[Closed] New highway code

Does this mean cars should give way if I’m on a cycle lane that crosses a junction? This will need a lot of driver education to work?

I think so, from the consultation period.

The current Highwzy Code needs a huge amount of driver education, nothing new there.

They already need to do that?

I think it specifically covers not left hooking as well.

Unless there is a campaign to educate people then it will be slow to pick up. Significant numbers don't know the current code which is why you get the two abreast thing repeated all the time.

Does it not refer to the situation at junctions with segregated cycle lanes where the cycle path, despite following the line of the main road, has to give way to the joining road? Changing that so the give way on the joining road is before the bike lane not after it is one of the most sensible things in the world. It's how the lanes are in Denmark and I don't think it'd take much for drivers to adapt. Just give way a couple of metres earlier.

Does it not refer to the situation at junctions with segregated cycle lanes where the cycle path, despite following the line of the main road, has to give way to the joining road?

That's what I thought

It's all bollox IMO, just adopt presumed liability like the majority of Europe.

I don’t think it’d take much for drivers to adapt.

It wouldn't take much but it is unlikely to make dickheads either look or care

It needs a huge amount of driver education and proper proactive enforcement.

You can't educate the minority of dickheads, but you can help the majority get it right.

The hierarchy will be interesting with cyclists required to take more care around pedestrians - a cyclist got two years for killing a pedestrian yesterday in a red light jumping hit and run, theres dickheads use all means of transport.

Maybe can't educate them, but if these changes materialise in the form of motorist convictions they'll soon have to learn.

Maybe can’t educate them, but if these changes materialise in the form of motorist convictions they’ll soon have to learn.

That's what I was thinking. I think most drivers know if they sail over a crossing and hit a pedestrian they'll be in trouble even if they don't give a stuff about pedestrians at other times. Hopefully a few priority areas for cyclists will make motorists think a little around cycle lanes and junctions

It’s all bollox IMO, just adopt presumed liability like the majority of Europe.

There’s a sizeable number of people driving without insurance - a strict liability offence. If they don’t care about that I find it difficult to believe they’ll suddenly be saying, “oh let’s give way to the bike in case I’m held liable for an accident that might not happen”...

I don't want to be the first to test "my new rights".

Looking at this from the other side, if drivers now have to give way before cycle lanes will the road layout be adjusted so they have good sight up and down the road they're joining and not not have them blocked by parked cars, street furniture etc?

Tenner says not.

On Twitter in response to "who reads the Highway Code", Chris Boardman replied "the courts".

But yes a concerted public education campaign is in order. Repeatedly.

^ that’s half the problem.

When my daughter was a learner I got her a copy of the HC and told he she needed to read it and know it, and explained why.

She insisted that “nobody does that any more, you just get an app and do lots of practice theory tests, that’s how you pass it”.

Unsurprisingly, her regular “nobody told me that” response when getting told what she’d done wrong got little sympathy.

Sadly I doubt she’s the only learner that decided it wasn’t necessary to read the HC.

Does it not refer to the situation at junctions with segregated cycle lanes where the cycle path, despite following the line of the main road, has to give way to the joining road? Changing that so the give way on the joining road is before the bike lane not after it is one of the most sensible things in the world. It’s how the lanes are in Denmark and I don’t think it’d take much for drivers to adapt. Just give way a couple of metres earlier.

No, that's down to a bit of law (or wherever these things are written down) about how far crossings have to be from junctions. You can't put a zebra crossing right up against a junction, although you can have a pelican/toucan/puffin.

But yea.... I couldn't figure out what was actually changing when they talked about it this morning either.

Ah ha, found it.

Agree I'm baffled as to what is changing but the indication we get done kind of hierarchy of users seems good. It'll take ages to change but it is a step the right way hopefully!

I ventured into the comments section of that BBC article, and was surprised by the calm and measured way that improving the safety of vulnerable road users was debated. Oh hang on no, it was full of all the usual tropes about red lights, insurance, license plates, riding 99 abreast down country lanes, lycra louts etc. Nothing will change for these people.

Frothlcoptaz

I think this helps with some more detail of the changes.

https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/get-involved/campaign-with-us/highway-code

More utter madness written by idiots.

As clearly seen from the comments above nobody has a ****ing clue what these r***rds are on about anyway but no surprise there. Maybe when the cycling fatalities go up again they can remove these idiot rules.

Utter ****tards.

Good to see the advanced drivers over on pistonheads are taking it well.

If the BBC reporter assigned the job of reporting it doensn't understand..

The current code also tells motorists turning into a road at a junction to give way to pedestrians "if they have started to cross"....

The new code... ensuring that riders have priority at junctions when travelling straight ahead.

Well, riding straight on past a junction is not the same as crossing the road at a junction, so why have they compared those 2 things?
Or do they mean if we're riding straight across a cross roads from a give way, across a main road, we'll now have priority? I ain't risking that one baby! What a laugh.
I guess they mean, don't overtake a bike if you're just about to left hook the poor little scumbag. Cos you ain't supposed to do that now ffs.

Yes, as I understand it (from the consultation, not the BBC article) it's clarifying that<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;"> left hooking people is bad. It's also clarifying that if you drive or ride around a corner and find a pedestrian already crossing the road you have to let them finish crossing. Hardly controversial or revolutionary!</span>

Changing that so the give way on the joining road is before the bike lane not after it is one of the most sensible things in the world

When I read the consultation promoted by CyclingUK, the proposal was that drivers turning off the main road would also give way to a cycle lane crossing a side road, whether on the road or pavement. And also walkers crossing the side road. So it's not just moving the give way for drivers leaving the side road.

The issue I have with the Highway Code is that the only time you bother reading it is when you take your test.

Unless there’s a lot of messaging about this the majority of road users aren’t going to rush out and get a new a spanky new copy to figure shit out.

The stupid infrastructure habit of running cycle lanes alongside roads forcing cyclists to give way just needs getting rid.

Tbh regardless of the HC strangely enough your not allowed to mow people over regardless of whether they are in the wrong,just as your not allowed to drive into illegally parked cars.

Driver retraining needs to be a thing (post-offence, x years after test, at a particular age, after major medical issues). They could make a mint from it too. (Privilege not a right etc etc).

the proposal was that drivers turning off the main road would also give way... And also walkers crossing the side road.

Walkers priority rule already exists.

Rule 170
Take extra care at junctions. You should
- watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way.

Rich S, the difference is that pedestrians no longer need to step into the road to assert their right to cross, merely waiting to cross gives you right of way and requires car to stop. We've all stood at the curb having to wait for a gap to dart across...

Similarly, with the old rule, drivers only have to give way to Peds already on a pedestrian crossing, and pedestrians were told to wait for cars to stop before starting to cross...which legally leaves pedestrians at a disadvantage. Now, waiting at the crossing requires cars to stop.

your not allowed to drive into illegally parked cars.

****ing should be.

Given that most drivers ignore the existing Highway Code, what's the point in making these changes? I suppose it might make it marginally easier to get compensation after an injury, but that's about it.

From the response document (all accessible from here):

If you do not agree with the introduction of new Rule H3 (cyclist’s priorities and right of way), what are your reasons?
Some respondents felt that Rule H3 will put the lives of cyclists at risk as it gives priority to cyclists passing on the inside of a vehicle waiting to turn left, or to overtake a vehicle waiting to turn right on the outside.

Further analysis indicated that Rule H3 could put too much burden on the drivers of vehicles to spot cyclists, who do not always wear hi-viz clothing or accessories. They felt that cyclists could be easy to miss when checking mirrors, particularly if they were in a blind spot, especially of larger vehicles. This is a particular concern for cyclists passing on the inside of larger vehicles.

Safety of all road users is a priority for us, but given the overwhelming number of comments regarding cyclists passing on the left, we will evaluate the wording of Rule H3 and other rule amendments related to this. We will also consider how education and communications can play a part in ensuring the safety of cyclists passing to the left.

So there will be some tweaking of the bit about "left hooking". It is confusing, because an existing rule for cyclists (Current Rule 72, words not proposed for deletion) says "Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left." Taken too literally, the two rules would result in a "no you go, really" kind of stand-off.

ETA, one approach would be for motorists indicating/slowing down to turn left to be able to merge with the traffic on the cycle lane prior to turning, which would force cyclists to slow down for a left-turning vehicle (as other vehicles and cyclists occupying the main lane normally have to do in order to avoid rear-ending the left-turning vehicle).

Express readers are going mental in the comments section. Each trying to outdo one another with fabricated stories about the evil of cyclists.