Feedback : 2 year old law junctions

[Jdsk]

Cycling UK
https://action.cyclinguk.org/page/64572/action/1?ea.tracking.id=web

DfT consultation
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/

Jonathan

[ChrisButch]

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]

Hierarchy with vulnerable users at the top
+1
Simple enough to understand

[ratherbeintobago]

Looks eminently sensible.

[Tangled Metal]

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

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]

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]

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

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

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]

Spoke too soon

[[XAP]Bob]

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

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...

[[XAP]Bob]

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.

[The utility cyclist]

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

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]

... 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.

[al_yrpal]

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

[Jdsk]

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]

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.