Highway Code revisions: Consultation open until 27 October 2020

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

Re: Highway Code revision - hierarchy of road users

Postby The utility cyclist » 4 Aug 2020, 6:19pm

Oldjohnw wrote:The HC also advises cyclists to wear helmets and hi-viz. Seems like cyclists as well as motorists only want some bits to apply.

HC should instead of being unlawfully discriminatory advise that motorists wear helmets and all motors to be in hi-vis colours, afterall if their evidence is so poop hot then it will save billions on the NHS and hundreds of thousands from being in hospital/save thousands of lives right? :roll:
The people writing this crud are illogical tools who have no real grasp of safety or the root problems as to why so many die/get injured, or they simply want to pander to one group and sod safety.

Pete Owens
Posts: 1894
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

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

Postby Pete Owens » 5 Aug 2020, 12:23am

Jdsk wrote:I'm sure that it will go up in proportion to distance.

Quite - It is about 2m to the back of your car, so by the time you get to 12m (and that is emergency stop territory) you have a 2.4m wide blind spot.
But it is clearly "possible" to see some cyclists rather than only the door pillar.

But the point is not to see some cyclists, but to establish there are no cyclists approaching. Indeed the ones that are so close that you can see though the side window will have passed by the time you open the door. Imagine you were actually attempting to door a cyclist by looking though the side window and opening the door when you spotted one - you have about a quater of a second to react.
And at 12m they will be visible in the mirror,

Or they would be if you were looking at the mirror rather than trying to peer though your door pillar. But at least, finally we get to an inkling of reality. In order to see things approaching from behind you have to LOOK IN YOUR MIRROR.
Of course your mirror is best viewed from a forwards facing position sitting in the normal driving position - you will have adjusted your mirror to give the best view from this position order to be able to use while driving. The trouble is by promoting the dutch reach you are encouraging people to actively turn away from their mirror (where they can see approaching cyclists) to stare at their door pillar (though which they can't)

Perhaps if some campaigner came up with some snappy name for the procedure associated with a country that has a good safety record. perhaps
"The Swedish Mirror Check".

and as the door opens by direct vision

The whole point is to check there are no cyclists BEFORE you open the door.

With the Dutch Reach you don't get to see them till AFTER. Presumably you get to see them swerve into the path of a passing truck as they react to the door they see opening into their path.

Will people please please stop advocating this stupidity.

Oldjohnw
Posts: 4933
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: Highway Code revision - hierarchy of road users

Postby Oldjohnw » 5 Aug 2020, 8:08am

The utility cyclist wrote:
Oldjohnw wrote:The HC also advises cyclists to wear helmets and hi-viz. Seems like cyclists as well as motorists only want some bits to apply.

HC should instead of being unlawfully discriminatory advise that motorists wear helmets and all motors to be in hi-vis colours, afterall if their evidence is so poop hot then it will save billions on the NHS and hundreds of thousands from being in hospital/save thousands of lives right? :roll:
The people writing this crud are illogical tools who have no real grasp of safety or the root problems as to why so many die/get injured, or they simply want to pander to one group and sod safety.


I am not saying I support helmet wearing. What I am saying is that cyclists, like motorists, quote the HC in support on occasion and ignore it at other times. The irony is often missed.
John

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 » 5 Aug 2020, 8:14am

Dutch Reach... my main feeling about this is it's a huge amount of brouhaha for (at best) not much. It strikes me there's so much more useful stuff that could be campaigned for, but now it's there let's not worry much more and get over it.

Perhaps driving without due care and attention should be extended to operating a vehicle without due care and attention, extending from driving to getting in and out and loading/unloading too. I suspect 3 points and £500 would be a much sharper reason to be careful when opening doors than a campaign aimed at cyclists (I have been "doored" while driving)

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

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

Re: Highway Code revision - hierarchy of road users

Postby pjclinch » 5 Aug 2020, 8:21am

Oldjohnw wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:
Oldjohnw wrote:The HC also advises cyclists to wear helmets and hi-viz. Seems like cyclists as well as motorists only want some bits to apply.

HC should instead of being unlawfully discriminatory advise that motorists wear helmets and all motors to be in hi-vis colours, afterall if their evidence is so poop hot then it will save billions on the NHS and hundreds of thousands from being in hospital/save thousands of lives right? :roll:
The people writing this crud are illogical tools who have no real grasp of safety or the root problems as to why so many die/get injured, or they simply want to pander to one group and sod safety.


I am not saying I support helmet wearing. What I am saying is that cyclists, like motorists, quote the HC in support on occasion and ignore it at other times. The irony is often missed.


I would suggest you read Cyclecraft's description of Highway Code advice, and bear in mind that it's a TSO publication and is used by DfT as the basis for National Standards Cycle Training and pushed by them as the recommended reading for their Bikeability programmes.

...doesn’t always reflect a good understanding of cycling, is sometimes simplistic, impractical or controversial and you should bear this in mind and not regard it as a definitive summary of best practice


So there we have a book endorsed by DfT saying exactly why it's not a good idea to treat it as gospel. I think that's a rather different circumstance to "I'll ignore this bit because I can cut 5 minutes off my journey, and everyone else is doing it too"

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

Jdsk
Posts: 2497
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Postby Jdsk » 5 Aug 2020, 9:37am

pjclinch wrote:Perhaps driving without due care and attention should be extended to operating a vehicle without due care and attention, extending from driving to getting in and out and loading/unloading too. I suspect 3 points and £500 would be a much sharper reason to be careful when opening doors than a campaign aimed at cyclists (I have been "doored" while driving)

What's the current definition of "driving" that excludes those other bits of operating, please? The argument based on risks to others would support them being treated similarly...

Thanks

Jonathan

Jdsk
Posts: 2497
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Highway Code revision - hierarchy of road users

Postby Jdsk » 5 Aug 2020, 9:43am

Oldjohnw wrote:What I am saying is that cyclists, like motorists, quote the HC in support on occasion and ignore it at other times. The irony is often missed.

Not by everyone, but it did take me two attempts to get the point. : - )

And, as so often with irony it works because it contains some nuggets.

The first, of course, being the recognition of tribal thinking.

But the second is to illuminate the purpose of a code of conduct: it isn't to tell us what to think, it's to tell us how to behave. What we think should depend on our values and what is known, not on the inevitable compromises reached in any code of conduct, however necessary it may be. And the current consultation is our opportunity to bring the Highway Code closer to our values and what is known.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/904038/consultation-on-a-review-of-the-highway-code.pdf
https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/K736D5/
Closing date: 27 October 2020.

Jonathan

Tompsk
Posts: 72
Joined: 6 Nov 2014, 9:35am

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

Postby Tompsk » 5 Aug 2020, 10:02am

Anything on powered scooters in the draft? As these are (if hired) or may soon be permitted more generally on the road does the HC mention them or are they assumed to fall into an exsisting category? I ask as scooters are here now, have speeds and needs similar to cyclists but also different and perhaps conflicting requirements too. They will also possibly become fashionable with children and adults who may not be used to being a vulnrable road user and so would benefit from clear guidance and rules.
(Sorry for not reading the linked info, I'm on holiday at the moment so poor connectivity and time to study proposals in detail).

Jdsk
Posts: 2497
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Postby Jdsk » 5 Aug 2020, 10:06am

"We have not undertaken a full-scale revision of The Highway Code at this time given current work under way relating to the future of transport, and how the advent of new technologies is revolutionising the way people think about how they travel. Consideration of micromobility vehicles including e-scooters are therefore outside the scope of this consultation. We have commenced trials of rental e-scooters to assess whether they, and other micromobility vehicles, should be legalised in the UK and these will help to determine the regulatory framework. In addition, the Department's future of transport regulatory review call for evidence on micromobility vehicles, flexible bus services and mobility as a service closed on 3 July and we are currently analysing responses."

Jonathan

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 » 5 Aug 2020, 11:58am

Jdsk wrote:
pjclinch wrote:Perhaps driving without due care and attention should be extended to operating a vehicle without due care and attention, extending from driving to getting in and out and loading/unloading too. I suspect 3 points and £500 would be a much sharper reason to be careful when opening doors than a campaign aimed at cyclists (I have been "doored" while driving)

What's the current definition of "driving" that excludes those other bits of operating, please? The argument based on risks to others would support them being treated similarly...


Don't know the intricacies, I was thinking out loud more than laying it out as a concrete proposal

A (very quick) Google suggests that you would need to be actually be "driving" to get done.

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

Jdsk
Posts: 2497
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Postby Jdsk » 5 Aug 2020, 12:00pm

Thanks.

I like the concept.

Jonathan

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16095
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

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

Postby mjr » 5 Aug 2020, 12:50pm

Pete Owens wrote:The whole point is to check there are no cyclists BEFORE you open the door.

AS you open also works.

With the Dutch Reach you don't get to see them till AFTER. Presumably you get to see them swerve into the path of a passing truck as they react to the door they see opening into their path.

They shouldn't be riding in the door zone (which is why that 0.5m needs deleting from the other rule) so no swerve should be needed.

Will people please please stop advocating this stupidity.

The above argument against is pretty stupid too because the Dutch Reach does work in some cars without badly-placed pillars so the argument would need to quantify how many of each there are and whether we're any worse off than someone in a badly-pillared car not doing Dutch Reach.

I agree with pjclinch that this is a sideshow.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

thirdcrank
Posts: 29481
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

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

Postby thirdcrank » 5 Aug 2020, 12:54pm

Jdsk wrote: ... What's the current definition of "driving" that excludes those other bits of operating, please? The argument based on risks to others would support them being treated similarly...


There are different definitions of driving, depending on the offence alleged. Carelessly opening vehicle doors is a con & Use offence which does not explicitly mention the driver.

105. No person shall open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/198 ... n/105/made

The general idea is that if there is a specific offence, then that's usually the one to charge. I'm not saying that's exclusive. There was a case within the last few years where a doored cyclist was killed by a following bus. The driver who had doored him was prosecuted for manslaughter but was acquitted.
=============================================================================
PS Here's a manslaughter-by-dooring charge thread, although I'm not sure it's the one I was referring to

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=112746

Jdsk
Posts: 2497
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Postby Jdsk » 5 Aug 2020, 1:23pm

Thanks.

What's the offence committed by breaching the regulations on Construction and Use? Or does it go to something generic, such as criminal negligence or manslaughter (as above)?

Jonathan

thirdcrank
Posts: 29481
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

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

Postby thirdcrank » 5 Aug 2020, 1:38pm

Jdsk wrote: .... What's the offence committed by breaching the regulations on Construction and Use? Or does it go to something generic, such as criminal negligence or manslaughter (as above)? ...


The charge would be contravening the relevant con & use offence Incidentally, there are loads of them, megaloads if you include all the variations.

Also, I've been able to get a bit of reassurance about my memory by finding the even earlier manslaughter-by-dooring case where the following vehicle was indeed a bus.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=71073
===================================================================================

PS If the next question is "What's the punishment??" then the enabling legislation is s42 RTA 1988

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/42

Penalties for traffic offences are in Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/schedule/2

To save anybody ploughing through:

RTA section 42 Breach of other construction and use requirements. Summarily.] Level 4 on the standard scale if committed in respect of a goods vehicle or a vehicle adapted to carry more than eight passengers.
_ _
Level 3 on the standard scale in any other case.


In short, it's trial in Magistrates' Court, punishable by a fine only.
=================================================
PS At today's prices:
A level 3 fine = £1,000
A level 4 fine = £2,500
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/19 ... %20rows%20
Last edited by thirdcrank on 5 Aug 2020, 5:37pm, edited 1 time in total.