Highway Code cracked: more than 40 rules changed!

[Seak]

Following a high-profile campaign from CTC, the Government has agreed to amend the Highway Code to improve cyclists' safety and to encourage drivers to take more care around vulnerable road users.

In total over 40 rules have been changed to the benefit of cyclists.

The new version makes clear that cyclists have every right to cycle on the road. Rules 61 and 63 state that cycle lanes and cycle facilities, are "not compulsory" and the decision to use them "will depend on your experience and skills".

Last year the Department for Transport proposed a revised version of the Highway Code. Cyclists feared that this version contained rules which would see them held partly liable if hit by a driver while not using a cycle track or cycle lane. 11,000 people contacted their MPs, 20,000 signed an online petition and a cross-party coalition in both Houses of Parliament defended cyclists' right to cycle on the road.

There will be a short stakeholder-only consultation to confirm that all parties are happy with the final wording, and the new version will go into effect before the summer.

Rules 61 and 63

The Department for Transport is proposing the following wording:

Rule 61: Cycle Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

Rule 63: Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway. When using a cycle lane, keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

CTC will be pressing for a couple of changes to tidy up the final version, and is asking cyclists to support us by signing an online petition.

[essexman]

Hurray . Three cheers for the CTC!

[ed_o_brain]

brilliant fantastic great super fabulous smashing marvellous



Ruddy well done!

[Bananaman]

i think its about time I joined

[squeaker]

they can make your journey safer

but they forgot to add

they can make your journey less safe

due to all the messy interactions with vehicle traffic....

Still, the 'not compulsory' is at least step in the right direction.

[Greg]

I'm feeling cynical. Can you provide a link, please?

[davebax]

Rule 61 is unclear, even contradictory. Does the first sentence mean you CAN, you MUST or you ARE ADVISED TO “Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so”? Given that the sentence is in the imperative, it reads as an instruction that should be obeyed. So the only reason not to use these facilities is if it is unsafe to do so. The second sentence “Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills. . .” appears to contradict this. Does this mean you needn’t use the facilities in any circumstances, OR only if your experience and skills are inadequate for using them?

Does anyone understand this rule properly – if so, please can you clarify the meaning.

[George Riches]

It does seem that someone wanted to express the thought that skilled riders are often better off not using the "cycle facilities" at the speeds that they wish to cycle. But the actual wording does lead to the conclusion that cyclists should use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless they are unsafe - even when the alternatives are pretty safe.

Daniel Cadden would have been safe on the cycle track, if he had been willing to ride at a low speed and wait a long time to cross various carriageways.

Still the wording that use of the "facilities" is not compulsory is useful. It may be enough to prevent the HC being used to cut compensation paid to cyclists injured in situations where a "cycle facility" provides an alternative.

[thirdcrank]

The nadir of my RtR days was a so-called facility introduced by Leeds City Council for cyclists intending to go straight ahead at a simple traffic light controlled crosroads.

This consisted of an offroad cyle path leading to a pelican crossing some way down to the left of the junction. At the crossing there was the standard 'Cyclists dismount' sign as it is illegal for cyclists to ride across a pedestrain crossing. There was then another off-road path taking cyclists back to their original route but beyond the junction. To cross the footway to regain the carriageway it was once again 'cyclists dismount'.

Nothing unsafe about that cycle route; it was just necessary to ride twice the distance and dismount twice to get somewhere otherwise reached by in a straight line, so my reading of this amendment would not have helped in this case and countless others.

I like the inclusion of the explicit words that these facilities are not compulsory, but the rest of it does not fill me with euphoria.

I suppose the trouble is that any form of words truly acceptable to cyclists (or at least to me) would involve recognition of the utter incompetence of most UK highway authorities when it comes to providing for cyclists.

[meic]

I dont see the difference.
The old wording said we should use the facilities. This was not compulsory, if it was compulsory under law it would say must. We were not worried about compulsion as that would have required a new law. The problem was that any compensation would be reduced as we would be part liable just for being there in the first place. The wording still says we should be on the cyclepath, so why do we think the problem is solved?

[mhara]

How many non-cycling drivers will bother to read the cycling bits of the Highway Code? Before I get excited I want to see ALL the 40+ changes that are supposed to 'make' drivers properly aware of us.

I cycle daily, have cycled all my life (well, since I was three and had a tricycle), commute to work, shops, etc. Life was just fine without cycle lanes and I still think every one of them should be removed.

It's those weasely words "when practicable" that get me going. They change nothing.

If I'm outside the cycle lane's lines then every driver coming up behind me will still have their prefered interpretation of what I should be doing and they will drive past me in a manner according to whether they think I have any right to be where I am. Too close, too fast and too ready to turn left without indicating or being far enough ahead.

For 40 years I've been an assertive cyclist but now I'm getting fed up with feeling increasingly intimidated, and that feeling is most intense when confronted with desperately inadequate cycle lanes.

[Bananaman]

I am not a lawyer and have to admit that my first reaction to the word practicable was that it was an americanisation of practical.

Having had a look at a couple of dictionaries, I think practicable (as opposed to practical or possible) has some reference to purpose - ie use cycle facilities if it serves your purpose. In this neck of the woods there are a number of cycle facilities I use for various routes, including bus lanes, off road paths and ASLs. I don't, however, insist on plonking myself in front of a car at an ASL if it is the only one at the junction and the road ahead is clear

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/practicable

The immediately clarification of not compulsory would seem to tie in with this. Lawyer anyone??

[pickles]

How many non-cycling drivers will bother to read the cycling bits of the Highway Code? Before I get excited I want to see ALL the 40+ changes that are supposed to 'make' drivers properly aware of us.

Most of the rule changes are along the lines of: be aware of cyclists when doing x or y. Roundabouts have got a bit better. There is now a photo of someone overtaking a cyclists giving a full lane width between.

I cycle daily, have cycled all my life (well, since I was three and had a tricycle), commute to work, shops, etc. Life was just fine without cycle lanes and I still think every one of them should be removed.

You may not like them, but if they help to get other cyclists on the road - even if it results in greater danger to those cyclists - I am all in favour of them. More cyclists will make us safer, since more of them are likely to be also motorists.

CTC endorses well-deisgned cycle lanes as about number 4 on the hierarchy of solutions (e.g. after traffic speed reduction, traffic volume reduction etc).

[George Riches]

but if they (cycle lanes) help to get other cyclists on the road - even if it results in greater danger to those cyclists - I am all in favour of them. More cyclists will make us safer, since more of them are likely to be also motorists.

Such cycle lanes might get a few more people on cycles, but with experience their perception of danger will change - from perhaps "cycling in traffic is dangerous, cycle lanes are good" to "cycling anywhere near traffic is dangerous" and give up.
Cycle lanes which encourage bad practice (e.g. cycling too close to parked cars) are a real hazard.

Still, overall, the proposed changes to the Highway Code appear to be a step in the right direction. Subject to, of course, the other "stakeholders" not blocking them.

[johnc73]

Good work the CTC!