Cyclists, new Highway Code rules

[mdj8]

Being born in the 60's taking my cycling proficiency test and cycling around a lot (5 to 15miles regular trips to friends) as a kid from the age of 12, I always thought cyclists were required to cycle on the left to be safe and allow faster traffic to pass unhindered. I'm therefore quite shocked by the recent change that says cyclists should cycle in the middle of their lane to be seen more easily (what nonsense) and move out of the way if a car approaches from behind and it is safe to do so. This just gives the arrogant Mamil (which never existed until around 10 years ago) the right to make things difficult for cars, which some take every opportunity to do. I've therefore started a petition to make things safe again. It's here if you agree and would like to sign it: 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/606991

Alternatively if you search the government petitions site it can be found by searching for rule 72. I would have included more changes, but the petition site limits the description to 300 words.

Thanks for your consideration.

MDJ8

[doog442]

I don't agree and I won't sign it Matthew.   

In your petition you have ignored large parts of S72 in your attempt to get cyclists to move out of your way - are you really that entitled ? 

Namely

•  if a faster vehicle comes up behind you, move to the left to enable them to overtake, if you can do so safely
•  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
• 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.

I'm seeing a pattern here which is MOVE OVER TO THE LEFT and OVERTAKE. 

Why should a cyclist stick to the left of a lane and in the door zone when nothing is behind them ? Surely they have more chance of being seen by oncoming traffic or traffic pulling out of junctions ahead if they are more visible and in the centre of a lane.

As you're clearly on a learning curve research Door Zone and the Dutch Reach.

 

[Guest]

Have you considered that rules written for the less congested roads of the 60s/70's may not be appropriate for today?

 

Are you sure that it's the cyclists who are all the arrogant people?

 

Have you ridden a bike in today's traffic? I can tell you that I was competing on a bike until 6 years ago and the new rules are anything but nonsense.

 

I won't sign your petition.

[Bill Dawes]

I do have some sympathy with Matthew's argument, I find aspects of the new rules, both pedestrians and cyclists, worrying.

I always show great respect for cyclists and I expect courtesy in return. Effectively blocking the road can only exacerbate frustrations, many vehicle drivers are on business not a leisure drive, just imagine the stress on a delivery driver if he has constant hold ups in an already stressful job.

My bet is that these rules will be revised at some time due to increasing incidents/accidents.

Bill D.

[mdj8]

21 minutes ago, doog442 said:

I don't agree and I won't sign it Matthew.   

In your petition you have ignored large parts of S72 in your attempt to get cyclists to move out of your way - are you really that entitled ? 

Namely

•  if a faster vehicle comes up behind you, move to the left to enable them to overtake, if you can do so safely
•  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
• 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.

I'm seeing a pattern here which is MOVE OVER TO THE LEFT and OVERTAKE. 

Why should a cyclist stick to the left of a lane and in the door zone when nothing is behind them ? Surely they have more chance of being seen by oncoming traffic or traffic pulling out of junctions ahead if they are more visible and in the centre of a lane.

As you're clearly on a learning curve research Door Zone and the Dutch Reach.

 

Thanks Doog, well plenty of assumptions there. Firstly why is it entitled to suggest that cyclists should not be able to unnecessarily impede others. Why is it necessary for the cyclist to move over, why cant they already be there. I'm seeing a pattern that it is the cyclists determination whether they think its safe that may not concur with the drivers view. This will cause issues. Then the accusation of ignoring parts of S72, you may not know but petitions only allow 300 words so it all cannot be fitted in. Next the door zone - where do I suggest cyclists must ride in the "door zone" I don't.  You made that up, as for Dutch reach - well look at the mobility of the majority of our population - what a ridiculous expectation, one that could get cyclists hurt, but remember if you have read the HC they should be at least a metre away from parked cars anyway to avoid your "door zone". Let's watch the cyclist casualty figures to prove or disprove whether the changes are sensible shall we? Unfortunately I fear people will be giving their lives to assert their new "rights" and those people will not be the drivers. Stay safe.

[Guest]

I agree that cyclists have the same duty to show care and consideration, which is ignored by many(as it also is with many motorists).

 

Taking an assertive position in the road is about being seen and not inviting other road traffic to ignore you and skim past without moving to the right and allowing room. 

 

I would invite anyone to try keeping safe control of a bike when skimmed at 30+MPH by a 2ton+ vehicle. 

 

A bus was mentioned. I was once skimmed by a bus travelling at speed and, even as an experienced cyclist, had trouble keeping control of my bike - a lessor cyclist may have been under the rear wheels.

 

How many vehicle drivers are killed/injured by cyclists? Ask the question the other way round and the answer will be different

 

The OP accuses cyclists of arrogance. But, a vehicle driver wanting to have a safety rule changed to avoid some inconvenience!!

 

[doog442]

11 minutes ago, mdj8 said:

Thanks Doog, well plenty of assumptions there. Firstly why is it entitled to suggest that cyclists should not be able to unnecessarily impede others. Why is it necessary for the cyclist to move over, why cant they already be there. I'm seeing a pattern that it is the cyclists determination whether they think its safe that may not concur with the drivers view. This will cause issues. Then the accusation of ignoring parts of S72, you may not know but petitions only allow 300 words so it all cannot be fitted in. Next the door zone - where do I suggest cyclists must ride in the "door zone" I don't.  You made that up, as for Dutch reach - well look at the mobility of the majority of our population - what a ridiculous expectation, one that could get cyclists hurt, but remember if you have read the HC they should be at least a metre away from parked cars anyway to avoid your "door zone". Let's watch the cyclist casualty figures to prove or disprove whether the changes are sensible shall we? Unfortunately I fear people will be giving their lives to assert their new "rights" and those people will not be the drivers. Stay safe.

Why would a cyclist unnecessarily impede others if there's no traffic behind ?  Who is being impeded here. The rule appears simple, move over if its safe. Are you suggesting cyclist should just move over anyway despite the safety aspect. 

It's the cyclists decision to determine if they think its safe for them to progress not yours. How can you be in a position to determine what's safe or not when following behind.

The Dutch Reach is taught to new drivers in the Netherlands. Its not about mobility or the lack of it its about thinking about cyclists and taking the effort to look behind. 

Your petition is ill advised. If you can't explain your issue in 300 words then what's the point, it's full of holes and totally reactionary. 

[Herbie]

I hope this video can be seen by the general public but I saw it on Facebook so you may need a Facebook account to view it, I don't know:

https://www.facebook.com/william.harmsworth.39/videos/476306763942079

If it doesn't work, below is a screenshot of a cyclist enjoying their new-found freedom 

[doog442]

19 minutes ago, Herbie said:

I hope this video can be seen by the general public but I saw it on Facebook so you may need a Facebook account to view it, I don't know:

https://www.facebook.com/william.harmsworth.39/videos/476306763942079

If it doesn't work, below is a screenshot of a cyclist enjoying their new-found freedom 

New found freedom  ? Yep she looks dressed for a late January day in the UK  That road also looks decidedly dry and devoid of any winter detritus. The grass also appears slightly dried out, well before last weeks rule.  You might want to try harder 

Nothwithstanding the date stamp on the video is 18th September  lol

 

[Herbie]

17 minutes ago, doog442 said:

New found freedom  ? Yep she looks dressed for a late January day in the UK  That road also looks decidedly dry and devoid of any winter detritus. The grass also appears slightly dried out, well before last weeks rule.  You might want to try harder 

Nothwithstanding the date stamp on the video is 18th September  lol

 

Well I'll go t' foot of our stairs as me dear departed granny used to say - that'll teach me not to just copy and paste without checking first 

[mdj8]

32 minutes ago, doog442 said:

Why would a cyclist unnecessarily impede others if there's no traffic behind ?  Who is being impeded here. The rule appears simple, move over if its safe. Are you suggesting cyclist should just move over anyway despite the safety aspect. 

It's the cyclists decision to determine if they think its safe for them to progress not yours. How can you be in a position to determine what's safe or not when following behind.

The Dutch Reach is taught to new drivers in the Netherlands. Its not about mobility or the lack of it its about thinking about cyclists and taking the effort to look behind. 

Your petition is ill advised. If you can't explain your issue in 300 words then what's the point, it's full of holes and totally reactionary. 

Oh dear. This discussion is a perfect illustration of what will be being played out on the roads as a result of the latest amendments. You assume for example that it's up to the cyclist to determine whether they consider it safe to allow a vehicle to overtake them when being approached from behind, but that is not what the rule says it states "allow them to overtake where it is safe to do so" Where it is safe to do so may differ between cyclist and driver and either can be wrong, it needs clarity. The cyclist may not have the benefit of having taken a driving test either which would make matters worse. As for mobility I'm not sure you know what it means. How many older drivers do you think will be able to open the door from the outside. Not very many I can tell you. Otherwise people use their mirrors as they've always done, and of course you overlooked the responsibility of the cyclist to themselves of looking in the car as they aproach and keeping at least a metre away incase someone carelessly opens their door. In short, you can't say the petition is ill advised, you can say in your opinion it is ill advised but as shown so far you're not really looking at the issue from more than one road users perspective.

[doog442]

30 minutes ago, mdj8 said:

Oh dear. This discussion is a perfect illustration of what will be being played out on the roads as a result of the latest amendments. You assume for example that it's up to the cyclist to determine whether they consider it safe to allow a vehicle to overtake them when being approached from behind, but that is not what the rule says it states "allow them to overtake where it is safe to do so" Where it is safe to do so may differ between cyclist and driver and either can be wrong, it needs clarity. The cyclist may not have the benefit of having taken a driving test either which would make matters worse. As for mobility I'm not sure you know what it means. How many older drivers do you think will be able to open the door from the outside. Not very many I can tell you. Otherwise people use their mirrors as they've always done, and of course you overlooked the responsibility of the cyclist to themselves of looking in the car as they aproach and keeping at least a metre away incase someone carelessly opens their door. In short, you can't say the petition is ill advised, you can say in your opinion it is ill advised but as shown so far you're not really looking at the issue from more than one road users perspective.

You're wrong. The onus is on the cyclist to only move over when the cyclist thinks its safe. The HC actually states it several times 'if you can do so safely' 

There's no mention of move over just in case the driver behind thinks its safe and he's done a driving test. This is nothing new and has been practised by responsible cyclists for years. 

If a cyclist is proceeding normally on the nearside then absolutely the onus is now on the driver to overtake safely but a cyclist can retain primary if he feels its not safe for a vehicle to overtake (car doors, hazards, pot holes - all those things you might not see from behind) These things work in tandem, its a joint process just not down to you barrelling up from the rear and drawing your own conclusion . 

The Dutch Reach is advisory but not law. There's nothing about opening the door from the outside as you state, its about using your far hand to release the handle from the inside and applies to drivers and passengers .Perhaps do your research first ? 

As for door zones, there are numerous vehicles where its impossible for a cyclist to see if someones in the drivers seat ...the onus is on drivers not to open their doors into cyclists or vehicles. For cyclists its best practice and a preventative measure to avoid it because its hurts quite frankly. 

 

[Linas.P]

I have long argued similar case and have met same people making same claims over and over again.

This is same thing as another thread about changes in the rules more generally. In summary the responsibility seems to be continuously moving away from individual actions and toward the drivers, thus making roads more hostile and removing duties from people up the arbitrary "hierarchy of road users" and pushing their duties down to motorists.

They as well have decided on most invalid criteria for hierarchy as well - that is "vulnerability", rather than standard hierarchy of competence. I find it absurd that cyclists and on top of them pedestrians, who mostly have no understanding of Highway Code are considered superior and are given increasingly more authority.

As Illustrated by Matthew - cyclists in highway code had provisions which allows them to control the traffic behind them, even thought they are not required to have any formal or even informal knowledge of applicable rules. Not only that - rules themselves are often impossible to follow (roads could be just too narrow to pass) and supporters of the rules just brushes this off as "and why you in the rush, what you can't wait for the suitable road for overtake?!" Completely disregarding that that suitable road could be miles away and whole column of motorists will be driving behind single cyclists who feels the need to be defensive and drive in the middle of the road. And this lack of consideration for motorist is infuriating - so they ask mutual respect and support, but as well expect motorist to be second class users?!

Note as well, that in Highway code there are "key words", - MUST, means it is back by law, SHOULD means it is advise. If you go trough various sections, then you will see that most rules applicable to motor vehicles are MUST, whereas most of rules applicable to other users are SHOULD or just advisory. So realistically, there are very few rules which are enforceable on other users and really it depends at their discretion if they will follow them.

The other claim often made on false premise is "and why should cyclists unnecessarily do something". Well that is the point - because there are no rules saying they MUST NOT, so they can do it for the sake of doing it, because they are jealous, or because they don't like the colour of your car, or because you looked wrong at them, or so they thought. Now it is fair to say there are idiots in ranks of both drivers and cyclists, but when it comes to drivers there is only so far they can go before they acting criminally and there are clear rules under which they can be made responsible... when it comes to cyclist idiots, there is very little you can do and such people can go very long way before they really cross the line.

In summary, what I am saying - for mutual care and respect, we need mutually fair equal playing field. It was never never fair and recent changes made it even more unfair... or at very least the language encourages cyclist to be more defensive, more bold and put themselves out in front of the car. On political level it is gain for cycling ideologists, on level of society as a whole that loss for us all.

Signed.

 

[Phil xxkr]

6 hours ago, Linas.P said:

I have long argued similar case and have met same people making same claims over and over again.

This is same thing as another thread about changes in the rules more generally. In summary the responsibility seems to be continuously moving away from individual actions and toward the drivers, thus making roads more hostile and removing duties from people up the arbitrary "hierarchy of road users" and pushing their duties down to motorists.

They as well have decided on most invalid criteria for hierarchy as well - that is "vulnerability", rather than standard hierarchy of competence. I find it absurd that cyclists and on top of them pedestrians, who mostly have no understanding of Highway Code are considered superior and are given increasingly more authority.

As Illustrated by Matthew - cyclists in highway code had provisions which allows them to control the traffic behind them, even thought they are not required to have any formal or even informal knowledge of applicable rules. Not only that - rules themselves are often impossible to follow (roads could be just too narrow to pass) and supporters of the rules just brushes this off as "and why you in the rush, what you can't wait for the suitable road for overtake?!" Completely disregarding that that suitable road could be miles away and whole column of motorists will be driving behind single cyclists who feels the need to be defensive and drive in the middle of the road. And this lack of consideration for motorist is infuriating - so they ask mutual respect and support, but as well expect motorist to be second class users?!

Note as well, that in Highway code there are "key words", - MUST, means it is back by law, SHOULD means it is advise. If you go trough various sections, then you will see that most rules applicable to motor vehicles are MUST, whereas most of rules applicable to other users are SHOULD or just advisory. So realistically, there are very few rules which are enforceable on other users and really it depends at their discretion if they will follow them.

The other claim often made on false premise is "and why should cyclists unnecessarily do something". Well that is the point - because there are no rules saying they MUST NOT, so they can do it for the sake of doing it, because they are jealous, or because they don't like the colour of your car, or because you looked wrong at them, or so they thought. Now it is fair to say there are idiots in ranks of both drivers and cyclists, but when it comes to drivers there is only so far they can go before they acting criminally and there are clear rules under which they can be made responsible... when it comes to cyclist idiots, there is very little you can do and such people can go very long way before they really cross the line.

In summary, what I am saying - for mutual care and respect, we need mutually fair equal playing field. It was never never fair and recent changes made it even more unfair... or at very least the language encourages cyclist to be more defensive, more bold and put themselves out in front of the car. On political level it is gain for cycling ideologists, on level of society as a whole that loss for us all.

Signed.

 

Perfectly well argued Linas, thanks, it saved me all the keystrokes 😎. Adding another dimension to the idea of consideration in mind is the one of tractors. I live in a rural community where they are out and about most days. They are obliged to know the highway code in particular, 

Rule 169 of the Highway Code states: “Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.” Failure to follow this rule can result in a charge of inconsiderate driving which could lead to a penalty of three to nine points and fines of up to £5,000.

Why does this apply to this impediment to progress and not to other slow-moving forms of transport? 

[Moleman]

8 hours ago, doog442 said:

New found freedom  ? Yep she looks dressed for a late January day in the UK  That road also looks decidedly dry and devoid of any winter detritus. The grass also appears slightly dried out, well before last weeks rule.  You might want to try harder 

Nothwithstanding the date stamp on the video is 18th September  lol

 

Given the date of the video and the good conditions why Doog do you think the rider was in that position on the road? Kind of shows that cyclists do and can get it wrong. 

[Moleman]

33 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

Perfectly well argued Linas, thanks, it saved me all the keystrokes 😎. Adding another dimension to the idea of consideration in mind is the one of tractors. I live in a rural community where they are out and about most days. They are obliged to know the highway code in particular, 

Rule 169 of the Highway Code states: “Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.” Failure to follow this rule can result in a charge of inconsiderate driving which could lead to a penalty of three to nine points and fines of up to £5,000.

Why does this apply to this impediment to progress and not to other slow-moving forms of transport? 

A good example of why this will all end badly, I spend a lot of time in North Norfolk and can tell you whatever the HC may say many if not most tractor drivers on the roads in that area do not move over when possible. Seen tail backs of many miles behind one tractor. Cyclists will be no different as shown by the cyclist response on these pages. Would love to think we could all share the space fairly but for that to happen you have to see not only your own point of view but also that of the other road users. Not seeing much of that on here, out on the roads likely to be the same.

It should be able to work with just a little good will by all. Still at least some can claim I have right to do this, even if expressing that right should also include thinking about how you impact upon other users. 

[Phil xxkr]

13 minutes ago, Moleman said:

A good example of why this will all end badly, I spend a lot of time in North Norfolk and can tell you whatever the HC may say many if not most tractor drivers on the roads in that area do not move over when possible. Seen tail backs of many miles behind one tractor. Cyclists will be no different as shown by the cyclist response on these pages. Would love to think we could all share the space fairly but for that to happen you have to see not only your own point of view but also that of the other road users. Not seeing much of that on here, out on the roads likely to be the same.

It should be able to work with just a little good will by all. Still at least some can claim I have right to do this, even if expressing that right should also include thinking about how you impact upon other users. 

Couldn't agree more Maurice 👍

[Moleman]

48 minutes ago, Moleman said:

A good example of why this will all end badly, I spend a lot of time in North Norfolk and can tell you whatever the HC may say many if not most tractor drivers on the roads in that area do not move over when possible. Seen tail backs of many miles behind one tractor. Cyclists will be no different as shown by the cyclist response on these pages. Would love to think we could all share the space fairly but for that to happen you have to see not only your own point of view but also that of the other road users. Not seeing much of that on here, out on the roads likely to be the same.

It should be able to work with just a little good will by all. Still at least some can claim I have right to do this, even if expressing that right should also include thinking about how you impact upon other users. 

And do not get me started on when they decide to travel in convoy. 😖

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Moleman said:

And do not get me started on when they decide to travel in convoy. 😖

I'm with you on that one. A small group, or solo cyclist, obeying the rules isn't a problem.

The issues start when large groups that think they are a rule onto themselves take to the road. I was in a club where this started to happen and I began to 'feel' for the motorists and fear for my own safety because of the behaviour of the cyclists. I ended up training alone for many years.

 

Many cyclists are also drivers and so should know better.

 

As has been said, it's care and consideration from all road users that is required. 

[Jaystar77]

I can see the reasoning and the push towards co-operation on the roads.

Quick question - so does a lot of this not depend on how aware the cyclist is of the approaching traffic behind them?

Does that lead into the requirement of mirrors perchance?  

 

[Moleman]

12 minutes ago, Lexux said:

Many cyclists are also drivers and so should know better.

As has been said, it's care and consideration from all road users that is required. 

But for some reason (I know we joke but they seem to all wear lycra), common sense and consideration disappear.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Moleman said:

But for reason (I know we joke but they seem to all wear lycra), common sense and consideration disappear.

The Lycra suits sport - wicking sweat etc- so is comfortable and avoids chaffing etc. Even cyclists sometimes jibe each other about the Lycra. The look is a little🤢 on most😅

[Moleman]

2 minutes ago, Lexux said:

The Lycra suits sport - wicking sweat etc- so is comfortable and avoids chaffing etc. Even cyclists sometimes jibe each other about the Lycra. The look is a little🤢 on most😅

While understanding the use of Lycra, is it possible that if too tight, important circulation is being cut off? 😆

[Linas.P]

2 hours ago, Moleman said:

It should be able to work with just a little good will by all. Still at least some can claim I have right to do this, even if expressing that right should also include thinking about how you impact upon other users. 

Agreed... and that good will is build by little bit of respect... and that respect is build by appreciating that we all follow same and fair rules. Because rules are neither fair, nor same, nor cyclists (and other groups) are required to know them... then where the good will is coming from?

Call me conspiracy theorist, but I don't think that is accidental. Why deal with cyclist demands for better infrastructure if you can just make the rules where cyclists and motorists hates each other and fights one another. Whilst these to groups fight each other government can relax and don't improve conditions for either of them.

2 hours ago, Phil xxkr said:

Why does this apply to this impediment to progress and not to other slow-moving forms of transport? 

And this is just great example of how people treat "SHOULD and SHOULD NOT" vs. "MUST and MUST NOT"... if something is optional they simply won't bother, but if it would be legal requirement then they would follow it. Obviously provided they know it is legal requirement... which is kind of questionable as they don't have legal requirement to know it in the first place. And again same applies - when you know you can get £1000s in fines and lose your license then you have more motivation to read the rules and understand them, when it is just optional and possibility of getting fined is non-existent then I doubt even those cyclists who looked at the rules really bothers to understand them.

[Phil xxkr]

8 minutes ago, Moleman said:

While understanding the use of Lycra, is it possible that if too tight, important circulation is being cut off? 😆

Around the neck you mean? 😁