Just been sat on the sofa looking at the details of the changes to the Highway Code.
Apart from letting pedestrians and bikes across at side roads I thought all them were ‘law’ already.
It all looks like good manners and eminently sensible to me.
Why is it making Daily Mail types so angry?




…. because everything does?

The thing that amuses me with the rantings from both sides is that the truth is that once drivers pass their test, the highway code is largely forgotten.

I've been on a couple of speed awareness courses over the years, and the level of knowledge is truly lamentable.

The thing that doesn't amuse me is that killing or injuring a cyclist rarely ends up in jail time. The drink driver who nearly killed Tom before leaving the scene didn't do time.

Cycling on the road is something I avoid these days.

I must admit that the only time I tend to read the Highway Code these days is to use it as backup to online discussion It's usually the minutiae or the newer additions that I'm most likely not to know.

As for the DM - they make their money from inciting anger and causing division, hardly something to be proud about.

Most road users will make it up as they go along anyway, nothing will change.

The zebra rules are the most significant - you no longer have to step onto the crossing for a driver to stop - if it looks like you are about to cross, drivers have to stop. Whether this reduces casualties at zebras only time will tell. I recall being in Finland a few years ago and stopping to work out where I was whilst wandering around Rovaniemi. I became aware of a small queue of traffic in both directions with drivers looking at me. Turns out I was at a zebra crossing which was totally obscured by 2" of compacted snow so only indicated by a small sign.....

The transport hierarchy has been around for 20 years now. It's hard to see the relevance to the Highway code as it shouldn't affect how people drive. As noted, idiots don't follow rules so changing them won't stop idiots...

Richpips wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:58 am The thing that doesn't amuse me is that killing or injuring a cyclist rarely ends up in jail time. The drink driver who nearly killed Tom before leaving the scene didn't do time.

Whilst the cycling lobbies tend to make a big point of this in terms of cyclist fatalities, the fact is sentences for causing road deaths are very light, irrespective of the road users involved. There has been a lot of talk in recent years about sentencing for people committing traffic offences which result in casualties but it seems to entirely depend on the judge involved so some huge discrepancies...

The cynic in me predicts a backlash of "whataboutary" diluting this into a meaningless set of guidelines.

All the motorists and lobby groups banging on about red light jumping, pavement cycling, lack of insurance and accountability etc...

I don't think sentences for cycling deaths caused by other road users are perhaps anything special - it's always been thus for motorcycle deaths caused by cars and also driver deaths caused by other drivers generally.

I'm a bit unsure about the ruling that allows bicycles to go round the outside of a car that's turning left (the bike's also turning left) ... I can see that causing some confusion when the bike then wants to move back in towards the curb?

I really can't understand the hate towards cyclists but hand on heart, some cyclists really are stupid and don't help the cause ... as an example, I was caught up in a group of around 25 mountainbikers last week who after missing their turning, simply did a U turn in the road en masse. No one bothered to look behind them to see if there was any traffic, no one made any attempt to signal their intention and how no one got knocked off by the van in front of me I'm not sure but I'd have been fairly p1ssed off if I'd been driving it. Said driver, perhaps now thinks that cyclists are dickheads.

Dunno if folks have seen this:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -will-mean

Journalism is rarely neutral and TBH it's mostly about finding the news outlet that best fits with your world view and then imbibing the reinforcement of your ideals and attitude. I might be a bit cynical there

I agree the Highway Code is largely unknown by many, even those who intend to be good road users. However, it is a codification of how road users *should* behave. Where there might be ambiguity in a prosecution it can be referred to demonstrate that a road users' behavior was not what is reasonably expected and therefore help to prove guilt, fault and/or innocence. Bit like Approved Codes of Practice that accompany many regulations in construction. AFAIK. Just because a road user doesn't know about it isn't a strong defence as ignorance never is

Cheeky Monkey wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:54 am Just because a road user doesn't know about it isn't a strong defence as ignorance never is

A good point made.

As each incident from now on gets (should get!) a ruling tipped towards the most vulnerable user, so the general balance will gradually tip in that direction. Not overnight but it will.... see seatbelts, drink driving etc....

Same as all laws, just because the most likely offenders don't think they apply to them doesn't mean they shouldn't be implemented.

Personally I think this is a huge and welcome change.

PS. The Daily Hatemail can fuck right off back into the gutter

. hand on heart, some cyclists really are stupid and don't help the cause

True but the same is true of car drivers , pedestrians or motorcyclists but the hate is not evenly spread . All car drivers don't get grief because someone steals a car or drinks and drives the perpetrator ONLY gets the grief *

Personally I cannot recall the last time a cyclist did something dumb near me on the road but every journey a car will.


* A guy at work used to tell me everytime a cyclist did something wrong so i started doing the same to him with car drivers. He asked me why and I asked him why he told me about every cyclist . Ironically his wife and daughter got into cycling during.lockdown and now he wont let them ride on the road

IMHO making every driver cycle 4 times a year in busy areas is the only way for them to understand

True but the same is true of car drivers , pedestrians or motorcyclists but the hate is not evenly spread . All car drivers don't get grief because someone steals a car or drinks and drives the perpetrator ONLY gets the grief *

Completely agree John.

Personally I cannot recall the last time a cyclist did something dumb near me on the road but every journey a car will.

But what's the % of cars to bikes you see on those journeys?

MHO making every driver cycle 4 times a year in busy areas is the only way for them to understand

There used to be calls amongst motorcycle groups to make everyone ride a moped for a year before driving a car.

There's a lot of subtle anti-cycling press. I.e.

The car crashed into the bus.

Vs

The cyclist crashed into the bus.

Also all the "The car lost control" rather than the actual "The driver lost control of the car".

^^Very good points


I barely see any cyclists and I barely drive my car ( commute x3 a week but still barely see a cyclist on Sustrans route 55 so mainly traffic free my way )

I don't know if car drivers break the law more often than cyclists but I do know they kill more folk and it's more dangerous when they do.

whitestone wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 1:49 pm There's a lot of subtle anti-cycling press. I.e.

The car crashed into the bus.

Vs

The cyclist crashed into the bus.

Also all the "The car lost control" rather than the actual "The driver lost control of the car".

The various road safety lobby groups put a press guidance pack on terminology last year which seems to have had a surprisingly good take up. So you use the word crash or collision, not accident (as they aren't accidents) you don't state that person / vehicle A crashed into person / vehicle B, you state 'there was a collision between vehicle a and b" and you don't assign blame ahead of a Police investigation so no more "car went out of control" or even "driver lost control" its "a vehicle left the road / collided with another vehicle" etc. etc. I've been involved in a fair bit of crash investigation in the last few years (no more as of this Friday) and it's interesting seeing what is reported in the press compared to what actually happened, especially if its a fatal.

I'm with Reg on the Daily Mail though.

Just going out for an aimless ride this afternoon. Will see if anyone displays knowledge of the new rules .

A few days ago I went out, was riding through a T-junction - on the opposite side to the minor road - and bloke pulls out from minor road almost straight into me. He stops, gets out and says "I couldn't see you, you're wearing black. And not wearing a helmet (*)". Baffling he thought that telling me all that was more important than just continuing his journey, after all I'm just a cyclist aren't I.

Bloke was driving a black car and wasn't wearing a helmet. He didn't like me pointing this out.

(*) This phrase is always injected into any negative discussion about cycling, as if it had the remotest bearing on what the non-cycling participant's actions were.


PS. We're all being remarkably restrained in our comments so far in this thread . OK, apart from my DM comment that is .

Thats twice happened to me (only - the joys of rural living) and my considered response was along the lines of "you weren't looking, thats why you didn't see me" or "**** off and *** you myopic ****"
Riding motorbikes for 30 odd years has altered my perspective somewhat. It got to the point where I couldn't be bothered shouting at car drivers pulling out in front of me as it happened so often. Also at one time car drivers all assumed that if you were on a motorbike you were a hells angel and if they hassled you, you would turn up with 20 of your mates who would kill him, rape his wife and daughter, burn down his house, salt the earth it stood on and then roar off into the night. (We obviously didn't do this but we did think about it) Nowadays car drivers just treat you like another obstacle, very much like they do cyclists. (or a mad idiot who deserves to die)

A word of wisdom from the cop who I did a 'bike safe' course with - "It wasn't my fault" makes for a crap epitaph.

RIP wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:14 pm
PS. We're all being remarkably restrained in our comments so far in this thread . OK, apart from my DM comment that is .

Any comment about the DM that doesn't invoke Godwin's Law or involve a dictionary depleting string of invective may be considered restrained

RIP wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:14 pm PS. We're all being remarkably restrained in our comments so far in this thread . OK, apart from my DM comment that is .

I shared with this Stu ages ago and whilst it's rather amusing it's also not a bad way of thinking about driving (or maybe life in general).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FEO-XKo4cw

Ogmios School of Zen Motoring.

One interesting comment I have heard which sums a lot of it up for me....

Radio 'phone-in programme about the new HC sections. Caller is a Driving Instructor and ex. traffic policeman. Commenting about the requirement to give way to pedestrians whilst turning into a side road.
His comment was that this creates a highly dangerous situation because having to bring a car to a sudden halt leaving a main road would mean a serious collision would more than likely occur behind as other vehicles plough into the back of that vehicle; all this obviously caused by allowing a pedestrian to have a greater right in law.

Classic victim blaming - he completely overlooked the fact that such a scenario would only be caused not because of the pedestrian but as a result of the following drivers driving too fast, too close and without due care

Now, he may well actually be right about how the scenario would play out and that pretty much sums up the attitude of far too many drivers who see the car as their own personal fiefdom to the exclusion of anyone elses' freedom.

I think the actual genuine real new bits are pretty good, though I will look more closely at riders now being permitted to go around cars that are turning left on the outside thing and I saw somewhere there is a change to the roundabout rule ... hmm.

For me the most interesting aspect of the debate has been the way motoring associations have warned that the changes will make it more dangerous for cyclists because they will increase incidents of road rage ... oddly enough, the cycling lobby thinks it's all a rather good idea.

Lazarus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 1:57 pm I don't know if car drivers break the law more often than cyclists

Apparently the percentage of vehicle users who habitually break the the law is the same no matter what vehicle they use. So if the percentage is say 30 percent then 30 percent of car drivers break the law, 30 percent of lorry drivers break the the law, 30 percent of motorcyclists break the law and 30 percent of cyclists break the law. It's not down to what type of vehicle you use but the type of person you are.

Ray Young wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 3:17 pm

Lazarus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 1:57 pm I don't know if car drivers break the law more often than cyclists

Apparently the percentage of vehicle users who habitually break the the law is the same no matter what vehicle they use. So if the percentage is say 30 percent then 30 percent of car drivers break the law, 30 percent of lorry drivers break the the law, 30 percent of motorcyclists break the law and 30 percent of cyclists break the law. It's not down to what type of vehicle you use but the type of person you are.

I'd be interested to know where that comes from as it sounds a little too "pat" to me

Plus, even if the proportion is the same across all user groups you need to factor in the size of those groups, the likelihood of encountering them and the size of hazard they are. I suspect that means that car drivers pose the greatest risk as there's a funkton of them (us!) and their average time on the road is far greater. Might be a close thing with HGV delivery drivers though

It's not down to what type of vehicle you use but the type of person you are.

Personally I , sorry I mean a friend of mine is, more likely to jump red lights [ as they change from green ]in a car than on a bike

Partly this is down to the perception of cyclists and toprovide positive image and partly its because a bike is slower and it takes more time to get across the junction so its more risky

I rarely break the speed limit in a bike despite my best efforts

I once got rear ended [on the bike]- gentle ish bumb [ contact no damage and not knocked off ] by a car stopping at a red light

Amusingly he said to me " why did you stop for the red light?"

Lazarus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 3:48 pm
Amusingly he said to me " why did you stop for the red light?"

We just can't win can we!

Lazarus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 1:57 pm ^^Very good points


I barely see any cyclists and I barely drive my car ( commute x3 a week but still barely see a cyclist on Sustrans route 55 so mainly traffic free my way )

I don't know if car drivers break the law more often than cyclists but I do know they kill more folk and it's more dangerous when they do.

Years ago at work (York ICU) the patient started telling me about how dangerous 'you cyclists' are (not sure what he was still doing on ICU if he had such strong opinions... nice man though). I'm not a very quick thinker but my manager put him straight with the bottom line which was, 'cyclists irritate cars (driver), but cars kill cyclists'.

Patient shut right up and (I recall now) continued reading his newspaper (and I think we can possibly safely say it might have been The Times).

Also agree with Stu about how idiotic (and arrogant) some cyclists can be...