Highway Code changes 29/01/22 - what do you think about it?

[High Jetter]

I like the aviation comparisons. Up there, everyone has a long way to fall.

[FakeConcern]

I don't really see a big difference in the new Highway Code or any likely change in how things get dealt with by the courts or by the public in general. As a counterpoint to the example of the Fixie rider who killed a pedestrian, here is a case where the cyclist hit a pedestrian looking at their phone and ended up having to pay a huge sum in damages.

https://road.cc/content/news/262396-cyclist-found-partly-liable-crash-pedestrian-who-was-looking-her-mobile-phone

As pointed out by someone ( @UltraWomble?)  the overwhelming odds are that pedestrians and cyclists are more likely to be injured by a motor vehicle than each other.

As a cyclist waiting at a red traffic light in London, I was berated by a pedestrian who complained to me about "You bloody cyclists speeding through red lights all the time" but.but...

[AnnoyingPentium]

6 hours ago, MikeR said:

Helps with the parking , wot was that .... Nothing .! 

My new parking sensors are great. You feel them instead of hearing them, you know when there's a bump you've hit something*...

 

*... or someone.

[Metal Guru]

9 hours ago, mintwth said:

I agree that the hierarchy shouldn't be taken as removing responsibility from and granting impunity to some. Everyone has a role to play. 

There is always an element of rules being guidelines and they should always be taken with a big pinch of "don't be a dick". 

In aviation, all parties know they have a role in avoiding collisions/accidents (e.g. see and avoid, etc). There the hierarchy is based on ability to avoid the collision/accident. According to the hierarchy a jumbo jet should give way to a paraglider. Is any paraglider pilot deliberately going to put themselves in a position where they could collide with a jumbo? Only if they have a sudden desire to become an ex-paraglider (and/or a pre-cooked and wrapped burger if they go through an engine). 

Aviation is lucky in that it still has a decent element of 'just culture' and recognises that accidents can and do happen without one party specifically being to blame for it. The emphasis tends to be on learning lessons from accidents and trying to reduce the chance of the same/similar accident happening again. 

In driving, the approach is different. It seems someone has to be at fault for an accident. The emphasis tends not to be on preventing future accidents but on finding someone to blame for the accidents that do happen. 

 

A lot of the Highway Code could be boiled down to "be considerate to others and don't be a dick". Unfortunately, that's a concept a lot of people don't seem to be able to put into practice. 

Should be the approach to life in general not just driving.

[noseypoke]

On 1/26/2022 at 12:47 PM, cort1977 said:

I think it's a good idea and about bloody time.

It essentially enforces the hierarchy of vulnerability, pedestrians are the most vulnerable so everyone should take care with them, cyclists should take care not to scare horses and so on up the chain to HGV drivers who have to be especially careful of everything due to their size.

Despite the efforts to stir up an anti-cycling backlash by the usual suspects in the media I don't think it's a big deal. 

I Think Push bikes owners should have to carry insurance , be fitted with running lights and bells or horns  and hi-viz  clothing...Let's face it they use the road and the pavement and go straight thru traffic lights when it suits them, failing that fit all cars with cow -catchers!!

[Metal Guru]

6 minutes ago, noseypoke said:

I Think Push bikes owners should have to carry insurance , be fitted with running lights and bells or horns  and hi-viz  clothing...Let's face it they use the road and the pavement and go straight thru traffic lights when it suits them, failing that fit all cars with cow -catchers!!

There are a lot of ebikes ( usually conversions) that exceed the 250W limit to escape road tax and insurance.

I think cyclist should be reminded of their responsibilities ( obey signs, carry lights, signal etc) as well as other road users.

[Dave_Q]

11 minutes ago, noseypoke said:

I Think Push bikes owners should have to carry insurance , be fitted with running lights and bells or horns  and hi-viz  clothing...Let's face it they use the road and the pavement and go straight thru traffic lights when it suits them, failing that fit all cars with cow -catchers!!

I think anyone who actually thinks or posts claiming to think this low quality copy and paste Clarkson replica shite should be fired into the sea with a big cannon, but neither of us are getting what we want are we

[lesapandre]

On 1/27/2022 at 2:39 PM, Dave_Q said:

What do I think?

TBH I am already absolutely sick of hearing about this. It's pretty much just a clarification of existing rules and very little new at all. 

The whole thing is just (like everything else tbh) being farmed for people to weigh in with their oh so inventive 2p about how it will cause accidents and they once heard a story about a cyclist who went through a red light. 

If any of the things in the already overposted diagram cause you to have an accident or kill someone, your driving was the problem, and it was a problem whether these minor rules changes happened or now.

A lot of it is just good road manners and emphasising observation.

It is also caveated in parts to allow interpretation.

Alas alas poor standards  of driving will continue to fuel increased tightening of the code. People still don't  lseem, from what I have seen, to be able to stop using their phone whilst driving for text, sites and even games.

 

[Spurious]

14 minutes ago, noseypoke said:

I Think Push bikes owners should have to carry insurance , be fitted with running lights and bells or horns  and hi-viz  clothing...Let's face it they use the road and the pavement and go straight thru traffic lights when it suits them, failing that fit all cars with cow -catchers!!

Lights are already a legal requirement on bikes after lighting up hours and if you cant see bikes on the roads with lights, you should be getting your eyes tested.

[AnnoyingPentium]

I think a registration system could be a clever idea for bikes... implementation on the other hand... maybe not so much now.

Bikes are plenty visible with lights too. +1 on the eye test bit. There's a few "bad eggs", sure, but you can't let that become your overall judgement of cyclists as a whole, dinnae tar them all with the same brush and other things ma mither telt me.

[noseypoke]

8 minutes ago, Dave_Q said:

I think anyone who actually thinks or posts claiming to think this low quality copy and paste Clarkson replica shite should be fired into the sea with a big cannon, but neither of us are getting what we want are we

Beg to differ mate I've always thought Cyclists should be insured not just to cover themselves ...but  to compensate the  vehicle owners damage /injury or pedestrians,     roll on exise tax on pushbikes as well...

 

On 12/25/2021 at 1:36 PM, Yoss said:

Really? I'd never heard that before. 

 

On 1/7/2022 at 8:54 PM, High Jetter said:

Sunblest breadvan?

 

On 1/20/2022 at 9:49 PM, catsinthewelder said:

Saw this at the local scrapyard, apparently the bodywork isn't too bad but it's a none runner.

Yes it is a pick up 

 

9 minutes ago, Spurious said:

Lights are already a legal requirement on bikes after lighting up hours and if you cant see bikes on the roads with lights, you should be getting your eyes tested.

LIGHTS  are  a "LEGAL REQUIREMENT" BUT A HELL OF A LOT OF CYCLISTS DON'T FIT THEM , DRESS IN ALL BLACK, and don't give a shit for safety, especially other peoples. They assume everybody else will get out of their way.

[Chas4545]

Don't get me wrong on this,  being  courteous to your fellow man is just great. But...  why do "courteous people" flash their lights to "let waiting driver out",  who will then be smiling  and mouthing thankyou to the left to  said courteous driver when they kill the filtering cyclist, or motorcyclist who is coming from the right?  BTW filtering is legal as long as it is done with foresight and care.  Flying between stationary traffic at 50 mph is not.  

Once you see this happen, its never forgotten.  

Its great that no lorry driver will ever tailgate a car again, and that cars will never tailgate motorcyclist again. Well, a man can dream eh?

[Dave_Q]

4 hours ago, noseypoke said:

Beg to differ mate I've always thought Cyclists should be insured not just to cover themselves ...but  to compensate the  vehicle owners damage /injury or pedestrians,     roll on exise tax on pushbikes as well...

1. Plenty of cyclists are insured - myself through British Cycling. This covers the depressingly common eventualities of theft or damage/injury to the bike and cyclist, and also the vanishingly unlikely eventuality that my squishy self on a plastic bike could somehow damage a car

2. Tax? If you are on about VED its based on emissions, they don't count arse gas so my pushbikes are 0g/km CO2 hence free. If you are on about maintaining roads? I pay plenty of that through income tax, council tax, etc. Oh yeah and tax on 2 cars and 2 motorbikes just to get that in.

4 hours ago, noseypoke said:

LIGHTS  are  a "LEGAL REQUIREMENT" BUT A HELL OF A LOT OF CYCLISTS DON'T FIT THEM , DRESS IN ALL BLACK, and don't give a shit for safety, especially other peoples. They assume everybody else will get out of their way.

It'd be grand if you could bring us some stories about actual real life cyclists, rather than some you made up during last night's hate-wank while reading Richard Littlejohn or wherever you source your opinions from. A person (and they are actually humans on those bikes you know) who rode in the way you describe would be dead on the first day.

FYI - I'm not expecting you to care or change your mind in any way, you are clearly too far gone for that. But it's worth getting in the rebuttal to these incredibly overplayed tropes for anyone else reading as they are as untrue as they are tiresome.

[AnnoyingPentium]

5 hours ago, noseypoke said:

Beg to differ mate I've always thought Cyclists should be insured not just to cover themselves ...but  to compensate the  vehicle owners damage /injury or pedestrians,     roll on exise tax on pushbikes as well...

Like a third party, fire and theft doohicky? I don't know how you'd get wee weans on bikes covered for such a thing. I doubt some parents would want to fork out money for the wean's bike.

But in theory, it isn't the worst idea, and as @Dave_Q says, many are insured.

[Metal Guru]

5 hours ago, Chas4545 said:

Don't get me wrong on this,  being  courteous to your fellow man is just great. But...  why do "courteous people" flash their lights to "let waiting driver out",  who will then be smiling  and mouthing thankyou to the left to  said courteous driver when they kill the filtering cyclist, or motorcyclist who is coming from the right?  BTW filtering is legal as long as it is done with foresight and care.  Flying between stationary traffic at 50 mph is not.  

Once you see this happen, its never forgotten.  

Its great that no lorry driver will ever tailgate a car again, and that cars will never tailgate motorcyclist again. Well, a man can dream eh?

Flying between traffic at 50mph is not filtering? That will be news to at least 50% of bikers. 

[catsinthewelder]

Certainly would have been to me age 20.

 

I've come across the odd teenager riding a BMX at night without lights but even if insurance etc was a legal requirement they wouldn't bother.

Plod don't care either,  I got stopped 20 odd years back cycling to work on the pavement without lights at 5am (it was light at that time the week before).  The only reason they stopped me was because there had been a burglary nearby and they wanted to know why I was out.  When I said I started work in 5 minutes and where they buggered off.

[wuvvum]

A surprisingly large percentage of cyclists have liability insurance.  Either through one of the schemes run by cycle clubs (which are generally less than £20 a year) or through public liability cover included in household insurance.  The sources which quote very low percentages for insured cyclists generally don't take into account the latter type, which is actually by far the most common.

I've let mine lapse during the pandemic but when I was cycling to work every day through the centre of Norwich I always had third party insurance in place.

[martc]

You know what we need? A force of people, in a distinctive uniform, some on foot and some in cars. They would be given powers to ensure that the rules of the road are obeyed. The uniformed force on foot could wear distinctive helmets to ensure they were seen, perhaps they could stand near traffic lights and tell off those who jump them?

The cars would be distinctively coloured (lets say white with an orange stripe, or may be day glo yellow and blue checks) which would make them visible to other road users who would then be more inclined to behave themselves.

We could call this revolutionary idea 'policing'.

[Jerzy Woking]

This region of Spain seems to have it right. Town centres have zebra crossings at the junctions of side streets and main roads. Main streets have lots of zebra crossings too. My nearest towns main street is around 1.3 kms long and has 10 or so traffic lights/ pedestrian crossing across it, and every side street has a zebra crossing. And no one crosses the road unless the light is green for them, even if there is no traffic in sight.

There are loads of cycle lanes everywhere, and many of the "lesser" main roads linking small towns have a narrow hard shoulder for cyclists to use. And if drivers don't give cyclists plenty of room (1.5 metres minimum) when over taking, they should expect a pull if one of the many visible police see them.

But then cycling is a huge hobby here, and it cyclists seem to be respected. Cyclists also show motorists respect, and I've yet to see one go through a red light. It maybe different in the major cities, butjust don't see it in the area I live and socialise in.

[Dave_Q]

44 minutes ago, martc said:

You know what we need? A force of people, in a distinctive uniform, some on foot and some in cars. They would be given powers to ensure that the rules of the road are obeyed. The uniformed force on foot could wear distinctive helmets to ensure they were seen, perhaps they could stand near traffic lights and tell off those who jump them?

The cars would be distinctively coloured (lets say white with an orange stripe, or may be day glo yellow and blue checks) which would make them visible to other road users who would then be more inclined to behave themselves.

We could call this revolutionary idea 'policing'.

Sounds expensive mate, don't think it'll catch on

[richardmorris]

On 1/28/2022 at 4:33 PM, noseypoke said:

Beg to differ mate I've always thought Cyclists should be insured not just to cover themselves ...but  to compensate the  vehicle owners damage /injury or pedestrians,     roll on exise tax on pushbikes as well...

 

 

 

 

LIGHTS  are  a "LEGAL REQUIREMENT" BUT A HELL OF A LOT OF CYCLISTS DON'T FIT THEM , DRESS IN ALL BLACK, and don't give a shit for safety, especially other peoples. They assume everybody else will get out of their way.

Oh, another thick as shit daily mail reader to block. Great.

[sutty2006]

Around Stoke I see more cyclists WITHOUT lights than with them in the dark. Witnessed two young lads riding along a road, in the centre, wearing black, no lights on. Do folk not get educated or are they just plain stupid. What was the old cycling proficiency saying? See and be seen? Or something like that. Too many MAMILs out there on black bicycles, wearing black gimp suits and black helmets poncing around in low light. I appreciate the ones that make an actual effort to be seen, but those that don’t can get fcuked. 

[noseypoke]

49 minutes ago, richardmorris said:

Oh, another thick as shit daily mail reader to block. Great.

Can't wait, FABIAN 

[AnnoyingPentium]

4 minutes ago, sutty2006 said:

Around Stoke I see more cyclists WITHOUT lights than with them in the dark. Witnessed two young lads riding along a road, in the centre, wearing black, no lights on. Do folk not get educated or are they just plain stupid. What was the old cycling proficiency saying? See and be seen? Or something like that. Too many MAMILs out there on black bicycles, wearing black gimp suits and black helmets poncing around in low light. I appreciate the ones that make an actual effort to be seen, but those that don’t can get fcuked. 

Well said.

I did my cycling proficiency at school around 2012/13. I think it should be mandatory to sit the course. Sure, it might not change much in the grand scheme of things, but it may help educate some.

[FakeConcern]

On 1/28/2022 at 4:33 PM, noseypoke said:

 

LIGHTS  are  a "LEGAL REQUIREMENT" BUT A HELL OF A LOT OF CYCLISTS DON'T FIT THEM , DRESS IN ALL BLACK, and don't give a shit for safety, especially other peoples. They assume everybody else will get out of their way.

 

13 minutes ago, sutty2006 said:

Around Stoke I see more cyclists WITHOUT lights than with them in the dark. Witnessed two young lads riding along a road, in the centre, wearing black, no lights on. Do folk not get educated or are they just plain stupid. What was the old cycling proficiency saying? See and be seen? Or something like that. Too many MAMILs out there on black bicycles, wearing black gimp suits and black helmets poncing around in low light. I appreciate the ones that make an actual effort to be seen, but those that don’t can get fcuked. 

I have also noticed plenty of cars driving in the dark/fog/heavy rain/spray with no lights or only DRLs on the front despite the legal requirement for dipped beam in poor visibility.

Basically you get stupid people driving and stupid people cycling.

I blame Rapha for making the all black cyclist cool. Before that Pro Team kit was fashionable and usually bright and eye catching (for obvious reasons) until it became blighted with the "full kit wanka" stigma...

[LightBulbFun]

On 26/01/2022 at 21:10, Isaac Hunt said:

I often wonder how long it takes updates to the Highway Code to reach community immunity.   

I was following a van the other day, not too close, and it seemed to slow down, no brake lights shown.   Then it was clear it was slowing significantly, easily measured by the diminishing gap in front of me.  I then noticed the drivers hand out of the drivers window, the arm and hand being rotated in a circular motion.  I thought, ahah, brake lights an indicators are out, it's not often you see hand signals these days, well not a left turn hand signal anyway, plenty of others.

I relayed the story to a variety of age folk, and demonstrated the hand signal.  not one knew what the hand signal was.  Many offered more modern examples of hand signals that they had seen.

I think this is one where a lot of people just forget the finer bits of knowing how to drive and the rules of the road, as they do still cover hand signals when you learn how to drive/in the theory test

at least it was for me  

there is even one for slowing down which the van driver should of/may have been been using if his brake lights where not working  https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/signals-to-other-road-users

[bangernomics]

I Think Push bikes owners should have to carry insurance , be fitted with running lights and bells or horns  and hi-viz  clothing...Let's face it they use the road and the pavement and go straight thru traffic lights when it suits them, failing that fit all cars with cow -catchers!!

When I cycle commute if I had anything more visible on I’d be a feckin lighthouse and daft twats with cow catchers still wouldn’t see me.

[bangernomics]

Also on topic I think the HWC is pretty good in its latest format.

[Isaac Hunt]

On 1/13/2022 at 11:35 AM, Urko said:

That only works if you never move house.

2 hours ago, LightBulbFun said:

there is even one for slowing down which the van driver should of/may have been been using if his brake lights where not working  https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/signals-to-other-road-users

I’m aware of both the slowing down hand signal and the left turn hand signal.  As for a left turn whilst slowing down, the only person I’ve seen do that is the Queen, although ironically she was been driven at the time

[Metal Guru]

3 hours ago, Isaac Hunt said:

I’m aware of both the slowing down hand signal and the left turn hand signal.  As for a left turn whilst slowing down, the only person I’ve seen do that is the Queen, although ironically she was been driven at the time

None of the hand signals I’ve seen used are actually in the Highway Code.