[Closed] Highway Code changes affect riders, drivers and pedestrians - are you ready?

How will the general public be informed ? There doesn't seem much information and what information there is, is very confusing.

How will the general public be informed ? There doesn’t seem much information and what information there is, is very confusing.

Eh? Its been all over the media for weeks. Admittedly with clickbait bullshit headlines but that makes people read it, to discover its mostly common sense, basic decency or elaborating on a point everyone knew before but the hard of thinking tried to pretend didn't apply.

It is every road user's responsibility to remain up to date with the HWC - I believe for previous changes the fact there is a new edition was also highlighted when taxing, registering, renewing licenses etc.

Its not like we are changing the side of the road we drive on.

Even the bloke I work with is aware of it. Here's a snippet from our online chat earlier. Please don't laugh (me in italics)-
I hate these new highway code rules allowing cyclists and ****ing scooter riders to do whatever they want

Yeah, keeping road users safe, wtf are they thinking!

safe!. Some idiot on a scooter just rode off the path in front of me when I pulled into sutton road. Didn't even look
I had to slam on the brakes

Thats * all to do with the new rules! Just a scooter rider being a *. You read the Daily Mail or what?

lol. you are prolly right
and no I don't

Well stop sounding like you do then

How will the general public be informed ? There doesn’t seem much information and what information there is, is very confusing.

its been on every newspaper/website last week, in every large FB group (multiple times), I'm fairly sick of seeing it. The comments on both are repetitive and predictable.
BUT.. If the average mouthbreather's takeaway from this is "dont run over a cyclist it will be your fault" then realistically thats the best result we can hope for.

E-scooters are a different kettle of fish. Right now, private ones are illegal to use on the road, and doing so can cause an car owning, upstanding citizen such as myself to have points on your license, fines and other expensive punishments that will severly affect my quality of life. In short, not worth it.

The worst punishment your average tracksuited hoodrat can recieve is having the (probably stolen) scooter taken off him so he'd have to revert to travelling across town to his drug deals on a ill-fitting (probably stolen) lightless mountain bike.

The current average moronic user base is self selecting, and they would drive/ride like dickheads whether they were in an uninsured Saxo, rusty noisy moped or your stolen mountainbike. So on balance I'd rather they kept to the scooters.

Once they become legal (or de-facto legal if there is no enforcement) then the user quality will increase. I hope so, as I quite want one.

How on earth are they going to police the Dutch reach rule though? It is good advice (and TBF I always open my door that way if the road is busy) but virtually impossible to enforce.

How on earth are they going to police the Dutch reach rule though

I think it's advice rather than a law

Oh I can't wait! I'm going to ride down the middle of the [s]lane[/s] [s]road[/s] lane simultaneously weaving in and out of traffic while also holding everyone up.

While riding along, I will also be 2-abreast, all by myself. And absolutely never using a cycle lane unless I see a car about to turn left in which case I'll sprint up the lane in front of them shouting that it's my right of way.

If I can slow down a bit to wait for a green light to turn red then nip through (while also riding on the pavement at the same time) that'll just be an added bonus.

Disclaimer:
all the above is what will definitely happen according to the comments page I read.

How on earth are they going to police the Dutch reach rule though

It's advice - the policing will come if you car-door a pedestrian or cyclist. Same as it was before, but with new advice on how to avoid it.

Am I ready?

Of course, I remain as ready as ever to have to dodge drivers who are blissfully unaware even of the previous contents of the highway code, let alone the new version.

I'm furious about changes to something I haven't read or understood even though I failed to read or understand the previous version. Also I have no idea how roads are paid for or the relative risks posed by different users.

Yours Sincerely, every non-cycling halfwit.

Duplicate thread.

summary of an argument with a relative about this:

Relative: if cyclists ride up the inside of cars they're bound to get knocked off by cars turning left

- why? The car drivers need to start looking for them and not doing it.

because they've never needed to up until now

- so? That's why the rules are changing, they need to learn to do it.

why should they change what they do?

- because running over cyclists is far worse than delaying your left turn to allow them to pass

drivers just won't bother (and then off into irrelevances about tax and shit)

Of course, I won't be trusting anyone for quite a while yet but this 'I refuse to change because I've always done it this way' is the problem we face, not the knowledge or otherwise of the change which has been all over the press.

Not a duplicate, as the previous threads were about articles or discussions on other sites; this is about an article on STW itself.

What surprises me is that the actual wording of the revised Highway Code hasn't been published yet. The published information says things like

There will be updated guidance for people cycling about positioning themselves which includes:

• riding in the centre of their lane on quiet roads, in slower-moving traffic and at the approach to junctions or road narrowings

So, for example, will it also include "on blind bends"? It either has to define principles "when it's not safe to overtake" or list <span style="text-decoration: underline;">all</span> the circumstances. Otherwise there will still be stupid drivers thinking cyclists are obstructing them and reacting stupidly.

you are prolly right

Anyone who uses prolly when they mean probably is a grade A throbber and should be run down.

Otherwise there will still be stupid drivers thinking cyclists are obstructing them and reacting stupidly.

Happens on most of my rides (I live rurally where there are a lot of blind bends on narrow roads). Can't see those drivers suddenly rethinking their approach to cyclists.

I’m furious about changes to something I haven’t read or understood even though I failed to read or understand the previous version

Its alright dear, if you do squish a cyclist to a horrible squidgy death, the penalty is generally just a short holiday from driving and a fine about the same as the cost to wipe the snot off your car. I wouldnt worry and just carry on treating them like an annoying wasp.

It seems to me there's a difference between a cyclist zooming up the inside of a car just as it's approaching a junction and riding into the left hook; and a car half-overtaking a cyclist then left hooking them. Seems to me that in one situation the cyclist is at fault and the other the motorist.

What do the new rules say on that?

It seems to me there’s a difference between a cyclist zooming up the inside of a car just as it’s approaching a junction and riding into the left hook; and a car half-overtaking a cyclist then left hooking them. Seems to me that in one situation the cyclist is at fault and the other the motorist.

I think this probably says a lot about the attitudes that need addressed. I suspect some of the new guidance is partly designed to pave the way for better infrastructure, with continuous cycleways that don't give way to each and every junction, and Dutch style roundabouts.

If you're to create segregated infrastructure that is truly safe for a child to use, then motor traffic needs to be prepared to give way in all circumstances. You should be able to ride without having to second guess what the traffic is going to do, or rely on your experience just to keep you alive. It's the job of the licenced driver to ensure they drive appropriately and not put people in danger.

What do the new rules say on that?

That the cyclist is more vulnerable whether they 'caused' the situation or not, and running them over and then saying it was their fault is not how we should behave as motorists.

The new rules are that you should actively watch out and wait for cyclists passing on the road, and pedestrians (and cyclists) on pavements. You, the car, are turning left and therefore will give way to everyone who is carrying straight on.

If you see video clips from Amsterdam, it looks quite natural and logical to do this.

I'll hope that the new guidance is followed, but I won't expect or trust anyone to.

Just as pain and injury doesn't care who's fault it was, it doesn't care who had the most responsibility to avoid the incident either.

Also in practice (unfortunately) as a cyclist, following the guidance needs to be weighed up against possibility of winding up other road users and thus indirectly causing a dangerous situation.

Also in practice (unfortunately) as a cyclist, following the guidance needs to be weighed up against possibility of winding up other road users and thus indirectly causing a dangerous situation.

Yep, I ride in towards the centre of the road when approaching blind corners and pull back to left when clear and safe for a car to overtake. Quite often I get an angry driver behind beeping their horn and then shouting at me as they pass after the corner.
The few I have had a row with just simply do not see the problem with passing someone on the wrong side of the road on a blind bend.
I ask them if they would try to pass at that spot if they were following a very slow car and they say no...

Oh, you forgot all the cars that will be piling into each other when they have to stop at junctions to let cyclists by!

To understand what we're up against with these new rules take a look at the frothing over on Pistonheads.

Sometimes I really hate being a cycling enthusiast and a petrol head too, so much conflict between the two groups that is totally unnecessary.

@reluctantjumper A quick glance at the first page showed some good replies to the entitled, I assuming it all went to rat-poo further down and life is just too short!

Actually it continued in a similar vein for a while before descending how you might expect. There's actually a few cyclists on there that fight for their corner occasionally, including a few who used to be regulars here. It's more the entrenched views that some hold and that they refuse to reconsider that's the issue.

I've found a link to a table of the actual changes that will be made to the wording:

There are more changes than in the article listing the "8 changes you need to know". For example, Rule 140, which gives cyclists on a cycle track priority over drivers turning at a junction.

Sometimes I really hate being a cycling enthusiast and a petrol head too

But how could you possible own a bike and drive a car!?

I can almost guarantee the people ranting loudest about this haven't actually read the changes. They just see the world "cyclist" and its just an excuse for a pile on against something they have been taught to hate. Its pathetic really.