Highway Code revisions: Consultation open until 27 October 2020

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 4009
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation open until 27 October 2020

Postby pjclinch » 14 Aug 2020, 8:07am

For those of us driving vans occasionally the pre-eminence of mirrors in at least some vehicles is pretty clear.

There is also the risk with mantras that the user loses sight of the point of it. So for some I suspect it may well end up as a mantra to use one's inside hand to open the door, rather than to look carefully for things that might hit an opening door: it's entirely possible to open a door with the inner hand and not bother looking properly.

Again, I'm not against the "Dutch reach" but I am somewhat doubtful that it merits the degree of fuss being accorded to it. And I still suspect that something like "Look carefully for other vehicles that might strike your door when you open it. You face a fine of up to £1,000 and 3 points on your license if you injure someone as a result of opening a door carelessly" might be more effective if it was seen to be enforced.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

mattsccm
Posts: 3409
Joined: 28 Nov 2009, 9:44pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation open until 27 October 2020

Postby mattsccm » 14 Aug 2020, 8:11am

I object strongly to the 2 abreast point. It reduces the arguement for doing such a thing. It is sych that I feel that it is something that would be supported by an anti cyclust group. It needs to say that it can becacceptable at all times as if it not possible for a car to pass then they should wait. The best comoarision should be with a horse and cart. Width plus temperment.

Jdsk
Posts: 2501
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation open until 27 October 2020

Postby Jdsk » 14 Aug 2020, 8:59am

pjclinch wrote:And I still suspect that something like "Look carefully for other vehicles that might strike your door when you open it. You face a fine of up to £1,000 and 3 points on your license if you injure someone as a result of opening a door carelessly" might be more effective if it was seen to be enforced.

Good point. Perhaps advice should have triplets:
* Item of advice
* The harm that might arise from not following it.
* The penalty for not following it.

When I did Compulsory Basic (motorcycle) Training the instructor emphasised penalties. And the youngsters often knew them in advance, which I concluded was from experience rather than study.

Jonathan

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3411
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation open until 27 October 2020

Postby The utility cyclist » 14 Aug 2020, 4:25pm

mattsccm wrote:I object strongly to the 2 abreast point. It reduces the arguement for doing such a thing. It is sych that I feel that it is something that would be supported by an anti cyclust group. It needs to say that it can becacceptable at all times as if it not possible for a car to pass then they should wait. The best comoarision should be with a horse and cart. Width plus temperment.

That two abreast/go in single file needs legally challenging straight away by CUK, it's utter garbage, there should be zero reference to singling out, the pony and trap re hoards of cyclists on roads so that motons can't overtake occurs all the time but for the most part is exactly that, absolute poop.
If they are writing that then they need to insist that motorists move out the way for people on bikes when we want to get past, otherwise it's discrimination, it's bogus regards when a motorist wants to get past, why should a notional shortening in journey time measured in seconds be exchanged for safety/convenience of another road user? :x
I don't see why this was even considered except from someone who is an impatient moron with zero understanding of safety and how this negatively effects the vulnerable, not to mention how ambiguous it is. I'll single out IF I think it will benefit me regards safety, in some rare circumstances I will cede my priority because of that safety factor and possibly making it easier for me, otherwise no, because motorists simply take a mile if you give them an inch. the whole psychology of might is right is just amplified by forcing the vulnerable party to continually cede/get out the way and is rarely ever applied to people on bikes when it comes to pedestrians.
Can you imagine the HC stating, pedestrians, move out the way when a cyclist wants to get past, it's just BS, there's no equity in the slightest and just puts people on bikes at greater risk of harm/threats and yet more 'middle of the road' bashing including by police.

pga
Posts: 273
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 9:40pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation open until 27 October 2020

Postby pga » 17 Aug 2020, 12:32am

Generally I welcome the proposed changes to the Highway Code. However there remain several areas that concern. In most of our European neighbours the legal responsibility for incidents involving motor vehicles and other road users is placed on the motorist unless the other road user was negligent. Cycling in those countries always feels safer. Is the legal responsibility the reason or are continental drivers just more cycling friendly?

Another concern is how few road users buy let alone read the Highway Code. New drivers quickly forget and adopt the often poor driving behaviour of other drivers.

A further concern is how the proposed changes tie in with the new Cycle Infrastructure Design. The latter is not a draft and is fundamental as to how local highway authority designers provide for and encourage cycling by denying government funding unless schemes meet the Cycle Infrastructure Design standards. Both documents are indeed lengthy and it is hard work comparing how they relate. Cycle Infrastructure Design is introduces a fundamental change or priority with cyclists given priority where a cycle track is crossed by a road. This is always the case in Europe and this was the case in Stevenage and some other towns with cycleways. Alas here in Milton Keynes, a driver's city, the driver has always had the priority. I fear even with the new initiatives drivers will take some time to adapt to the change. In the city centre there are roads where there are double stopping lines to allow pedestrians to cross. Most motorists give way but over the years I have many a close miss.

Overall, I very much welcome the government initiatives to encourage cycling. I think we should support the Highway Code proposals which are designed to give more protection to cyclists and other vulnerable road users The online consultation is easy to process. This would very much give added support the valuable work Cycling UK is doing.

Jdsk
Posts: 2501
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation open until 27 October 2020

Postby Jdsk » 17 Aug 2020, 12:37am

pga wrote:In most of our European neighbours the legal responsibility for incidents involving motor vehicles and other road users is placed on the motorist unless the other road user was negligent. Cycling in those countries always feels safer. Is the legal responsibility the reason or are continental drivers just more cycling friendly?

Current discussion of presumed liability, triggered by a petition:
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=140174

And a recent radio programme asking why Britain has different attitudes:
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=140084
but I don't think that it got to an explanation...

Jonathan