- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Highway Code.PNGConsultation launched on proposed changes to Highway Code
The government has launched a consultation on proposed changes to the Highway Code, many of which are aimed at protecting vulnerable road users, including cyclists.
Among the planned changes in the consultation document, which you can find here, are clarifying safe passing distances, encouraging the ‘Dutch Reach’ technique of opening car doors to try and prevent ‘dooring’ incidents, and highlighting a hierarchy of road users to place greater responsibility on those with most potential to do harm.
Also, as we looked at separately yesterday, a recommendation is being introduced that cyclist “Should … ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so,” adding that “When riding in larger groups on narrow lanes, it is sometimes safer to ride two abreast.”
> UK government sets out to kill off the cycling chain gang
The proposals follow an interim review of the Highway Code announced in October 2018, and while they therefore stop short of a full-blown revision, there is a strong focus on improving safety of cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders, as well as children.
Besides the consultation document itself, the Department for Transport has also produced a summary – still a lengthy document in itself – which sets out details of the key changes, many of which aim to give motorists a greater understanding of how cyclists use the road, including positioning, the fact that it is not obligatory for people on bikes to use cycle lanes, and that they are allowed to pass motor vehicles on either side.
There are a number of proposed changes in the Rules for Cyclists chapter, perhaps the most contentious of which is updating Rule 59 “to state that evidence suggests that wearing a cycle helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances” – although there is no suggestion of helmets being made compulsory for riders,
Rule 63, meanwhile, is to be changed to include riding in shared spaces, with the proposed text reading: “When riding in places where sharing with pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles is permitted take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older adults or disabled people. Let them know you are there when necessary e.g. by ringing your bell (it is recommended that a bell is fitted to your bike), or by calling out politely.
“Remember that pedestrians may be deaf, blind or partially sighted and that this may not be obvious.
“Do not pass pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles closely or at high speed, particularly from behind. Remember that horses can be startled if passed without warning. Always be prepared to slow down and stop when necessary.”
Among the other planned changes to that chapter are proposals designed to:
include references to cycle tracks, cycle signals and new junction designs
amend the wording on Advanced Stop Lines
clarify the priority cyclists have over other vehicles when going straight ahead at a junction
provide advice on cyclist behaviours when riding on a shared use route and giving pedestrians priority
recommend that cyclists give way to pedestrians waiting to cross the road at a side road or junctions
strengthen advice around the value of cycle training
expand the rules on safe riding and crossing busy roads, including recommended procedures for cycling at roundabouts and road positioning.
Rule 163, meanwhile, which currently tells drivers to give cyclists and horse riders “at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car” will for the first time give recommended passing distances of “a minimum distance of 1.5 metres at speeds under 30 mph,” “a minimum distance of 2.0 metres at speeds over 30 mph,” and “for a large vehicle, leave a minimum distance of 2.0 metres in all conditions.”
It will also be amended to advise motorists that “cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on the right or left, including at the approach to junctions.”
Meanwhile, the Waiting and Parking chapter will be updated to recommend the Dutch Reach, something that campaigners including Cycling UK have been pushing for following fatalities of cyclists.
The proposed new text reads: “You should open the door using your hand on the opposite side to the door you are opening, e.g. use your left hand to open a door on your right-hand side. This will make you turn your head to look over your shoulder. You are then more likely to avoid causing injury to cyclists or motorcyclists passing you on the road, or to people on the pavement.”
As far as the establishment of a hierarchy of road users is concerned, the DfT says that proposed new Rule H1 ‘”ensures that those road users who can do the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they may pose to other road users.
“The objective of the hierarchy is not to give priority to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders in every situation, but rather to ensure a more mutually respectful and considerate culture of safe and effective road use that benefits all users.”
The Department for Transport says: “Your views are particularly important to us so we would encourage you to respond to this consultation. The consultation period began on 28 July 2020 and will run until midnight on 27 October 2020. Please ensure that your response reaches us before the closing date.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Oldfatgit 2 sec ago
Didn't take long to get from "don't see kids playing in the street anymore", to "get your fucking offspring out my fucking road" ... did it.
- wtjs 1 hour 6 min ago
I had a brief moment of déjà vu about established reds Established enough, according to your reverie? This is Polestar 2 OV74 URX
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 55 min ago
I saw something about the Smart Lever a month or so ago, and was intrigued enough to put it on my Xmas list, so maybe I'll get to have a play with...
- pmkdlk 2 hours 1 min ago
Thanks good to hear I'm not missing something. I'll stick with the 50 psi , no issues so far. There are a stack of cobbles where I live so not...
- hawkinspeter 3 hours 27 min ago
Who the fuck's that?
- PRSboy 4 hours 12 min ago
Rather better than my effort on Coll de Rates at 28:05, but in my defence it was 30c, I'd had a big lunch and a beer and climbed it on an old MTB I...
- Secret_squirrel 4 hours 26 min ago
Surely these are only as good as your knowledge of their placement? They seem a bit pointless without a decent amount of Sports Massage / Physio...
- lesterama 4 hours 40 min ago
Nice. I'd ride that Madone now.
- mattw 5 hours 9 min ago
This one seems to work the other way, and be genuine Nimbyism - Pimlico wanting to keep its passports....
- HollisJ 6 hours 20 min ago
Thankfully all the terrible spelling errors in my reviews are erased by the skillful subbing team before they go online. ...
Add new comment
25 comments
I've had a look through the consultation and while there is plenty on drivers not cutting across cyclists, left and right hooks, why hasnt this been brought under careless driving legislation?
Just been having a look through the summary of the consultation.
Got to this:
I presume they mean, "move to the left to enable them to overtake, if you think that they can do so safely"?
Otherwise, we are basically legitimising the behaviour of all those Jeremy Vine vs "Get out of my way I want to break the speed limit" type clips where a motorist comes screaming up behind someone taking primary on a one-way road with parked vehicles both sides and no space to safely get past.
Well it should actually be both - it should be safe for you to move over and safe for the other vehicle to overtake. There's no point in the overtake being safe if it forces you into a load of potholes and you come to grief anyway.
Yep, so make sure you go through the form and add that!
I fully intend to - but I think you generate better ideas by floating things somewhere where other people can kick the wheels on them and improve them first, rather than just submitting them as they occur to you. And we do still have nearly three months to put responses in.
I think that's correct.
You should move over if it's safe for you to move over.
If moving over would place you in a pothole or the door zone you should not move over.
The motorist has to judge if it is safe to overtake.
If you think that an overtake would not be safe then it would not be safe to move over.
It seems to be a pretty good defence of taking primary.
Except that motorists will not read it that way, leading to more perceived "arrogance" of cyclists not getting out of their way as "required" (from their understanding of this).
This is stupid. No UK road has lanes wide enough to accommodate a cyclist plus 1.8m wide car with 2m clearance between. So no matter how far over you move, you can't make it safe for them to overtake. They necessarily have to use the other lane deciding for themselves whether that is clear and safe to overtake.
The fact that cyclists are being asked to move over to allow cars to overtake speaks volumes - the implication is that cars should be able to squeeze by despite oncoming traffic denying them the use of the other lane which safety requires.
I went through the consultation quite thoroughly and commented as below, I urge you to go through the process, because as we all know the motoring crowd will probably be more motivated!
Rule72 Q17
Primary position should apply whenever a cyclist deems it is necessary, very hard to put those situations in writing. For example I adopt primary in the left lane of a residential 3 lane urban dual carriageway, as I am sick of being close passed. This situation is common and desperately needs some text in the code. But otherwise the >0.5mt text is fine.
Rule140 Q26
There should be additional text to explain filtering and that it is permissible for a cyclist to pass on either side in slow or stationary traffic
Q28
"Driving requires focus and attention at all times. Remember, you may be driving dangerously or travelling too fast even if you don’t mean to." This is very true, but it puts it very mildly. I think it needs rewording to bring more gravity to the situation.
Rule163 Q29
It needs to be said that as a general guide drivers should cross the dotted white line entirely and use the opposite carriageway to overtake. This should be ingrained as the default thinking and needs mention.
Rule213 Q40
Primary position should apply whenever a cyclist deems it is necessary, very hard to put those situations in writing. For example I adopt primary in the left lane of a residential 3 lane urban dual carriageway, as I am sick of being close passed. This situation is common and desperately needs some text in the code.
Q43
Some mention of not using horn, or other surprises designed to intimidate. It is very unnerving.
Q48, further comments
The overriding concerns of most cyclists are probably the close passes and the vitriol for just being on the road, especially choosing not using cycle tracks. Anything that can counter that is good.
Almost all the proposed changes are terrific, apart from some slightly loose wording and the proposed rules on riding two-abreast. Some rare good news.
All the proposed changes are good, in my opinion.
I prefer specific passing distances (1.5m, or 2.0m above 30mph and for large vehicles at any speed) to the existing vague wording. I know it's hard to enforce, and won't mean the end of dangerous close passes.
Seems a waste of time. The existing Highway Code already contains protection for vulnerable road users and it's routinely ignored.
Riding through Harrogate this morning I faced close passes on a wide road with no oncoming traffic; being overtaken by cars who ran the red light I was waiting at; and being forced to give way to a stream of cars passing illegally down the wrong side of a pedestrian refuge.
It might be routinely ignored but
1) It still makes sense for the Highway Code to be up-to-date with the best practice.
2) Putting it down in the Highway Code can make it easier to enforce, as failing to observe the highway code can be used as evidence for careless driving etc. The police can no longer reasonably take the attitude that if the driver didn't actually make contact then it was fine!
Exactly why they should scrap talk of 1.5 or 2.0m clearance and just say that cars must use the other lane to overtake, period.
It is in any case futile expecting motorists to accurately gauge 1.5 - 2.0m clearance to a moving cyclist, and pointless anyway since that won't prevent conflict with oncoming traffic. They may as well save themselves the bother of finessing a 1.5 - 2.0m gap and just use the lane divider as a guide - get the other side of it.
Easy to do, easy to police, easy to prosecute.
Except that this is the Highway Code - putting it in here won't give any basis to prosecute for it. They can only make it a MUST if there's a legal change first.
I love the mixed units, but when we take back control...
Agreed - I'd like to this posted on roadsides like you see in other countries.
It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85).
Where are 'we' on this pedal reflectors? I think I have some on my mountain bike, but my road bike didn't come with pedals. I only have a red reflector on my mudguards in the winter.
It's often a difficult one.
The top quality mountain bike pedals out there don't have any holes for reflectors. Wellgo still do most of their flat pedals with attachments for reflectors.
Road pedals seem to not be made for reflectors. There are clip on ones that can go on one side of an spd. Reflective ankle bands are an option, but probably not fully up to the requirements of the law.
I make sure my commuter has more than the legal requirements, and the good bike not. Big lights on everything. I have no idea, but I would be quite suprised if my rear and pedal reflectors were visable over my 3 bright rears lights, soon to be 4.
I quite fancy a Moon Nebula on my right hand seat stay, come the autumn and dark rides home.
It's the 'MUST' bit. Most of us are breaking the law. Perhaps it's something we should be asking to be altered. Has anyone ever been done for not having pedal reflectors?
repeat
My bike never came with pedals. In fact it has no reflectors at all.
Perhaps it should say reflective ankle bands must be worn where pedals do not have reflectors.
Some of my SPD shoes have reflective material at the back. I've sometimes idly wondered whether, in a court of law, this would be judged as fulfilling the 'pedal reflector' requirement.
Regardless of whether they could be considered attached to the pedals, it's highly unlikely that they meet the required standard to fulfil the legal requirement. But then it's also unlikely that you'd end up in court for not having pedal reflectors.
If you're thinking more of a 'contributory negligence' situation, where someone who's hit you is trying to get damages reduced, then in theory, whether you've complied with the requirements ought to be less important than whether they could reasonably have been able to see you, but in practice there's a fair chance that anything that's not strictly in compliance will be seized on by the other party.
Thanks for the tip, I wasn't aware these existed
I have ordered some ( SM-PD22 ).
Not the most elegant of accessories, but one less thing to worry about compliance-wise