"If you're a competent driver it shouldn't cause any issues": Cyclists react to Highway Code change outrage

The jobs will boost the economy.

Seriously though a theory test won't triple the examiners surely?

Haitchaitch wrote:

The jobs will boost the economy.

Seriously though a theory test won't triple the examiners surely?

NO, theory tests arenot a problem and probably not a bad idea, and as we must all now renew our licenses every 10 years when the photocards expire, this could be a good chance to ensure drivers are up to date with theory.

triple the examiners would be if everyone needed a practical test every ten years.

sean1 wrote:

My only complaint about the new Highway Code is Rule 66 now includes the phrase riders should consider "riding in single file or stopping"  if a vehicle wishes to overtake.

The stopping bit was added at the last revision by the DfT.

This bit will be used by the motor lobby to argue cyclists should just get out of the way by getting off the road...

Thanks.  I'd somehow missed the "or stopping" part.  Yes, that will doubtless be misinterpreted by some.  

Yes, it's very odd. The stopping bit wasn't in DfT's original proposal, nor was it in Cycling UK's proposal, parts of which appear in the final wording. (Incidentally, Cycling UK endorsed DfT's original proposal on rule 66, but then took on board comments from their members and sought amendments.)

On the bright side, it's worth noting that Rule 66 is for cyclists. The companion rule for drivers doesn't mention that cyclists should get out of the way, so it's clearly cyclist's choice, not driver's right:

New Rule 213 (extract):

On narrow sections of road, on quiet roads or streets, 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. 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.     

Yes Rule 213 is well written.  Just a shame about rule 66 and the strange text addition.

sean1 wrote:

My only complaint about the new Highway Code is Rule 66 now includes the phrase riders should consider "riding in single file or stopping"  if a vehicle wishes to overtake.

The stopping bit was added at the last revision by the DfT.

This bit will be used by the motor lobby to argue cyclists should just get out of the way by getting off the road.

CyclingUK also didn't like this amendment which went against their suggested wording.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/new-highway-code-and-hierarchy

But other than that, overall the changes are very welcome.

 

It does use the words "should consider".

So, if you , as a single rider or in a group do not consider it to be safe to single up (likely that the following vehicle will try to perform a manouver that is likely to put you at risk), or consider it safe to stop (no where to stop without causeing an obstruction; I'd suggest that a stationary cyclist with one foot on the floor poses a greater obstruction than a moving one) - then you don't have to single up or stop.

Though to be fair this is something that I do and am sure others on the forum do of their own volition as it is simply good road craft. A number of my loops have resulted me doing this to receive a wave or flash of hazard lights. 

The wording regarding 'stopping' is concerning and possibly an action demanded by motorists when the occasion arises. Though it does say should and when you feel it is safe. That would be my defence when an irate motorist gets torn into me. Whether they calm down enough to listen to reason is another issue altogether. 

its something I do as a lone rider more because Id rather have the car with the frustrated driver infront of me, than behind me where I cant see them properly and what they are doing next,  knowing theyll inevitably pick a really bad spot to try and force their way past if just left there, than out of some moral duty on my part to let faster vehicles past.

Though I rarely get thanked even when I let them by,and take my reward as a simple well at least I dont have to put up with them behind me anymore.

So Id argue Im already complying with the way the words are written in the HC, but group rides are probably more awkward, be interesting to see if clubs change their advice on rides or if its just carry on as normal, though most I dont think ride down the kinds of single track roads I do on their cafe runs

Awavey wrote:

its something I do as a lone rider more because Id rather have the car with the frustrated driver infront of me, than behind me where I cant see them properly and what they are doing next,  knowing theyll inevitably pick a really bad spot to try and force their way past if just left there, than out of some moral duty on my part to let faster vehicles past.

Though I rarely get thanked even when I let them by,and take my reward as a simple well at least I dont have to put up with them behind me anymore.

So Id argue Im already complying with the way the words are written in the HC, but group rides are probably more awkward, be interesting to see if clubs change their advice on rides or if its just carry on as normal, though most I dont think ride down the kinds of single track roads I do on their cafe runs

I think the wording "consider going to single file if safe to do so" (paraphrased, haven't got the copy to hand at the mo) doesn't require you to do it in all circumstances.

I can't imagine a situation where it is possible to safely single out a group of say 12 in the amount of time to make a difference to an impatient motrist, or how you would actually do it, before even considering teh practice required to choreograph that on demand

Not that incompetent drivers will be able to comprehend that....

I will sometimes stop out of the way if, for example, I've been followed considerately by a driver for some time and there is really nowhere to overtake safely.  Particularly HGVs on hills.  They usually appreciate it, and I'd rather they continued on their way thinking that cyclists are lovely people.