Gov.uk consultation proposals on a review of The Highway Code

When I read things such as

'Take great care and treat all horses as a potential hazard; they can be unpredictable
despite the efforts of their rider/driver. Remember there are three brains at work
when you pass a horse; the rider’s, the driver’s and the horse’s. Don’t forget
horses are flight animals and can move incredibly quickly if startled.'

It's hard not to conclude that horses should not be on roads.

Saying there are 3 brains at work seems to give equivalence to the brains.

You can't just leave it there. You have to tell us which one you think is not equivalent.

Sorry. I still make that 2 brains. I keep re-reading it and nope still only 2.   
Oh hang on. They're actually counting it as a further 1 brain for any driver who is in need of HC reminding them that horses can be startled by their ( poor ) pass.

So yes it is 3 after all, and I agree with your point that they should not all be given equivalence. Which of them did you down-rate ?

Being sensible for a moment - given that roads started with people, livestock, horses, drawn-vehicles... 
And then came bicycles... 
And finally arrived motorised vehicles....             

....it might be somewhat ungracious to start a progression to delete the original permissions in favour of each successive more-recent inclusion. Better if each new inclusion is permitted only whilst maintaining the safety and privileges of the incumbents - foibles and all.  That's how most assimilation works in the world      
 

Have horses ever been safe on roads ? I've read a few comments on here about how startled they get, one was about a crisp packet being blown around.

I don't have much knowledge of horses and their temperament. But today I ( totally honestly) had a pedestrian side-step dramatically right into my intended path - a wasp caused that.

So I guess we're all vulnerable users in some way, and need extra consideration. But I think our planet would be poorer if we were to exclude rather than make allowances.
 

I think lockdown largely calmed everything down.  So maybe we are able to be more accommodating.

Putting my transport cards on the table:  

Pedestrians - yes please.  
Horses and riders - yes please.  
Cyclists - yes please   
Motoring - necessary, but please try to reduce, and please try to be a good neighbour and not a bully.  Would welcome cleaner modes, and automation.
Flying - in moderation   
Trains - seem sensible 

You can in London where it is specifically marked

https://goo.gl/maps/JVgAznvqZ8VHfCbR7

You park in the dashed bit and you can just see the blue P sign.

Well a pavement is any hard surfacing, so technically I think that means cars are banned from most roads.

Although, unfortunately, so are cycles.

Don't they call it a "footway" ?

The whole 2 abreast thing needs to be ditched and just say a group of cyclists may take up the whole width of a lane (just like a car).

A fair point about single lanes.

Indeed, the two-abreast thing is a distraction and should be eliminated. It plays into the motorist's psychology that the cyclist is not entitled to the lane and is a hinderance to be suffered only to the extent of the motorist's forbearance.

CXR94Di2 wrote:

Where is presumed liability, mass advertising campaign to public to drum it into stupid drivers that they need to stay clear of cyclists

Those would be separate things. If you've been tasked with reviewing the Highway Code, you can only reflect the current law and add surrounding advice. You can't go around creating new law and policy - those are someone else's responsibility.

It's not presumed liability but, to be fair, it does propose introducing an express concept of a hierarchy or road users ~bigger vehicle more responsibility  

Yes I'm really upset by that suggested rule 66 change

Your snippet is the clearest explanation I've ever seen regarding appropriate lane-use in relation to cyclists

Why on earth couldn't they just incorporate words to that same effect in the HC, rather than their take-all-subclauses-into-account mish-mash

To me it's pretty simple ( and I'm sure someone could come up with a better version ):

Cyclists may chose their lane position as appropriate or necessary: this includes riding in the primary position, or up to two abreast.

Other road users Must only overtake either:    
1. On the right in a separate lane, or     
2. On the right by leaving at least 1.5m lateral clearance. With additional clearance when at high speed.

Rule 66 could do with more work, but that's exactly what the consultation is for. Also, as you note, the Highway Code is a package and different rules have to be read together. Better work has been done on the complementary rules more relevant to motorists, e.g. 

Rule 213 wrote:

On narrow sections of road, at road junctions and in slower-moving traffic, cyclists may sometimes ride in the centre of the lane, rather than towards the side of the road. Allow them to do so for their own safety, to ensure they can see and be seen. Cyclists are also advised to ride at least a door’s width or 0.5m from parked cars for their own safety

Rule 163 wrote:

give motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215). As a guide: ─ leave a minimum distance of 1.5 metres at speeds under 30 mph ─ leave a minimum distance of 2.0 metres at speeds over 30 mph

They could just leave off the first couple of clauses of Rule 213 though:

Quote:

Cyclists may sometimes ride in the centre of the lane...

People here with far more knowledge than me are doing an excellent job of going over the rights and wrongs of the proposed code changes.

But I would at least like to focus on the really poor, and ambiguous,  style. The words should stand on their own feet ( even without diagrams ) but instead are so imprecise as to often mean something totally unintended.

Eg.   ( all three conditions must be met )
"On narrow sections of road, at road junctions and in slower-moving traffic, cyclists may...."

Should be:  ( any of three )
"On narrow sections of road;  or
at road junctions;   or
in slower-moving traffic;   
 cyclists may...."

My experience of the HC is that its wording is so open to multiple interpretations that one could drive a coach and horses through it ( where carriage-driving is safe and permitted )

eg:     
"As a guide: ─ leave a minimum distance of 1.5 metres at"...

(   "As a guide" what does that mean ?   if their style is to use "Should" or "Must" ... then they Must do so consistently, this clause needs to be "should leave" or "must leave" )
and   
(   "a minimum distance"...  I wouldn't want to be overtaken in an arc of only 1.5m - ie the approach from the rear would be terrifying )

They can't even describe clearance  for a car door unambiguously:  
"ride at least a door’s width or 0.5m from parked cars"   
( they mean a door's length, not its width, of a few cm.  And which do they mean...at least the door's length, or at least 0.5m...about half a door. Why state both, they are totally different distances )

Banging my forehead on the newly delivered refrigerator 

no wait,the 'gear change' stuff today just announced consultation on the highway code for updates for cycling...whether it results in any change is another matter but its there