The 10 changes include clearer guidance on overtaking cyclists, advice on the use of the Dutch Reach method of opening car doors and clarification that groups of cyclists can ride two abreast. (Although we have wondered this week whether the proposed wording for the last of those could potentially spell the death of the chain gang.)
Another major proposal is for the introduction of a hierarchy of responsibility for different road users. This would mean that those in charge of the largest vehicles, with the potential to cause the most harm in a collision, would bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others.
There is also a proposal to improve safety at junctions by stating that whoever is going straight ahead has right of way.
Cycling UK has produced a short film about that one.
The charity – along with Living Streets and transport expert Phil Jones – has been working to influence the changes in the consultation for over a year, and believes those proposed are vital and long overdue.
Cyclists are being asked to respond to the consultation and there is a web tool on the Cycling UK website to help you do so. (It’s not a copy-and-paste thing and you’re not obliged to approve of all 10 proposed changes.)
Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns, said: “We’ve been waiting for more than a decade for revisions to the Highway Code giving greater consideration to people cycling, and these 10 key changes to Highway Code will make cycling safer.
“This hasn’t happened overnight. Back in 2018 more than ten thousand of Cycling UK’s members and supporters backed our call for these Highway Code changes in response to the government’s cycle safety consultation.
“That support got us a seat at the discussion table – and together with our partners we’ve made sure we have draft proposals which will improve cycle safety.
“The struggle to make the roads safer for everyone is not done – we need these proposed changes to be approved and make it into the new Highway Code. Cycling UK would call on everyone who supports safer roads for cycling to support the changes by heading to www.cyclinguk.org/highwaycode.”
The full list of 10 key changes is as follows:
Hierarchy of responsibility
Junction priority
Overtaking rules
Opening car doors
Rule 66 – group riding
Rules 67, 72, 213 – Road positioning
Rule 140 – priority at cycle tracks, and that cyclists don’t have to use them
Rule 151 – allowing pedestrians and cyclists to cross in front of you in slow moving traffic
Rule 178 on Advanced Stop Lines
Rule 186 – drivers to give priority to cyclists at roundabouts
Help us to fund our site
We’ve noticed you’re using an ad blocker. If you like road.cc, but you don’t like ads, please consider subscribing to the site to support us directly. As a subscriber you can read road.cc ad-free, from as little as £1.99.
If you don’t want to subscribe, please turn your ad blocker off. The revenue from adverts helps to fund our site.
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
I modified the standard template with my take on riding in groups.
"I also strongly support a new wording relating to riding in a group, given that it is often safer for cyclists to ride two abreast and that doing so can make overtaking easier for faster road users. Where possible, drivers should be encouraged to overtake cyclists using the opposite lane or carriageway rather than straddling lane dividers. On narrower roads, where safe (for the cyclists) a single file formation may assist a driver to overtake safely giving sufficient room. On very narrow country roads especially at bends, cyclists should consider single file with respect to leaving sufficient room for oncoming vehicles to pass safely. (Rule 66)."
On all narrow roads, the obstructing vehicle should stop and give way in a passing space, or reverse back. Any vehicle which occupies more than 50% of the carriageway is obstructing it. Why any driver of a fat vehicle thinks a cyclist should give way when they meet is beyond my comprehension. Ultimately I'd like to see a rule that bars any vehicle that occupies more than 50% of a road to be barred from that road. (I'm particularly thinking of things like pea viners that occup[y 120% of small roads, but some "SUVs" get close.)
They can't mean that surely? I think we have to accept farm vehicles will use roads and put up with a few minutes a year inconvenience.
Of course if you drive a tractor on the wrong side of the road, round a blind bend with high hedges and kill someone, there should be a real consequence.
This is great and hopefully we'll see the changes, but the most critical part of all of this is how is communicated to the public. . . simply putting a leaflet through a door saying 'please read the highway code' wont suffice, nor will anything in that ballpark. . .this needs to be a full on media assault repeated at key times, a tv ad explaining the basic changes and legal implicaitons for people who know nothing about cycling ... half-arseing it will change nothing
I am pleased that someone below experienced a satisfactory response from Lancashire Constabulary. I haven't. As for this consultation: we already have a very good Highway Code which is completely ignored, so the merit of changing it so that it can be completely ignored by drivers and the police all over again escapes me. All this '2 metres for over 30 mph and for large vehicles' tripe does is convince the legislators that they have done all they can, thereby passing the buck to the police who have not the slightest intention of ever enforcing it even with the very best evidence. Lancashire Constabulary has never prosecuted anyone for close passing because they think the offence does not exist without photographic proof that the vehicle has hit the cyclist hard. You won't have that because you've been ejected onto the road and the headcam is probably broken, or will be if the driver can get to it, and most people don't have a rear facing camera. 2 metres?! I'd be very happy with 1 (I've just checked the ruler) if it actually happened. This is the way it really is- and this one was doing at least 40. The way the police appear to view it when they describe this sort of thing (there was no response to this incident report) as 'plenty of room' is to look at the gap between the vehicle and the kerb and say 'I could easily cycle through there' safely, why can't you?'
This 'consultation' is worthless because it's the solution to the problem we don't have: that there aren't enough laws. I am not responding to it, on principle.
Not in full agreement, H of R should be disgarded. Junction priority could be kept as now if road positioning was more adhered to without the stupidity of undertaking. Otherwise about right.
Used to have a friend at university who insisted on riding a bread-bike with a helmet and a Sam Brown, day lights, etc.... Hilariously he seemed to be involved in more collisions and accidents than the rest of us put together. I've never quite worked out whether he was such a bad cyclist that he would, indeed, be toast without this safety equipment or whether - in the early-90s - it merely served to distract drivers who veered towards him like moths to a lamp...
Surely if car manufacturers wanted to excercise corporate reaponsibility they could just move the door handle further back on the door so it literally has to be opened with the left hand?
IT would seem even better to put dampers on all the doors, so it wouldn't be possible to open the doors so fast. It might also work on closing, and prevent slamming.
There are self-closing boots on some cars, I haven't been paying attention to whether that applies to doors too, but it would be a good idea. Could even be marketed as a positive thing for drivers - no wind catching the door and blowing it into the car parked next to you in the car park. Most manual doors have two or three stop manual opening already
Strongly recommend that you choose to promote the Primary Position one because in doing so that also covers close passing and addresses the hierarchy of road users point. If you're in primary, and legally allowed to be there, then you're effectively a car
It hardly matters in Lancashire, where the Highway Code has been suspended by the police for years. The new Highway Code will have met the same fate before it is even published. If you can't even get them to take crashing red lights seriously, what hope is there for mandatory passing distances which just have Lancashire TacOps officers collapsing in fits of mirth?
Just to counter your point - yes, Lancs is often shite, like many other forces. However, on the two occasions I've had cause to report serious incidents to them (a driver trying to knock me off on a dual carriageway by opening his car door on me whilst moving multiple times whilst I tried to avoid him, and another pulling straight across me after she overtook and ran me over) the police were fine - first driver got 18 month suspended sentence for dangerous driving, license revoked and extended retest, second was prosecuted for DWDCAA and given points on her license & fined. It helped that there were independent witnesses in both instances, but still a reasonable result
Hmm - using an asterisk to refer to a footnote on the 'subscribe to email updates' box doesn't seem like the smartest idea. It makes it look like it's mandatory to subscribe, which might put a lot of people off using the tool for fear they're going to end up getting spammed.
Including a bunch of survey questions doesn't seem a great idea either - just let people do what they came there to do.
I think Cycling UK have dropped the ball with the safe passing distances.
It tells motorists that they should be trying to estimate their lateral distance to a moving cyclist, rather than simply overtake clear on the other side of the lane marker - which any fool can judge accurately.
Moreover, it feeds into the idea that if only the cyclist were to move over then there would be enough room to overtake; the cyclist is choosing to hold me up, it's their choice if I have to squeeze by.
It's not that the measurements of 1.5m or 2m are wrong, but that to respect them necessarily means that a car must move far enough across into the other lane as to preclude any oncoming traffic, so they might as well take the other lane. Draw yourself a diagram if you think otherwise.
Given the difficulty motorists will have accurately judging the gap, the mentality that it engenders, and the fact that it anyway results in them having to wait for the other lane to clear, why not have done with it an have one simple, unambiguous rule - overtake on the other side.
one simple, unambiguous rule - overtake on the other side.
You mean - “as if you were passing any other vehicle”?
No, I mean using the other lane. If you say "as if passing any other vehicle" you don't know what rule they are actually following - it could be they are going by "90cm clearance", which in the case of another car does put them in the other lane, but only because the other car is 1.8m wide, not because they were trying to use the other lane. Or they might follow whatever it is they do to overtake mopeds.
one simple, unambiguous rule - overtake on the other side.
You mean - “as if you were passing any other vehicle”?
No, I mean using the other lane. If you say "as if passing any other vehicle" you don't know what rule they are actually following - it could be they are going by "90cm clearance", which in the case of another car does put them in the other lane, but only because the other car is 1.8m wide, not because they were trying to use the other lane. Or they might follow whatever it is they do to overtake mopeds.
I guess. TBH if I'm driving then I'd always use the other lane to overtake (where there is another lane).
(That said, on normal - non motorway - roads, I think I could honestly count on one hand the number of times I have ever overtaken another motor vehicle.)
While I support these measures and Cycling UK, I can't help thinking that it would have been better to inform the debate by having an inquiry into road safety and laws first; you know, the one promised all those years ago.
Add new comment
30 comments
I modified the standard template with my take on riding in groups.
"I also strongly support a new wording relating to riding in a group, given that it is often safer for cyclists to ride two abreast and that doing so can make overtaking easier for faster road users. Where possible, drivers should be encouraged to overtake cyclists using the opposite lane or carriageway rather than straddling lane dividers. On narrower roads, where safe (for the cyclists) a single file formation may assist a driver to overtake safely giving sufficient room. On very narrow country roads especially at bends, cyclists should consider single file with respect to leaving sufficient room for oncoming vehicles to pass safely. (Rule 66)."
On all narrow roads, the obstructing vehicle should stop and give way in a passing space, or reverse back. Any vehicle which occupies more than 50% of the carriageway is obstructing it. Why any driver of a fat vehicle thinks a cyclist should give way when they meet is beyond my comprehension. Ultimately I'd like to see a rule that bars any vehicle that occupies more than 50% of a road to be barred from that road. (I'm particularly thinking of things like pea viners that occup[y 120% of small roads, but some "SUVs" get close.)
What is a "pea viner"? Is it an auto correct error?
https://images.app.goo.gl/wwxr54mfqXmYahX5A
They can't mean that surely? I think we have to accept farm vehicles will use roads and put up with a few minutes a year inconvenience.
Of course if you drive a tractor on the wrong side of the road, round a blind bend with high hedges and kill someone, there should be a real consequence.
Don't think that's a good idea! Tried it once - never again...
This is great and hopefully we'll see the changes, but the most critical part of all of this is how is communicated to the public. . . simply putting a leaflet through a door saying 'please read the highway code' wont suffice, nor will anything in that ballpark. . .this needs to be a full on media assault repeated at key times, a tv ad explaining the basic changes and legal implicaitons for people who know nothing about cycling ... half-arseing it will change nothing
...and changing the driver licensing rules so that everyone has to get retested every 7 or 8 years.
I am pleased that someone below experienced a satisfactory response from Lancashire Constabulary. I haven't. As for this consultation: we already have a very good Highway Code which is completely ignored, so the merit of changing it so that it can be completely ignored by drivers and the police all over again escapes me. All this '2 metres for over 30 mph and for large vehicles' tripe does is convince the legislators that they have done all they can, thereby passing the buck to the police who have not the slightest intention of ever enforcing it even with the very best evidence. Lancashire Constabulary has never prosecuted anyone for close passing because they think the offence does not exist without photographic proof that the vehicle has hit the cyclist hard. You won't have that because you've been ejected onto the road and the headcam is probably broken, or will be if the driver can get to it, and most people don't have a rear facing camera. 2 metres?! I'd be very happy with 1 (I've just checked the ruler) if it actually happened. This is the way it really is- and this one was doing at least 40. The way the police appear to view it when they describe this sort of thing (there was no response to this incident report) as 'plenty of room' is to look at the gap between the vehicle and the kerb and say 'I could easily cycle through there' safely, why can't you?'
This 'consultation' is worthless because it's the solution to the problem we don't have: that there aren't enough laws. I am not responding to it, on principle.
Not in full agreement, H of R should be disgarded. Junction priority could be kept as now if road positioning was more adhered to without the stupidity of undertaking. Otherwise about right.
Used to have a friend at university who insisted on riding a bread-bike with a helmet and a Sam Brown, day lights, etc.... Hilariously he seemed to be involved in more collisions and accidents than the rest of us put together. I've never quite worked out whether he was such a bad cyclist that he would, indeed, be toast without this safety equipment or whether - in the early-90s - it merely served to distract drivers who veered towards him like moths to a lamp...
Surely if car manufacturers wanted to excercise corporate reaponsibility they could just move the door handle further back on the door so it literally has to be opened with the left hand?
IT would seem even better to put dampers on all the doors, so it wouldn't be possible to open the doors so fast. It might also work on closing, and prevent slamming.
There are self-closing boots on some cars, I haven't been paying attention to whether that applies to doors too, but it would be a good idea. Could even be marketed as a positive thing for drivers - no wind catching the door and blowing it into the car parked next to you in the car park. Most manual doors have two or three stop manual opening already
The photo of the car overtaking the cyclist by a safe distance is clearly Photoshopped
I agree, I mean who wears a Sam Brown belt has lights, a front reflector and wears a helmet.....yup, clearly photoshopped
It's the jeans about to be caught in the chain that worry me !
Indeed. Despite the badge being removed, I can tell its an Audi and when was the last time one of those passed considerately?
Strongly recommend that you choose to promote the Primary Position one because in doing so that also covers close passing and addresses the hierarchy of road users point. If you're in primary, and legally allowed to be there, then you're effectively a car
A couple of the proposed changes could be worded slightly better, but in general these changes should be welcomed.
It hardly matters in Lancashire, where the Highway Code has been suspended by the police for years. The new Highway Code will have met the same fate before it is even published. If you can't even get them to take crashing red lights seriously, what hope is there for mandatory passing distances which just have Lancashire TacOps officers collapsing in fits of mirth?
Just to counter your point - yes, Lancs is often shite, like many other forces. However, on the two occasions I've had cause to report serious incidents to them (a driver trying to knock me off on a dual carriageway by opening his car door on me whilst moving multiple times whilst I tried to avoid him, and another pulling straight across me after she overtook and ran me over) the police were fine - first driver got 18 month suspended sentence for dangerous driving, license revoked and extended retest, second was prosecuted for DWDCAA and given points on her license & fined. It helped that there were independent witnesses in both instances, but still a reasonable result
The link shoul be:
www.cyclinguk.org/highwaycode
Hmm - using an asterisk to refer to a footnote on the 'subscribe to email updates' box doesn't seem like the smartest idea. It makes it look like it's mandatory to subscribe, which might put a lot of people off using the tool for fear they're going to end up getting spammed.
Including a bunch of survey questions doesn't seem a great idea either - just let people do what they came there to do.
Need to fix the link at the foot of the article.
I think Cycling UK have dropped the ball with the safe passing distances.
It tells motorists that they should be trying to estimate their lateral distance to a moving cyclist, rather than simply overtake clear on the other side of the lane marker - which any fool can judge accurately.
Moreover, it feeds into the idea that if only the cyclist were to move over then there would be enough room to overtake; the cyclist is choosing to hold me up, it's their choice if I have to squeeze by.
It's not that the measurements of 1.5m or 2m are wrong, but that to respect them necessarily means that a car must move far enough across into the other lane as to preclude any oncoming traffic, so they might as well take the other lane. Draw yourself a diagram if you think otherwise.
Given the difficulty motorists will have accurately judging the gap, the mentality that it engenders, and the fact that it anyway results in them having to wait for the other lane to clear, why not have done with it an have one simple, unambiguous rule - overtake on the other side.
You mean - “as if you were passing any other vehicle”?
No, I mean using the other lane. If you say "as if passing any other vehicle" you don't know what rule they are actually following - it could be they are going by "90cm clearance", which in the case of another car does put them in the other lane, but only because the other car is 1.8m wide, not because they were trying to use the other lane. Or they might follow whatever it is they do to overtake mopeds.
I guess. TBH if I'm driving then I'd always use the other lane to overtake (where there is another lane).
(That said, on normal - non motorway - roads, I think I could honestly count on one hand the number of times I have ever overtaken another motor vehicle.)
While I support these measures and Cycling UK, I can't help thinking that it would have been better to inform the debate by having an inquiry into road safety and laws first; you know, the one promised all those years ago.
That said, I'll certainly be voting for them.