this will encourage councils to build purpose cycle tracks. There is a nice purpose build cycle track near Beverley that rarely sees a pedestrian and you can easily cruise along at around 20mph. Yet on more than one occassion i have seen cyclists on the road along side it, with a long train of cars behind. I use it everytime i go that way.

I apreciate that in general (at least where i live) cycle tracks are very poorly maintained, but where there are good ones they should really be used or what's the point in having them?

The other big problem with these changes, although welcome, is who apart from learner drivers actually reads the highway code?

PaulaT
Posts: 135
Joined: 20 Dec 2018, 6:41pm
Location: Staffordshire

Re: Highway Code Revision - hierarchy of road users.

Postby PaulaT » 28 Jul 2020, 8:52pm

Tangled Metal wrote:Only it won't stop cyclists moaning about pedestrians on mixed use paths just for not getting out of their way quick enough!! :lol:


I tend to think of them as "no use paths" and avoid them ;)

Tangled Metal wrote:Horses or cyclist's, which is higher up the hierarchy?

Cyclists are more vulnerable to larger horses but horses are more skittish so have a different kind of vulnerability. I mean you're not going to get your bike suddenly this you off and run because a horse came up behind it!!


Horses make me nervous. If I'm catching one up I'll look to turn off and take a different route.

thirdcrank
Posts: 29120
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Highway Code revision - hierarchy of road users

Postby thirdcrank » 28 Jul 2020, 9:00pm

Spoke too soon
Last edited by thirdcrank on 29 Jul 2020, 10:46am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17503
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Highway Code Revision - hierarchy of road users.

Postby [XAP]Bob » 28 Jul 2020, 9:33pm

Tangled Metal wrote:Only it won't stop cyclists moaning about pedestrians on mixed use paths just for not getting out of their way quick enough!! :lol:

Horses or cyclist's, which is higher up the hierarchy?

Cyclists are more vulnerable to larger horses but horses are more skittish so have a different kind of vulnerability. I mean you're not going to get your bike suddenly this you off and run because a horse came up behind it!!



Horses...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17503
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Highway Code revision - hierarchy of road users

Postby [XAP]Bob » 28 Jul 2020, 9:34pm

Cake Man wrote:vii.Rule 140 –Cycle lanes and cycle tracks

The new rule would advise drivers that cyclists don’t have to use cycle lanes or cycle tracks(a common misconception)

Yes this will encourage councils to build purpose cycle tracks. There is a nice purpose build cycle track near Beverley that rarely sees a pedestrian and you can easily cruise along at around 20mph. Yet on more than one occassion i have seen cyclists on the road along side it, with a long train of cars behind. I use it everytime i go that way.

I apreciate that in general (at least where i live) cycle tracks are very poorly maintained, but where there are good ones they should really be used or what's the point in having them?

The other big problem with these changes, although welcome, is who apart from learner drivers actually reads the highway code?


One issue is that as a non local I wouldn't trust that it wouldn't randomly dump me into the middle of a motorway junction.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3326
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Highway Code revision - hierarchy of road users

Postby The utility cyclist » 28 Jul 2020, 10:37pm

Cake Man wrote:vii.Rule 140 –Cycle lanes and cycle tracks

The new rule would advise drivers that cyclists don’t have to use cycle lanes or cycle tracks(a common misconception)

Yes this will encourage councils to build purpose cycle tracks. There is a nice purpose build cycle track near Beverley that rarely sees a pedestrian and you can easily cruise along at around 20mph. Yet on more than one occassion i have seen cyclists on the road along side it, with a long train of cars behind. I use it everytime i go that way.

I apreciate that in general (at least where i live) cycle tracks are very poorly maintained, but where there are good ones they should really be used or what's the point in having them?

The other big problem with these changes, although welcome, is who apart from learner drivers actually reads the highway code?

Please highlight the 'track' you re talking about, long train, define what you mean by that?
One bit of tarmac might be fine for one person but not for another or group, maybe the motorists should be using the MOTORway to get to their destination, afterall we pay billions for them to be built and maintained so they should really be using them or what's the point in having them :roll:

I'm from Hull originally and pretty much none of the so called cycle lanes/tracks around the city are remotely suitable for most people to easily and safely to get about, this is why cycling has dropped to ridiculously low levels for a city that is very concentrated and flat as a pancake and had very high levels of cycling for transport even by the mid 80s.
Cycle lanes are crap, I've not seen a single one across the country that I would deem adequate as a 'way that allows safe, connected, easy use that caters for the masses/cyclists of all types, abilities and speeds to use at the same time.
Taking back the highway away from motorists is the best solution by a country mile, inexpensive, immediate, connected/direct from all locations, wide.

thirdcrank
Posts: 29120
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Highway Code revision - hierarchy of road users

Postby thirdcrank » 29 Jul 2020, 7:39am

Cake Man wrote: ... The other big problem with these changes, although welcome, is who apart from learner drivers actually reads the highway code?


On this point alone, the legal system pays considerable attention to the HC, particularly the civil side, dealing with compo. I'd agree that with the collapse of criminal enforcement of bad driving, the HC gets much less use than it deserves: if you more or less abandon prosecutions for dangerous and careless driving, then the HC is redundant as a guide.

User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 8736
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Cully
Contact:

Re: Highway Code revision - hierarchy of road users

Postby al_yrpal » 29 Jul 2020, 9:49am

Ironic that passing distance is highlighted, a thing that Cycling UKs higherachy steadfastly refused to campaign for and the principal reason I jacked in my membership. Close passing is a major source of why the General Public resist taking up cycling.

Al
Touring on a bicycle is a great way to explore and appreciate the countryside and towns you pass through. Make a difference...

Jdsk
Posts: 1402
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Highway Code revision - hierarchy of road users

Postby Jdsk » 29 Jul 2020, 10:40am

thirdcrank wrote:On this point alone, the legal system pays considerable attention to the HC, particularly the civil side, dealing with compo.

And I think that it has probably nonstatutory influence in other spheres as well.

Jonathan

thirdcrank
Posts: 29120
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Highway Code revision - hierarchy of road users

Postby thirdcrank » 29 Jul 2020, 11:19am

I've only had a skim read of this consultation document - and remember, it's only consultation at this stage - but at the broad brush level this seems good. Somebody has read Cyclecraft. At the detailed level, it's probably natural to look at your own niggles.

At the time of the 2008 consultation, I pointed out that the advice to cyclists passing parked vehicles to avoid being doored was not included in the advice to drivers overtaking cyclists. I was ignored: I applied for a copy of the consultation document and it was quickly followed by a letter of thanks for my contribution before I had submitted it. A much expanded Rule 213 - addressed to drivers now includes this:-

... Cyclists are also advised to ride at least a door’s width or 0.5m from parked cars for their own safety. ...


Back to the attitude of the courts, I think that if this draft is adopted, things will take a big step closer to presumed liability (or whatever you like to call it) in that the duty of care oved by drivers to vulnerable road users seems to be significantly increased. Somebody like Martin Porter QC is better qualified to speak on this than l'il ole me.