Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Highway Code changes: ‘What about cyclists, or do the rules not apply to them?’

Our recent article on the new version prompted an inbox full of whataboutery ... so here are the answers

Our recent article on changes to the Highway Code due to come into effect next month and aimed at protecting vulnerable road users prompted a number of emails from people asking, in effect, when would cyclists be subject to similar rules as motorists?

> Highway Code changes aimed at protecting cyclists to become law next month

It’s true that much of the discussion to the forthcoming revisions has focused on issues such as the introduction of a Hierarchy of Road Users in favour of the most vulnerable, plus recommending that drivers leave a minimum passing distance of 1.5 metres when overtaking a cyclist.

Today, however, we’re answering some of the most common ‘What about … ’ questions we’ve received in our mailbox by looking at some of the changes that are directed at you, as a cyclist, and how they differ from the existing version.

(As a side note, one thing that is clear from those emails is that there are a lot of people who are entirely unfamiliar with the Highway Code as it stands right now, and even less so with the changes being made to it).

> A lot of motorists really aren't happy about impending changes to the Highway Code 

Rules for cyclists will continue to form Rules 59 to 82 of the Highway Code when the new version, laid before Parliament a fortnight ago, comes into force in January.

However, some of those rules and advice to riders have been combined, some new ones have been introduced, and there is a lot of rephrasing and rewriting in between – often, simply to provide extra clarity, but also in certain cases going much farther.

Let‘s start with one question typically raised about cyclists using the road quite lawfully, but perhaps the most misunderstood issue by many motorists.

"Why are cyclists riding two abreast when they have to ride single file?"

Currently, Rule 66 says, amongst other things, that cyclists

… should … never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends …

That has been extensively reworded, thanks in part to the input of cycling campaigners during the consultation phase, and makes it clear that riding two abreast is permitted and can, in fact be safer for riders. Here’s the new version:

Be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups. You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so.

"Cyclists should be made to wear hi-vis clothing and banned from riding in dark clothes"

The current version of the Highway Code says that cyclists

… should wear … light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light

That has now been toned down to read:

Light-coloured or fluorescent clothing can help other road users to see you in daylight and poor light, while reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) can increase your visibility in the dark.

"Cyclists are a danger to pedestrians"

The Hierarchy of Road Users introduced in the new version is aimed at ensuring that those road users who can do the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they may pose to others – meaning that in terms of interactions between cyclists and pedestrians, the onus is on cyclists.

There are a couple of rules in the new version that explicitly address situations in which cyclists are sharing space with pedestrians. Rule 62, for example, says in part that on

… shared use routes, you should always take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older adults or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary.

Meanwhile, new Rule 63 says:

Sharing space with pedestrians, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles.
When riding in places where sharing with pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles is permitted, take care when passing pedestrians and horse riders, especially children, older adults or disabled people. Slow down when necessary and let them know you are there; for example, 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. You should not pass a horse on their left. Remember that horses can be startled if passed without warning. Always be prepared to slow down and stop when necessary.

And on a similar point, and again in line with the Hierarchy of Road Users, part of Rule 74 makes clear that pedestrians have priority at junctions:

When turning into or out of a side road, you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross.

"Cyclists should be banned from riding in the middle of the road"

Among the new rules being introduced are two which aim to give cyclists clearer guidance and advice on road positioning and at junctions, the first of which makes clear that primary position is preferable for safety reasons in a number of specific situations.

New Rule 72 Road positioning.
When riding on the roads, there are two basic road positions you should adopt, depending on the situation.
1. Ride in the centre of your lane, to make yourself as clearly visible as possible, in the following situations:
• on quiet roads or streets – if a faster vehicle comes up behind you, move to the left to enable them to overtake, if you can do so safely
• in slower-moving traffic - when the traffic around you starts to flow more freely, move over to the left if you can do so safely so that faster vehicles behind you can overtake
• at the approach to junctions or road narrowings where it would be unsafe for drivers to overtake you
2. When riding on busy roads, with vehicles moving faster than you, allow them to overtake where it is safe to do so whilst keeping at least 0.5 metres away, and further where it is safer, from the kerb edge. Remember that traffic on most dual carriageways moves quickly. Take extra care crossing slip roads.

New Rule 73 Junctions.
Some junctions, particularly those with traffic lights, have special cycle facilities, including small cycle traffic lights at eye-level height, which may allow you to move or cross separately from or ahead of other traffic. Use these facilities where they make your journey safer and easier.
At junctions with no separate cyclist facilities, it is recommended that you proceed as if you were driving a motor vehicle (see Rules 170 to 190). Position yourself in the centre of your chosen lane, where you feel able to do this safely, to make yourself as visible as possible and to avoid being overtaken where this would be dangerous. If you do not feel safe to proceed in this way, you may prefer to dismount and wheel your bike across the junction.

Finally, a number of other correspondents said that the Highway Code should make clear that cyclists should stop at red lights, and we’re very happy to help clarify that one. Rule 69, which remains unchanged, states:

You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.

Full details of the forthcoming changes to the Highway Code can be found in a document published by the Department for Transport (DfT) entitled Table of Changes to the Highway Code, and we would strongly recommend reading through the old and new wordings of Rules 59-82.

The document shows before and after versions of the rules, side-by-side. The existing wording is in the left-hand column with deletions highlighted in yellow, while the new version is in the right-hand column with additions highlighted in grey.

And while this article has focused on some of the new and existing rules for cyclists, it is worth bearing in mind that the prime reason for the changes is to provide additional protection to vulnerable road users, as the DfT points out in its document laid before Parliament under the title Explanatory Memorandum to the Revision of the Highway Code Introduction and Rules to Improve Road Safety for Cyclists, Pedestrians and Horse Riders.

In that Explanatory Memorandum, the DfT says:

The alterations seek to improve road safety for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders who are the most at risk when using the road and provide clarity, particularly on driver responsibility, on existing guidance.

It adds:

The proposed alterations to The Code improve the guidance provided on many aspects of driver interaction with those most at risk on the road, tackling the safety issues that the most vulnerable groups face, or perceive to face, when travelling on our roads.

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.

Add new comment

45 comments

Avatar
Hirsute | 2 years ago
0 likes

Just come across the phrasing that these changes impinge upon " the land rover's right to roam".

Avatar
Benthic | 2 years ago
1 like

"Be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups. You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so."

I don't like the use of the word "considerate" in this context because it implies that two or more cyclists riding together and not paying deference to motorists will be in breach of Section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:

"29 Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling. If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence."

Avatar
wtjs replied to Benthic | 2 years ago
1 like

"29 Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling. If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence."

A Blackpool TacOps (means Traffic!) Sergeant threatened to prosecute me under this section for not moving into the gutter to allow a driver to storm past without crossing over the double white lines. Lancashire Constabulary is big on victim blaming, especially when the victim is a cyclist. I would have been overjoyed to be prosecuted, but I never heard from the pillock again.

Avatar
wtjs | 2 years ago
2 likes

The 'new' Highway Code is business as usual for cyclists and their main enemies- police officers.

Junctions controlled by traffic lights
Rule 175

You MUST stop behind the white ‘Stop’ line across your side of the road unless the light is green. If the amber light appears you may go on only if you have already crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to stop might cause a collision.

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36

This rule has been the same for decades, but the police effectively make the law and in Lancashire they have decided that this one no longer applies. At least you haven't seen this one before, because Jaguar EW14 VJW only committed the offence yesterday. There would be several more available to display except that there's cold dense fog at the moment

 

Avatar
grOg | 2 years ago
2 likes

The anti-social driver types I see delight in explicitly breaking road laws; recently,  minimum passing laws came in and the usual louts now drive even closer than they did before..

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to grOg | 2 years ago
2 likes

grOg wrote:

The anti-social driver types I see delight in explicitly breaking road laws; recently,  minimum passing laws came in and the usual louts now drive even closer than they did before..

But most people follow laws they know about and understand though. Hmm... so when's the campaign advertising this? Anyway for those who just want to watch the world burn we have a well-equipped and staffed road police force, backed up by the higher ups and working together with the judiciary... oh.

You're right - this is definitely a thing in some cases. If I remember there was a "display your speed" monitor on the York road in Leeds (near where it became the A64(M)?) which was removed because some locals were competing for "maximum points"...

Avatar
brooksby replied to chrisonabike | 2 years ago
2 likes

chrisonatrike wrote:

But most people follow laws they know about and understand though. Hmm... so when's the campaign advertising this? Anyway for those who just want to watch the world burn we have a well-equipped and staffed road police force, backed up by the higher ups and working together with the judiciary... oh.

Advertising campaigns?!?  Grrr - bl00dy nanny state, that's wot it is!  I read the Highway Code once in 1979, I know the law!

 3

Avatar
robike replied to brooksby | 2 years ago
0 likes

brooksby wrote:

Advertising campaigns?!?  Grrr - bl00dy nanny state, that's wot it is!  I read the Highway Code once in 1979, I know the law!

Exactly - I passed the driving test and it sat on a shelf, then got it out again when my children started prepping for theirs.  Now I find it's at least 10 versions out of date!

Avatar
wtjs | 2 years ago
7 likes

Rule 69, which remains unchanged, states: You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals

In Lancashire motorists can go through red lights with impunity, so the effective rule for cyclists is: if your light is green cross the junction with great care because there could well be a Range Rover, a Lancashire County Council Highways vehicle, a massive Robinsons of Bilsborrow tipper truck, a Toyota pickup towing a 2 axle trailer, a taxi , and Audi A5 towing a caravan etc. etc hammering through at 50 mph on red because they have all been given special dispensations to ignore traffic light signals. If you think I'm repeating this very frequently, you're right. It's because I have now warned Lancashire Constabulary that I'm about to set up a YouTube channel, and they will ignore the warning like they ignore everything else. 

Avatar
eburtthebike | 2 years ago
7 likes

Excellent clear analysis; any chance that the petrolhead sites would share it?

Avatar
jaybeevee | 2 years ago
1 like

what about dogs on shared use paths?

Avatar
Hirsute replied to jaybeevee | 2 years ago
1 like

They should be on a short lead.
Do not take 60+ kg goats on a lead.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to jaybeevee | 2 years ago
9 likes

jaybeevee wrote:

what about dogs on shared use paths?

Don't ride your dog on a shared use path.

Avatar
MiserableBastard | 2 years ago
7 likes

Aw, bless, they're pratting around with the wording of the Highway Code.

Coming soon from the the DfT: How to administer aspirin to a patient with a sucking chest wound.

None of this is going to make any difference at all to the level of road danger. That requires there to be far fewer drivers, moving far more slowly.

Technologically trivial to achieve with a large increase in motoring taxes to discourage driving in the first place; mandatory location-aware speed limiters; and massive reallocation of road space away from private motor vehicles.

Politically impossible of course; this country is effectively run by the motor lobby and the only reason they haven't stopped these changes is that they know they won't make any difference.

Avatar
EM69 replied to MiserableBastard | 2 years ago
1 like

Sad but true...

Avatar
qwerty360 | 2 years ago
1 like

One issue I have with this is with rule 63;

 

It is explicitly recommended by various groups that you NEVER  use a bell around horses... Something to do with them being used to human voices, but bells being strange and therefore assumed to be a predator...

So while we are stating that talking to people is perfectly acceptable as an alternative to the recommended bell, we should also be specifying that you should talk to horses, not ring bells...

 

I also agree with others that rule 72 will be read as "GET OUTA THE WAY" because a significant chunk of people will ignore the important "if/where safe" modifiers after the bits that ask you allow for faster moving traffic to overtake... And the HW code intro that clearly states safety trumps everything else; so the riders opinion on safety should have near total supremacy.

 

(as example, tractors have been done for inconsiderate for blocking traffic; But one of the requirements for conviction has been a safe location to pull over, which afaik has generally been ruled to be a sufficiently large tarmac layby; Farm/field entrances etc don't qualify because the driver can't guarantee the surface quality; So to extend this to bicycles; it would be reasonable to expect a cyclist with lots of following cars to pull over into a layby, but not onto a pavement/driveway/side of the road; Very few places exist where single file will actually allow safe overtakes, especially for a group with more than 2-4 riders...)

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to qwerty360 | 2 years ago
0 likes

qwerty360 wrote:

 

(as example, tractors have been done for inconsiderate for blocking traffic; But one of the requirements for conviction has been a safe location to pull over, which afaik has generally been ruled to be a sufficiently large tarmac layby; Farm/field entrances etc don't qualify because the driver can't guarantee the surface quality; 

A tractor cannot safely pull over into a farm entrace?

Avatar
grOg replied to wycombewheeler | 2 years ago
0 likes

A driveway entrance may not be wide enough for a tractor to pull in parallel with the road, so they are able to safely pull back onto the road when clear.

Avatar
Simon_MacMichael replied to qwerty360 | 2 years ago
4 likes

qwerty360 wrote:

One issue I have with this is with rule 63;

It is explicitly recommended by various groups that you NEVER  use a bell around horses... Something to do with them being used to human voices, but bells being strange and therefore assumed to be a predator...

You don't want to know how they react when they hear a pneumatic hose being unclipped from a tractor wheel (think of the sound of air coming out of a valve when you unclip a track pump and multiply by 1,000).

Happened to me about 1 minute into my first ride every country ride on a sprightly beast called Spartacus, my lessons till then had been confined to the manege.

I'd been learning to ride in the French Pyrenees (lessons from a guy of Cossack heritage, which was um a bit different to GB style of riding), we were pretty much in Spain by the time I got the horse under control.

 

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to qwerty360 | 2 years ago
2 likes

qwerty360 wrote:

.., but bells being strange and therefore assumed to be a predator...

some pretty strong instincts there, as there haven't been any predators for horses in the UK for many generations.

In fact I suspect the only thing that kills horses is cars, and yet they seem relatively unspooked by cars compared to bikes.

Avatar
Sriracha replied to wycombewheeler | 2 years ago
1 like
wycombewheeler wrote:

qwerty360 wrote:

.., but bells being strange and therefore assumed to be a predator...

some pretty strong instincts there, as there haven't been any predators for horses in the UK for many generations.

In fact I suspect the only thing that kills horses is cars, and yet they seem relatively unspooked by cars compared to bikes.

The instinct is to fear the novel and unfamiliar, and instinct does not change over a few generations. Not burdened with your intelligence, horses can't be told that cars kill whilst bicycles don't.

Horses don't tend to fear cars, they are quite familiar. Bicycles less so. But by calling out - from a distance, not right on their tail - you reassure the horse that the thing is human. A bell doesn't really say the same, to a horse.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Sriracha | 2 years ago
0 likes

Sriracha wrote:

The instinct is to fear the novel and unfamiliar, and instinct does not change over a few generations. Not burdened with your intelligence, horses can't be told that cars kill whilst bicycles don't. Horses don't tend to fear cars, they are quite familiar. Bicycles less so. But by calling out - from a distance, not right on their tail - you reassure the horse that the thing is human. A bell doesn't really say the same, to a horse.

This is where technology can help. You just need a digital bell that can produce the appropriate sound. So a bicycle bell sound around cyclists / pedestrians, a foghorn for cars but around horses it sounds like a sugarlump or a carrot.

(Unrelated link to artificially putting the sound of cars back into electric cars).

Avatar
Bouncetastic replied to Sriracha | 2 years ago
2 likes

Horses spook at bicycles because they don't hear them coming until the last minute and then they have a second to decide whether to run. Calling out ahead gives them a familiar sound as they're used to people. I've had owners ask me to keep making noise (young inexperienced horse/previous bad experiences). I've rolled along singing nursery rhymes and talking gibberish. I've stopped and removed helmet and glasses so that the horse can see better that I'm a person as they can fixate on your strange appearance. I've also turned off my lights during the day as the flashing can be something else they may spook at. Horses are fickle creatures that make no sense..... bit like car drivers really 🤔

Avatar
Sriracha replied to Bouncetastic | 2 years ago
0 likes
Bouncetastic wrote:

Horses spook at bicycles because they don't hear them coming until the last minute

So do I, so do most. And just like us, they can't see behind their body either. It's not really all that complicated - I don't know why so many blame the horses!

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to Bouncetastic | 2 years ago
1 like

Bouncetastic wrote:

Horses spook at bicycles because they don't hear them coming until the last minute

except on dartmoor and the new forest where the horses couldn't care less about cyclists, see them all the time and know they are not a threat.

The don't hear or see them any earlier, they are just more familiar with them.

so perhaps the horse owners/trainers need to familiairise horses with bikes before they go out on the roads?

Avatar
quiff | 2 years ago
5 likes

As this article appears to address 'whatabouts' from (presumably) non-cyclists, it might be worth highlighting that some of these rules for cyclists also have counterparts in other sections of the HWC. E.g. it's quite illuminating to read the companion rules on riding two abreast together to note that the bit in rule 66 about allowing drivers to overtake is not replicated in rule 213:

Rule 66 extract (for cyclists): ...You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so... Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake... when you feel it is safe to let them do so.

Rule 213 extract (road users requiring extra care): On narrow sections of road, on quiet roads or streets, at road junctions and in slowermoving traffic, cyclists may sometimes ride in the centre of the lane, rather than towards the side of the road. It can be safer for groups of cyclists to ride two abreast in these situations. Allow them to do so for their own safety, to ensure they can see and be seen. 

Avatar
mdavidford | 2 years ago
8 likes

Quote:

Remember that traffic on most dual carriageways moves quickly.

Not round Oxford way it doesn't.

Avatar
Flintshire Boy | 2 years ago
1 like

Hmm, not great, but certainly very promising.

And under a Layba Conservative government.

Who'd a thought it?

Avatar
TheBillder replied to Flintshire Boy | 2 years ago
6 likes
Flintshire Boy wrote:

Hmm, not great, but certainly very promising.

And under a Layba Conservative government.

Who'd a thought it?

Was it 2014 that the Tories promised a review of traffic laws in general? So 7+ years on we have a new HC.

I'm not going to claim that a government of any other party would necessarily have been better on this, though I'd like to think the Greens might have been, and the Monster Raving Loonies too. But it's not the achievement needed.

Avatar
Captain Badger | 2 years ago
6 likes

73 gets a big like from me

72 not so much. What it looks like at first glance is "GET OUTA THE FACKING WAY!!!!". Reading it through it seems is simply that riding secondary where appropriate is better. 

I wonder which interpretation the typical British motorist will choose.  Who am I kidding? Few motorists have read the HWC anyway....

Pages

Latest Comments