Will This Make Cycling Safer?

Sky

Sky

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,244
Name
Trevor
Edit My Images
No
I'm not so sure it will, what are your thoughts?

www.autoexpress.co.uk

2022 Highway Code changes: 7 million drivers unaware of new rules for cars, cyclists and HGVs | Auto Express

Research suggests 20 percent of motorists risk endangering other road users and pedestrians by not knowing rule changes
www.autoexpress.co.uk www.autoexpress.co.uk

www.gov.uk

Review of The Highway Code to improve road safety for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders

Proposes amending The Highway Code to introduce a hierarchy of road users, clarify pedestrian and cyclist priority, and establish safer overtaking.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk

www.gov.uk

The Highway Code: 8 changes you need to know from 29 January 2022

Rules for all types of road users have been updated in The Highway Code to improve the safety of people walking, cycling and riding horses.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
 
Last edited:
Methinks there will be many shunts when drivers suddenly stop to let cyclists and pedestrians cross!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
That was my first thought too.
 
It seems ill conceived and ill executed to me. I can certainly understand the objections of the IAM: a "consultation" where 16,500 of the 21,000 responses received comes from one of the smallest groups involved is no consultation, to my way of thinking.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
AndrewFlannigan said:
It seems ill conceived and ill executed to me.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It’s going to cause chaos in cities where pedestrians already walk in front of cars at junctions.
As someone that is a pedestrian, a road cyclist, motorcyclist and car driver I can see why they want to create the new hierarchy but feel they are just going to create problems with some of the new rules.

All part of the government’s bigger plan to get Joe average out of their personal transport….
 
Having lived very close to, and driven many years at the Dutch border, it's a simple concept - 'Cyclist is King'
Basically, if you're in an accident involving a cyclist, you are very likely to be at fault.
 
In many of the circumstances described I would give way to a cyclist or pedestrian anyway but when waiting at red lights they can sneak up the side of traffic so not always obvious they are there. I think that using cycle lanes needs to be compulsory for cyclists. The local Council spent a lot of money on building a cycle lane along side a main road into the town and hardly any cyclist use it. When I used to regularly cycle the route I used the cycle lane as it was safer. Also the Council marked "shared lanes" on a route between town and the University. OK but they chose to do this on the very busy road (and bus route) whereas there was a parallel route along a quiet road which would have been much safer. I complained to the council making this point and they replied that they stuck to the main road because cyclist would not use the route I suggested even though safer and causing less congestion. This was on the basis of consultation with a cyclists group.

Dave
 
Last edited:
i read the article as well and it has to be a good thing for sure, these are rules that have been in europe for decades
 
It's a good thing but has to be a two way thing. The Sunday morning peletons going full road width need to show a little consideration too and the ability for cyclists in the city to recognise that an orange light doesn't mean speed up.
 
Far worse is the new law stating you have to open the car door with the hand furthest from it !!!
I can't easily reach the door handle with my left hand and if I do I can't hold onto it to stop the door opening fuurther

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk

Drivers could face £1,000 fine for opening doors the wrong way

The Highway Code rule change is designed to protect cyclists
www.liverpoolecho.co.uk www.liverpoolecho.co.uk
 
Gremlin said:
Far worse is the new law stating you have to open the car door with the hand furthest from it !!!
I can't easily reach the door handle with my left hand and if I do I can't hold onto it to stop the door opening fuurther

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk

Drivers could face £1,000 fine for opening doors the wrong way

The Highway Code rule change is designed to protect cyclists
www.liverpoolecho.co.uk www.liverpoolecho.co.uk
Click to expand...
Oh that’s crazy makes no sense at all
All people have to do is look before they open the door
 
Gremlin said:
I can't easily reach the door handle with my left hand and if I do I can't hold onto it to stop the door opening fuurther
Click to expand...
These proposed changes all appear to share a common characteristic: daftness! :thinking:
 
LCPete said:
Oh that’s crazy makes no sense at all
All people have to do is look before they open the door
Click to expand...


As a biker, it was drummed into me (well, it was already in there but the instructors kept on about it!) that lifesavers were not just to save my life. Like Ingrid, I can't reach my driver's side door handle with my left hand (shoulder problem) and if I could, I would only be able to open it a crack before letting go. Having already done the lifesaver look though, that's not a problem. I was also taught (as a cyclist) to keep a door width out from parked cars, just in case they get opened.
 
A few things strike me as inconsistent.
1. cyclists can now legally cycle on pavements - does not say they have to be those declared dual use. Not good for pedestrians.
2. Advice to creep up on the left at traffic lights increases danger to them IMO.
3. where there is a cycle lane installed it should be obligatory IMO. If this is about increasing cyclist safety why not?
 
Gremlin said:
Far worse is the new law stating you have to open the car door with the hand furthest from it !!!
I can't easily reach the door handle with my left hand and if I do I can't hold onto it to stop the door opening fuurther

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk

Drivers could face £1,000 fine for opening doors the wrong way

The Highway Code rule change is designed to protect cyclists
www.liverpoolecho.co.uk www.liverpoolecho.co.uk
Click to expand...

That's extremely lazy journalism / linkbait.

1. Open your door safely - here's a good way to do it.
2. If you open your door and hurt somebody you can get fined regardless of which hand you use.

Both those are very good ideas.

Claiming that you will get fined if you don't open your door "the Dutch way" is both silly and wrong.
 
Peter123 said:
A few things strike me as inconsistent.

3. where there is a cycle lane installed it should be obligatory IMO. If this is about increasing cyclist safety why not?
Click to expand...
Cycle lanes are often designed and put in by motorists, making many of then not fit for purpose.

There is already a perfectly good cycle lane network - the roads.
 
I am no longer a cyclist but, when I was, I preferred to use cycle lanes. Why do other cyclist refuse to use them and why do cyclist regularly go through red lights.

Dave
 
It will make cycling safer but requires us as car/van users to change our engrained habits and be more aware of other road users and give them the space they are entitled to etc.

Anybody who says otherwise IMO is just being blinkered and selfish/entitled.

As one post above says, the rear shunts may increase. Why? Because the car user isn’t paying attention. Simple.

*I am a road user in a car / on a bike / as a pedestrian.
 
Dave Canon said:
I am no longer a cyclist but, when I was, I preferred to use cycle lanes. Why do other cyclist refuse to use them and why do cyclist regularly go through red lights.

Dave
Click to expand...
You need to insert “some” into your sentence. In the same way that some car drivers go through red lights and don’t observe junctions either.

Any road user bike or car who jumps a red light is stupid and reckless but at the same time is not representative of the majority of road users be they a cyclist or car driver.
 
Peter123 said:
A few things strike me as inconsistent.
1. cyclists can now legally cycle on pavements - does not say they have to be those declared dual use. Not good for pedestrians.
2. Advice to creep up on the left at traffic lights increases danger to them IMO.
3. where there is a cycle lane installed it should be obligatory IMO. If this is about increasing cyclist safety why not?
Click to expand...

Partly - when I bike to pub or with kids I will do that as it is (or feels) safer. Riding at any speed though (on my road bike) and its always the road. On a cycle path you have other users (pedestrians who can step in your way), driveways and many other hazards, and you just can't do the speed you do on the road.
 
Yes I should have said some cyclist jump red lights but it seems to becoming more common. On the cycle path I was referring to, it is not shared but exclusive for cyclist. It is not totally free from hazards (it does have a handful of junctions to negotiate) but still much safer that sharing a road with articulated lorries and other traffic. I drive along this section of road regularly and we cheer on the very few occasions a cyclist uses the cycle lane. Also cyclist should be banned from some roads for their own safety. A duel carriageway links the two nearby towns and has a motorway junction. Traffic comes off the motorway to join the dual carriageway not expecting to see cyclist in their path. There are regular deaths. I spoke to a cyclist who regularly used this route and pointed out that the old road which preceded the dual carriageway was still there and much more pleasant for cycling but he insisted that it was his right to cycle where he wanted and risk his life!

Dave
 
Topsy said:
Wheels belong on roads, pavements are for feet........
Click to expand...
I agree.

These new rules should assist a levelling up between different types of wheels on the road.
 
JonathanRyan said:
That's extremely lazy journalism / linkbait.

1. Open your door safely - here's a good way to do it.
2. If you open your door and hurt somebody you can get fined regardless of which hand you use.

Both those are very good ideas.

Claiming that you will get fined if you don't open your door "the Dutch way" is both silly and wrong.
Click to expand...

Agree.

Although the article does give the correct info, ie the new Highway Code rule says where you are able to do so, you should use the hand on the opposite side to the door to open the door and that if you injures someone by opening you can be fined up to £1,000, the headline is incorrect and misleading.

Dave
 
AshleyC said:
It's a good thing but has to be a two way thing. The Sunday morning peletons going full road width need to show a little consideration too and the ability for cyclists in the city to recognise that an orange light doesn't mean speed up.
Click to expand...
I see motorists do this all the time, barely making it through as it switches to red - near been run over by some when I used to bring the kids across to school, there's a 'lolipop' lady there, and we all near got run down one day when a car blatantly tore through a red. Can't say I've ever experienced this with a cyclist
 
Cagey75 said:
Can't say I've ever experienced this with a cyclist
Click to expand...
As a daily cyclist myself, I saw other cyclists shoot red lights frequently.

Once I came to a crossing to find a number of people clustered round a car and a comotose cyclist. I was told that he'd ignored a red light and plowed into a car moving off on a green. It happens and it happens all too frequently, despite the fact that most cyclists are law abiding and courteous road users.

It's the minority who aren't that are the problem and they're the reason why rules are required. It would be an injustice if the law is changed to assume that the driver of a powered vehicle in collision with a cyclist is always to blame.
 
Last edited:
Buck said:
As one post above says, the rear shunts may increase. Why? Because the car user isn’t paying attention. Simple.
Click to expand...

The guy in the car/van/truck behind you may not have seen the bike/pedestrian, so won't be expecting you to slow/stop.

Yes, they should be far enough away to stop, but as we all know, that doesn't happen for a number of reasons, especially in heavy traffic moving at around 20mph.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
As a daily cyclist myself, I saw other cyclists shoot red lights frequently.

Once I came to a crossing to find a number of people clustered round a car and a comotose cyclist. I was told that he'd ignored a red light and plowed into a car moving off on a green. It happens and it happens all too frequently, despite the fact that most cyclists are law abiding and courteous road users.
Click to expand...
Many years ago, I was sitting a set of red lights on my motorbike along Victoria Embankment in London, when a cyclist came through the red lights and hit a pedestrian, who fell and her head hit the kerb. He wanted to get back on his bike and ride off, which I made sure he didn't. Interestingly the police had it on CCTV. He was nicked, and taken down the station.
 
Jelster said:
The guy in the car/van/truck behind you may not have seen the bike/pedestrian, so won't be expecting you to slow/stop.

Yes, they should be far enough away to stop, but as we all know, that doesn't happen for a number of reasons, especially in heavy traffic moving at around 20mph.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and two of the main reasons why incidents occur on our roads.

Lack of anticipation, and not driving to conditions.
 
Pound Coin said:
Indeed, and two of the main reasons why incidents occur on our roads.

Lack of anticipation, and not driving to conditions.
Click to expand...

Or, the the exact opposite, anticipating that you will move, and you don't (roundabouts are a good example of that). The stuff that the IAM drill into you is really good, and the "advanced hazard perception" should really be taught at basic driving level.
 
Edmund King(President of the Automobile Association) made a good point on TV this morning.

He said that when the complusory wearing of seat belts was introduced there was a lot of publicity prior to their introduction whereas these new changes had very little publicity and, I think I have this right, in a survey about a third of those asked said they had not heard about them.

Dave
 
There was considerable angst when seat belts were introduced. Loads of people fearful of being trapped in burning cars. There is still a high rate of non-compliance. Somewhere between 10 and 25%, I believe.

It is a shame now that seatbelt wearing is not an interesting factor when crashes reported in the media, despite the fact that it is compulsory. Helmet wearing is almost always reported in cycle crashes, despite the fact that it is not compulsory. Go figure.

Of course, the financial importance of the motor industry to the media could be a factor….

(as it will be in discussion about the new HC, given that that the walking and cycling industries provide little income to the media)
 
Jelster said:
The guy in the car/van/truck behind you may not have seen the bike/pedestrian, so won't be expecting you to slow/stop.

Yes, they should be far enough away to stop, but as we all know, that doesn't happen for a number of reasons, especially in heavy traffic moving at around 20mph.
Click to expand...
I always give way to pedestrians crossing the road anyway so may stop immediately at a turn. However, I understand that we now have to anticipate pedestrians who are not actually crossing but would like to. This will certainly lead to more confusion and bumps as a car stops but the following vehicle can see no reason for this. Hopefully many vehicles are now fitted with a system which detects this and slams the brakes on automatically. It is difficult to test these systems safely.

Dave
 
Jonathan White, Legal and Compliance Director at National Accident Helpline, urged drivers to familiarise themselves with the new changes.

He said: 'While we welcome the Highway Code changes, we are concerned that there has been insufficient public education and as a result a lack of awareness, that could potentially lead to an increase in road accidents.

Potential misunderstanding about the new priorities at road junctions is a recipe for disaster, particularly if drivers don’t get up to speed with the changes relating to junctions.'
 
Problem is the muppet that’s tailgating someone will drive into the back of the car or motorbike in front that has to stop for a pedestrian
I’m not sure what the answer is but drivers have to pay attention and be less aggressive, it’s not the changes that are the problem but the general standard of driving
 
Do cyclists now have to give way to pedestrians waiting to cross? The ones around here don't bother.
Also, what about on pavements? The new rules say that if using the road is dangerous the cyclist can use the pavement . (it is my understanding that this can be any pavement, not necessarily one designated shared use). Who has priority - cyclist or pedestrian?
 
The Highway Code is a series of "rules". Some of these rules are law and where this is so the law concerned is mentioned at the end of the rule. E.g. rule 238 refers to a Road Traffic Act i.e. Law RTRA sects 5 & 8.
Rules that are specifically contained in law are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.

Rule 239 (where the reference to car door opening is contained) makes no mention of any law therefor it is advisory.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top