Feedback : 2 year old law junctions

[Hellhound]

Do you mean the fifth panel in that image or Rule 5?
And where's that image from, please?
Thanks
Jonathan

The 5th panel.
This is a screen-shot another member posted.I have asked said member for a link to the source.

[Jdsk]

It looks like a Daily Mail graphic.

And the wording in the image is not the wording in the Highway Code. For example "Cyclists should ride two abreast" does not appear in the Highway Code.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

It's from this article in the Sun:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/1741376 ... s-cyclist/

It also includes:

"Cyclists no longer have to travel in a cyle lane or track when they are riding along the roads."

and

"Drivers will now have to wait for cyclists to pass them before they are able to turn into an oncoming junction.

Motorists previously had right of way when turning into a junction, but now they must be more aware of those on the roads with them."

Jonathan

[Hellhound]

I really don't think it matters where it's from.It is out there now and is also on Facebook etc.Gold from an anti-cycling perspective as to all intents and purposes it looks like it's from the Highway Code so why should anyone bother to actually look it up?
Many Forum don't have members asking 'can you provide a source please'? so as in this case the non-cyclists have just assumed it's from the HC and started pulling it to pieces.

[squeaker]

I really don't think it matters where it's from.It is out there now and is also on Facebook etc.Gold from an anti-cycling perspective as to all intents and purposes it looks like it's from the Highway Code so why should anyone bother to actually look it up?

Appeared on our local FB group last evening - I flagged it as a falsehood...

[mattheus]

I really don't think it matters where it's from.It is out there now and is also on Facebook etc.Gold from an anti-cycling perspective as to all intents and purposes it looks like it's from the Highway Code so why should anyone bother to actually look it up?
Many Forum don't have members asking 'can you provide a source please'? so as in this case the non-cyclists have just assumed it's from the HC and started pulling it to pieces.

Whatever.

Anti-cyclists will quote any nonsense they want to, when it suits them. (How many decades until they stop whining about Road tax?!?) Why bother discussing it?
I don't want to waste any more breath on it [of course I will fail in this resolution!]

What do you think about the ACTUAL changes?

[Jdsk]

Appeared on our local FB group last evening - I flagged it as a falsehood...

Thankyou

Jonathan

[Hellhound]

What do you think about the ACTUAL changes?

I think they are open to misinterpretation from those who wish to.They aren't even valid until the 29th and are already creating what we see here.

[mattheus]

They aren't even valid until the 29th and are already creating what we see here.

So can we agree not to argue about the wrong versions until when the correct version comes in on the 29th?

[Pete Owens]

Rule 5 seems a bit strange and open to misinterpretation.

I certainly think that rule is misguided - but the caption seems entirely unambiguous.

[Stevek76]

Turning traffic has always had to yield to ahead bound traffic unless otherwise indicated, there's nothing new with the changes in the 5th panel, the new HC is simply clarifying the existing situation.

[Hellhound]

They aren't even valid until the 29th and are already creating what we see here.

So can we agree not to argue about the wrong versions until when the correct version comes in on the 29th?

We can yes but it's already started elsewhere

[axel_knutt]

Re: diagram 5

The new rule (right) isn't doing much other than collating and clarifying what's already in the H/C (left), yet like the rest of the stuff currently being spouted, there's an effort to make it look like changes are being made and rights taken away when they aren't.

Motorists always have ignored the H/C when it suits, and they're on Twitter now announcing that they still will.

[thirdcrank]

Re the mainstream media, the revised HC is emerging as a story but when the wording is already quite concise (when compared with eg the relevant bits of the RTA etc) only a specialist hack is going to be able to come up with anything worthwhile so the run-of-the-mill space fillers have to try to create an angle, preferably different from their counterparts on all the other papers trying to do the same.

[ratherbeintobago]

Andy Burnham making himself look like a plonker

Is it possible to embed tweets here, by the way?