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 revisions: Consultation open until 27 October 2020

Postby The utility cyclist » 5 Aug 2020, 5:23pm

pjclinch wrote: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.

The only scientific evidence/research actually done on 'Dutch reach' was by an English university, it found that there was not enough of a moment of the head to actually make any real difference in the viewing angle when people inside a vehicle were 'reaching' with the opposite hand.
if enforcement and punishments that fit the crime were actually already in place this wouldn't be an issue, banning on street parking on main through roads would be a start, then side streets.

Jdsk
Posts: 2499
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Postby Jdsk » 5 Aug 2020, 5:27pm

The utility cyclist wrote:The only scientific evidence/research actually done on 'Dutch reach' was by an English university...

Have you got a reference, please?

Thanks

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 » 5 Aug 2020, 5:33pm

mjr wrote:
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.

But people on bikes do because of the threat from motorists and because they're continually told to ride near the gutter/out of the 'middle' of the road etc. You need to take 100% of the blame if you door a cyclist even if they are millimetres away from your vehicle, it is entirely upon you not to harm someone else. they are doing ZERO wrong, dangerous, reckless or careless, it is the person opening a solid hefty door into another that is all of those.
There should never be an onus on the victims of crime to change their behaviour, not only is that patenyl wrong, it never actually changes the outcome and leads to yet more victim blaming.

Jdsk
Posts: 2499
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Postby Jdsk » 5 Aug 2020, 7:51pm

thirdcrank wrote:
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

Jdsk
Posts: 2499
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Postby Jdsk » 5 Aug 2020, 7:52pm

Jdsk wrote:
thirdcrank wrote:
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

Thanks

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, 8:34pm

The utility cyclist wrote:But people on bikes do because of the threat from motorists and because they're continually told to ride near the gutter/out of the 'middle' of the road etc.

And that must be stopped.

You need to take 100% of the blame if you door a cyclist even if they are millimetres away from your vehicle, it is entirely upon you not to harm someone else. they are doing ZERO wrong, dangerous, reckless or careless, it is the person opening a solid hefty door into another that is all of those.

Now who's blaming the victim (although only of vehicle damage) resulting from a cyclist "skimming" other road users? Who would you blame if a cyclist close-passing another results in a collision? Or a cyclist close-passing a walker who steps sideways? Careless cycling is a crime too!
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.

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, 10:11pm

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

AS you open also works.

Of course it doesn't. Just the movement of the door is enough to cause any approaching cyclist to swerve (whether or not they should have riding there in the first place).
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

Absolutely - the principle responsibility for avoiding crashing into things has to be with the one driving the moving vehicle - ie the cyclist. Cyclists can see the potential hazard as they are approaching and should not ride too close to it - just as we expect drivers to pass us with plenty of space. It may not be the driver getting out - it could be a child, or a blind person. If we are operating a moving vehicle we have a duty of care to those we might hit - and that includes taking account of unexpected, but entirely predictable, occurrences. If you ride too close to vehicles it is not only doors you may hit, but children attempting to cross from behind the vehicle.

However, the HC is full of recommendations for defensive driving behaviour. That is acting such that you can cope when someone else makes a mistake. This way it means both participants in a collision need to get it wrong for a crash to happen. Yes, we should avoid riding in the door zone, but if we get it wrong it is good that others are looking out for us - just as they should if we get in the wrong lane on a roundabout, ride too close to the kerb, or overtake left turning trucks. These are all common cycling mistakes. The trouble with these changes to the highway code is that it takes those recommendations for motorists to look out for risky cycling behaviour to advocate cyclists ride poorly (and coincidentally right at the edge of the road thus avoiding getting in the way of motors).
(which is why that 0.5m needs deleting from the other rule) so no swerve should be needed.

By a factor of 3. it also needs to make it clear that you need to keep clear of doors even if a cycle lane has been marked in the danger zone.

Jdsk
Posts: 2499
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Postby Jdsk » 6 Aug 2020, 2:39pm

Jdsk wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:The only scientific evidence/research actually done on 'Dutch reach' was by an English university...

Have you got a reference, please?

Thanks

Jonathan

Just wondering if you'd been able to find it...

Thanks

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 » 6 Aug 2020, 5:16pm

Jdsk wrote:
Jdsk wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:The only scientific evidence/research actually done on 'Dutch reach' was by an English university...

Have you got a reference, please?

Thanks

Jonathan

Just wondering if you'd been able to find it...

Thanks

Jonathan

I thought it would be easy to find for yourself, however here you go, nottingham University. I read the paper I think in early 2018 IIRC and there's extremely limited increase in actual vision, in live situations, personally I don't think it's that useful, properly teaching people to actually look around just before coming to a stop, use the mirrors (plural), then do a shoulder check is more than enough.

Have been doing it this was since I started driving in '92, over 12 years of that was driving/parking in that there London back in the day. my method has never, ever failed.

The DR IMO creates more issues with regards viewing overall than it alleges to resolve, and like just actually giving a crap for other road users, it's all on the person opening the door, if they don't give a fig/have no fear/jeopardy of recriminations, then the majority won't bother, just like driving safely with consideration for vulnerable road users.
There's been no increase in safety since the Dutch put this into being, in fact year on year road death increases with lowered modal share.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Movements

Jdsk
Posts: 2499
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Postby Jdsk » 6 Aug 2020, 5:27pm

Thanks.

Yes, I had found it, and cited it in this thread on 4 Aug 2020 at 11:35am
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=139662&start=60#p1514892

But it was hard to believe that we were taking about the same study, because you referred to it as saying:
The utility cyclist wrote:The only scientific evidence/research actually done on 'Dutch reach' was by an English university, it found that there was not enough of a moment of the head to actually make any real difference in the viewing angle when people inside a vehicle were 'reaching' with the opposite hand.

when the authors concluded:
"... the preliminary investigation suggests some benefits (in terms of increased head rotation) associated with far-hand door opening in the driver’s seat."

The increase in viewing angle nearly doubled, and the difference was unlikely to be due to chance, see below.

Jonathan
Image Attachments
Screenshot 2020-08-06 at 17.22.40.png

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 » 6 Aug 2020, 10:18pm

Jdsk wrote:Thanks.

Yes, I had found it, and cited it in this thread on 4 Aug 2020 at 11:35am
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=139662&start=60#p1514892

But it was hard to believe that we were taking about the same study, because you referred to it as saying:
The utility cyclist wrote:The only scientific evidence/research actually done on 'Dutch reach' was by an English university, it found that there was not enough of a moment of the head to actually make any real difference in the viewing angle when people inside a vehicle were 'reaching' with the opposite hand.

when the authors concluded:
"... the preliminary investigation suggests some benefits (in terms of increased head rotation) associated with far-hand door opening in the driver’s seat."

The increase in viewing angle nearly doubled, and the difference was unlikely to be due to chance, see below.

Jonathan

Did you actually understand the difference in field of view using the Dutch reach, as the authors numbers don't stack up to their summation IMO. There simply is not enough of a difference to change matters, that's before you get to the trade off which, again, my opinion, makes it a worse set of actions regards actually botherint o look properly as we already should be doing. Those that bother will do a Dutch reach, those not bothered won't do it, so this is wasted effort and simply uses flawed thinking in terms of efficacy, particularly when none has been shown.

Per other people's thoughts here, it's on the person riding the bike to get out the way of the person who is going to assault them through their dangerous action :twisted:

Jdsk
Posts: 2499
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Postby Jdsk » 6 Aug 2020, 10:27pm

The utility cyclist wrote:
Jdsk wrote:Thanks.

Yes, I had found it, and cited it in this thread on 4 Aug 2020 at 11:35am
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=139662&start=60#p1514892

But it was hard to believe that we were taking about the same study, because you referred to it as saying:
The utility cyclist wrote:The only scientific evidence/research actually done on 'Dutch reach' was by an English university, it found that there was not enough of a moment of the head to actually make any real difference in the viewing angle when people inside a vehicle were 'reaching' with the opposite hand.

when the authors concluded:
"... the preliminary investigation suggests some benefits (in terms of increased head rotation) associated with far-hand door opening in the driver’s seat."

The increase in viewing angle nearly doubled, and the difference was unlikely to be due to chance, see below.

Jonathan

Did you actually understand the difference in field of view using the Dutch reach, as the authors numbers don't stack up to their summation IMO. There simply is not enough of a difference to change matters, that's before you get to the trade off which, again, my opinion, makes it a worse set of actions regards actually botherint o look properly as we already should be doing.

There'll be some cases in which that extra visibility makes all the difference, as is typical with many "accidents". The authors appropriately make very cautious claims.

What's the trade off that you mention?

Jonathan

drossall
Posts: 4945
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Highway Code revision - hierarchy of road users

Postby drossall » 6 Aug 2020, 11:36pm

Adnepos wrote:You may think I'm being trivial ...lawyers (not me!) turn on the meaning of words... but I feel strongly that ‘should/should not’ NOT be used anywhere in any guidance.

The Highway Code traditionally uses should and must to distinguish recommendations from legal requirements. This is explained in the introduction. I don't think that the radical change of established practice that you're suggesting is within the scope of this review?

drossall
Posts: 4945
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Highway Code revision - hierarchy of road users

Postby drossall » 6 Aug 2020, 11:42pm

thidwick wrote:
Pete Owens wrote:OMG they are advocating using the left hand lane to turn right at a roundabout:
Rule 79 wrote:If you are turning right you can ride in the
left or right-hand lanes and move left when
approaching your exit. Position yourself in
the centre of your lane if it is safe to do so
(see Rule 72) and signal right to indicate
that you are not leaving the roundabout.

I suppose it could be worse - they might have advocated riding anti-clockwise!


Well I thought about this too. Roundabouts vary a lot - from small diameter urban mini, up to four lane dual-carriageway junctions. Cyclists vary too - in the speed and confidence with which they would cross a roundabout. So I think the proposed words are ok. The words (again) credit the cyclist with intelligence in deciding how to tackle the roundabout, and lay the groundwork for not allowing the “he was in the wrong lane” defence when a slow cyclist is taken out by the fast car going straight on. It puts the onus on the vehicle driver (that hierarchy again) looking out for cyclists.
I think the proposal here is fine.

The (then) CTC managed to get this long-standing and generally bad advice removed from the Highway Code in the 2007 review. See for example page 6 of the CTC response, which is still on the CUK Web site. It's a bit alarming to see it making a return.

drossall
Posts: 4945
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Highway Code revision - hierarchy of road users

Postby drossall » 6 Aug 2020, 11:49pm

MikeF wrote:Impact Assessment
We have undertaken a De Minimis Assessment as the changes proposed are expected not to have a net cost to business of more than £5m per year. The Highway Code already exists and this review is an extension to the current legislation. The amendments are not expected to have any major challenges because the proposed changes should lead to improvements in road safety without disproportionally impacting on drivers.


Hmm! Impact on drivers is obvious more important than safety.

I wonder if there's something here. The hierarchy idea is important, but, even before I saw MikeF's reference to the impact assessment, I did wonder whether the changes would still be read by some as special treatment of secondary users, whilst the roads remain principally for drivers, even if they now need to accommodate others a bit more. That impact assessment rather supports that reading.

Of course there are lots of really good, courteous road users of all types out there. But it does seem to be the case that some need an explicit statement that roads are for people using a range of vehicle types and none (i.e. pedestrians), and no class of user has special rights. However, some have special responsibilities, and that's where the hierarchy comes in.