Forum Topic

Changes to Highway Code

Big changes coming into effect next year from 29th January to create and clarify a new hierarchy for road users, and ensure that pedestrians have priority when crossing junctions and that cyclists have priority when cars are turning. Please note also the instruction for cyclists to ride in the middle of the lane to ensure they are visible to drivers (and discourage drivers from being tempted to overtake in dangerous situations). Some may see this as a continuation of the War on Cars but hopefully most sensible people who have argued for pedestrian rights in particular will appreciate these road safety improvements.  Here is a handy graphic of three big changes for responsible road users to get up to speed:

Paul Campbell ● 1739d129 Comments

Madness in my view.So you're driving along a busy, main road and you indicate to turn left but have to wait for a pedestrian (which you might not have a clear sight of depending on building lines, the positioning of the pedestrian etc.) to cross a minor side road.  To me it only increases the propensity for an accident, as opposed to the pedestrian simply waiting for a safe and convenient time to cross.As a cyclist I wouldn't think of passing, on the outside, a car that was already turning, or signalling to turn right, and to me this change effectively gives the green light for a selfish rider to do so.  Same with the notion of a cyclist riding in the middle of the carriageway, the key being the words 'to make yourself visible in certain situations" but again I suspect some idiots will see this as giving them carte blanche to ride in the middle of the carriageway."Responsible road users" to me are drivers, cyclists and/or pedestrians who apply logic and common sense to situations.  To me these changes are more likely to create greater conflict and dangerous situations involving those 3 groups, not less, hence why to me they are 'madness'.

Adam Beamish ● 1739d

In the US pedestrians have right of way crossing a road when a car is turning. It makes sense.However, how many of the great unwashed are going to even know about these changes?

Basil Finnis ● 1739d

I think Denmark,Holland and Germany have had these rules since the early eighties.For us pedestatrians ,a good thing.

Ben Gemmingen ● 1739d

Paul, what exactly is happening on 29 January?  I thought the new Highway Code still had to be laid before both houses of parliament for 40 days, etc etc.  At least, that's what the DfT's latest update on the consultations says.https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-to-improve-road-safety-for-cyclists-pedestrians-and-horse-riders/outcome/government-response-to-the-review-of-the-highway-code#next-steps

Richard Jennings ● 1739d

Yes quite right. Slated to come into force on 29th Jan following approval from the houses. I hope you will agree that there is no harm in acquainting people with the changes before they come into force given the likelihood of them doing so.

Paul Campbell ● 1739d

Here is a handy guide explaining what the proposed changes will mean for all road users - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1037306/table-of-change-to-the-highway-code.pdf

Marie Power ● 1739d

I totally agree with Adam.

Steve Taylor ● 1739d

“ how many of the great unwashed are going to even know about these changes?”Very few I suspect, and, given that most cyclists fall into that category, they just ignore the Highway Code anyway!

Steve Taylor ● 1739d

I suppose there is a certain irony that cyclists will now be urging people to follow the Highway Code after years of ignoring it themselves...I do agree that pedestrians need greater protection though.

Mark Warburton ● 1739d

Is this an early April Fools? So on a busy Saturday it will be virtually impossible to turn in to a side street from High rd. There is always a pedestrian crossing. I can foresee a few accidents and quite a bit of unnecessary road rage.

stephen gould ● 1739d

“ I can foresee a few accidents and quite a bit of unnecessary road rage.”Actually I can foresee ‘a lot’ of accidents because cyclists roaring up on both the left and right side of motor vehicles’ which may be turning left or right,  will inevitably be on the motorist’s blind spot!!!  The Law sway towards being on the cyclists side but that will be of little comfort to a dead cyclist!  The people who dreamed up these jokes will have blood on their hands.

Steve Taylor ● 1739d

I wonder at the motive of the OP for making this post ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1739d

"So on a busy Saturday it will be virtually impossible to turn in to a side street from High rd."I'm sure you'll manage with a bit of give and take.  We're not talking about a MUST instruction backed by law, like a zebra crossing.  It's sensible guidance for the safety of all road users.

Richard Jennings ● 1739d

His 'motive' might be to warn us that kamikaze pedestrians, who dash out on to the road without looking, on the phone and/or with earphones on will soon be in the right.

stephen gould ● 1739d

Loraine, in Paul's reply to me, he said "I hope you will agree that there is no harm in acquainting people with the changes before they come into force given the likelihood of them doing so."  I do indeed agree with him.

Richard Jennings ● 1739d

“ It's sensible guidance for the safety of all road users.”So you are saying that if you hit and kill a cyclist , when turning left or right into a side street,  you aren’t breaking any law?

Steve Taylor ● 1739d

“ I wonder at the motive of the OP for making this post ?“Gloating that there will be more accidents to disrupt traffic flow and cause more congestion and pollution perhaps?

Steve Taylor ● 1739d

"So you are saying that if you hit and kill a cyclist , when turning left or right into a side street,  you aren’t breaking any law?"No, of course not.  It could well be causing death by careless driving under the Road Traffic Act.  The new revision of the Highway Code will make it clear that a driver who turns into a side street should not do so across the path of a cyclist going straight ahead.

Richard Jennings ● 1739d

But what about pedestrians with dogs on leads ? Seems a crucial omission from the new draft.

Richard Greenhough ● 1738d

But surely that is obvious Richard ? - when I'm driving I wouldn't think of turning left without checking that there wasn't a cyclist either right on my inside or coming up at speed on my inside.Equally when I'm on my bike if I see a car ahead turning left I either slow to let it complete its manoeuvre, or, if its safe to do so, I'd overtake the car.To me these changes just cloud common sense, as a selfish cyclist will see this as giving them the green light to expect cars to always stop for them.I'm in the minority though as a regular cyclist who doesn't think I should always have priority and who also believes that interaction with other vehicles when someone is cycling isn't always a bad thing because it should make them more aware of what's going on all around them rather than only thinking about themselves.

Adam Beamish ● 1738d

Perhaps if there could be a special section of the new Highway Code instructing BMW drivers what indicators are for ?

Richard Greenhough ● 1738d

Cyclists positioning themselves more centrally, ideally where they'd be if they were driving a car, has always been a good idea for the reasons given.  It places them more clearly in other drivers' eyeline, who then have to make a conscious effort to overtake rather than squeezing past.  One trade in is that cyclists shouldn't try and pass vehicles up the inside, as that exposes them to many dangers.  Cyclists need to accept that if they're 'held up' by other vehicles they should hold that position until it's safe to overtake in the usual way, on the outside. Similarly, drivers who resent being 'held up' by a slower cyclist should regard them in the same way as a slow moving truck or bus and wait for a safe opportunity to overtake. What makes the roads so unsafe for cyclists is the mutual assumption that they aren't really part of the normal traffic flow, and on the one hand should get out of the way, and in the other can dodge and weave at will.

Peter Evans ● 1738d

“ should not do so ”.  But is not obligated in law!  Doesn’t  “should “ leave it somewhat open to choice?

Steve Taylor ● 1738d

“ To me these changes just cloud common sense, as a selfish cyclist will see this as giving them the green light to expect cars to always stop for them“ That is also my view.

Steve Taylor ● 1738d

“ 'should not do so'.  But is not obligated in law!  Doesn’t  'should' leave it somewhat open to choice?"Indeed - you should not call people morons, dullards or irresponsible gits, but some choose to do so.

Richard Greenhough ● 1738d

One problem that could arise is a car further back not being aware thecyclist is centre of the car ahead and trying to overtake.

Janice Evans ● 1738d

I welcome these measures which have followed an extensive consultation. These changes make it clear that we all have a responsibility to each when sharing the road. So as pedestrian, I am at my most vulnerable to road traffic and a cyclist. So being given way makes sense. As a cyclist, I am vulnerable to motovehicles so if there is no fast moving traffic behind me, I can occupy the middle of road in order to be more visible. I have responsibility to look out for pedestrians. I also have to be aware of the road traffic behind me wishing to overtake. In these case I must shift to towards the left when it is safe to allow cars to overtake. As a driver, I have to remember first, I have some protection around me in form of a metal shelland therefore in a way I have a duty of care to my fellow pedestrians and cyclists. Some of whom may well be inexperienced and at times even unpredictable. All the more reason to give them the space. The greatest threat to us all are the heavy goods vehicles. There is enough data to back this up. We are going to need some changes to our road making, signs and respect between all road users in order these amendments to fully serve us. I am going to touch base with Cllr Hearn our transport spokesperson to see how we can work with council officers to alert more road users ,especially at the major hot spots with better signage.

Ron Mushiso ● 1738d

As both a social cyclist (now), a cyclist who (admittedly some years ago) frequently competed in road races and time trails, a cyclist who occasionally travelled across London for work purposes, I don't get this notion about cyclists riding in the middle of the carriageway, which goes against all good advice except in very specific circumstances.Cycling very close to the kerb isn't a good idea.  But are posters seriously advocating that cyclists should take up a position in the middle of the carriageway on a perfectly straight, full width road so that vehicles (and faster cyclists) approaching from behind can't pass you without having to go on the other side of the road ?.There you are, pootling along on a bike in the middle of the carriageway at 10-15mph max in a 30/40/60 mph limit, and you're expecting vehicles (and other faster cyclists) travelling at potentially 4 - 6 times your speed to wait whilst you meander back into towards the kerb so they can safely pass ?.  And what if you're a cyclist who, in the same way many drivers don't use their mirrors, doesn't look behind very often, or, as I've seen many times, one of those cyclists who struggles with their balance on the bike unless they're looking straight ahead ?.  Then you fall off your bike in the middle of the carriageway and have to rely on others not to run you over, a scenario less likely to happen if you're riding closer to the kerb.A cyclist should take up a position in the middle of the carriageway, once you've looked behind and checked that it's safe and clear to do so, if they are approaching a junction and need to be in a middle or outside lane, or they're shortly going to turn right.  Or if the road narrows or the kerb cuts in sharply up ahead, to avoid a reckless last minute manoeuvre which could endanger yourself or others.But are posters really suggesting that middle of the carriageway should be the 'de facto' position to cycle in ?.

Adam Beamish ● 1738d

"One trade in is that cyclists shouldn't try and pass vehicles up the inside, as that exposes them to many dangers.  Cyclists need to accept that if they're 'held up' by other vehicles they should hold that position until it's safe to overtake in the usual way, on the outside."Sorry Peter but the new HC has new text to deal with this situation in Rule 163:"Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you. Be careful about doing so, particularly on the approach to junctions, and especially when deciding whether it is safe to pass lorries or other large vehicles."

Paul Campbell ● 1738d

Adam, we will see more cyclists on pavements, do think motorbikes andmopeds should stay in the centre of the road as we can hear them but cyclists will be at far more risk.

Janice Evans ● 1738d

Isn't it all a nonsense though Paul ?.I mean "cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you".Which implies that it's absolutely fine for a cyclist to overtake a vehicle turning right.  Which would be an utterly stupid and dangerous thing to do instead of simply either undertaking to the left of that vehicle or simply waiting until the vehicle has turned right and the road is clear for the cyclist to continue their journey.All this will do is to increase conflict between different road users, and is also likely to increase deaths.

Adam Beamish ● 1738d

“But are posters really suggesting that middle of the carriageway should be the 'de facto' position to cycle in ?.”I’m not. It will cause more traffic congestion and more road rage!

Steve Taylor ● 1738d

No I don't think its is a nonsense. I think it is just clarifying what we knew already but some people are confused about which is that it is legal for cyclists to filter in traffic and it us up to them to decide whether they go on the outside or the inside to do so safely. I don't interpret that as encouraging cyclists to overtake right turning vehicles.

Paul Campbell ● 1738d

Adam Beamish explained" I don't get this notion about cyclists riding in the middle of the carriageway, which goes against all good advice except in very specific circumstances."Not so, unfortunately. Taking up "primary position" or "taking the lane" was the, at the time, controversial advice first proffered by John Franklin a cycle instructor in "Cyclecraft", which was first published in 1988.Many experienced cyclists thought such advice daft at the time. Basically riders who were assertive and capable of keeping up with the traffic would already be taking the lane ,so while those who weren't, and couldn't would only serve to antagonise and frustrate motorists. Which sensible road users have never regarded as being a useful objective. Many people came to regard the book and the controversy it generated as being the first steps in the ongoing motorist-cyclist wars when previously both had got along well enough together. The timing, coming near the end of thefirst (equipment/commuter led)cycling boom  didn't exactly help eithet "Cyclecraft" was subsequently taken up as an official publication, while Franklin himself was less than enthusiastic about separate cycle lanes, regarding them as an unnecessary safety hazard especially near junctions.michael adamshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclecraft        

Michael Adams ● 1738d

I think it must have been the 1988 'Cyclecraft' book I got most of my daft ideas about cyclists riding sensibly and safely with other traffic.  I'd still question that 'I must shift towards the left when it is safe to allow cars to overtake', when it's really up to drivers to be the judge of when it's safe and take the necessary steps, as they are when they have to pass any other slow-moving vehicle. Otherwise we are creating an unhealthy presumption that cyclists are somehow 'in the way'.  And the new rule quoted elsewhere is hardly enthusiastic about how cyclists 'may' pass on the inside, 'but..'

Peter Evans ● 1738d

'I must shift towards the left when it is safe to allow cars to overtake'These are Ron's words not the HC. Ron may not have considered the importance the word "must" has in the HC and this was his interpretation. The new wording for rule 72 is "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 safelyin slower-moving traffic - when the traffic around you starts to move more freely, move over to the left if you can do so safely so that faster vehicles behind you can overtakeat the approach to junctions or road narrowing where it would be unsafe for drivers to overtake you"The lack of enthusiasm in the word "may" is, I think, preferable to the HC urging cyclists to overtake on the inside.

Paul Campbell ● 1738d

Cyclists could do more signalling. I often use a 'going forward' signal - sticking my arm right out ahead of me - when approaching a left hand turn corner if I think a motorist may not be that aware of me. Good at Hyde Park Corner. Being aware is what is important.

Vivienne Cox ● 1738d

"cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left"Adam, to me this negates segregation. If there is no place for a cyclist to be other than everywhere on all sides of you, why bother with the investment?

David Lesniak ● 1738d

Looks like I am going to have to fit a General Lee air horn Dukes of Hazard style!😇

Adrian Irving ● 1738d

Right turning vehicles should be indicating beforehand that they are intending to turn right.  That is what indicators are for.  Some seem to have forgotten.  When turning left they should be doing the same.  Too many motorists approach side streets too fast and swing around corners they can't possibly see around.

Philippa Bond ● 1738d

There are no proposed changes to Rule 112:112The horn. Use only while your vehicle is moving and you need to warn other road users of your presence. Never sound your horn aggressively. You MUST NOT use your horn - while stationary on the road- when driving in a built-up area between the hours of 11.30 pm and 7.00 amexcept when another road user poses a danger.

Paul Campbell ● 1738d

From Paul's detailed posts on this thread I think we both agree that in reality the changes are not that great, and the new HC does make it clear that cyclists should only occupy the centre of the road in certain situations - but my fear is (as borne out by a couple of posts I have seen on this thread) that some cyclists will think that they should be riding in the centre of the road far more then they actually should be doing.As posters know I am not particularly a fan of segregation.  35+ years of cycling amongst traffic gives you a good appreciation of how to conduct oneself whilst riding, I'll never be all in favour of segregated cycle lanes which offer an 'artificial' environment and mean that a cyclist only familiar with such an environment might not have a clue how to conduct themselves where that segregation doesn't exist.  It's abit like a learner driver only going out on the roads in the middle of night, and then suddenly throwing them into a rush hour environment.

Adam Beamish ● 1738d

Quite right, Philippa. If TfL could levy a fine on every car that turned left or right without indicating, their budgetary woes would be over.

Richard Greenhough ● 1738d

Toot toot!

Adrian Irving ● 1738d

Thanks Paul for this worthwhile thread highlighting these significant changes. It is important that a 'critical mass' of road users and pedestrians understand the implications and the changes in behaviour that are required.

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 1738d

Agree, more Highway Code updates are required.

Janice Evans ● 1738d

Philippa, don't you think it fair cyclists indicate their intention as well rather than criss-crossing at a whim in front of moving vehicles without any warning?

David Lesniak ● 1738d

>So you're driving along a busy, main road and you indicate to turn left but have to wait for a pedestrian to cross a minor side roadYou got it!

Paul Richard James ● 1738d

Why?  Nobody reads it and it isn’t legally binding. It’s just a guide, a voluntary code of conduct.

Steve Taylor ● 1737d

The Road Traffic Act states that lack of observation of the HC will be used to establish liability for criminal offences such as careless driving.

Paul Campbell ● 1737d

Sadly Paul is waiving the new HC as a big ol' "fu*k you, cyclists can do whatever the fu*k we want and you can't stop us."This brand of evangelism makes me wonder what would happen if the larger unions (bus drivers, cabs, maybe even Uber now) got together and did an assessment to study the negative mental impact these measures create. Would you want to work in a hostile environment? Doubt it. Paul wouldn't. Not for one minute. Yet this is what he advocates for those who must and do drive for a living. Creating complete chaos on the road but fu*k it, he can do as he damn well pleases.

David Lesniak ● 1737d

Hang on David, Paul just posted the new highway code.I thought that was quite helpful, tbh, because I wouldn't have seen it otherwise.Your reaction says more about you than about him.

Simon Pedley ● 1737d

If it's a choice between a couple of cars rear-ending and a pedestrian getting run over and killed, I'd prefer the former.The responsible road users thing clearly doesn't work, if you look at the number of injuries and deaths per day in this country due to cars. We tried that, now it's time to try something else.

Simon Pedley ● 1737d

Agree, I thought it helpful.

Janice Evans ● 1736d

The code is not legally binding. It is just something for people to observe!  I am wondering how many cyclists riding 3 abreast in Richmond Park will now politely move into single file to allow cars to pass safely (as instructed in the Highway Code)

Steve Taylor ● 1736d

David, you forget that the new HC is also a big ol' "fu*k you, pedestrians can do whatever the fu*k we want and you can't stop us".And by "whatever the fu*k we want", is the freedom to cross a street without being mown down by an impatient motorist who thinks their right of way entitles them to put other people in danger.

Ed Saper ● 1736d

And you forget the FU of cyclists on pavements intent on terrorising pedestrians!  How dare pedestrians use pavements. Roads, cycle lanes and pavements are ONLY for cyclists.

Steve Taylor ● 1736d

Pavements are sometimes marked by signs saying they are to be shared by pedestrians AND cyclists.  Cyclists should pay attention to the bit of the Highway Code which says that they should make their presence known to pedestrians eg by using a bell - especially necessary when riding up behind pedestrians who will be unable to hear just their wheels above the sound of a busy road eg the A4. 

Philippa Bond ● 1736d

As is the freedom to cross a street without being mown down by an impatient cyclist.

David Lesniak ● 1736d

As is the freedom to walk on a pavement without being screamed at or sworn at by a cyclist!

Steve Taylor ● 1736d

As is the freedom to travel around the highways and byways of Chiswick using whatever mode of transport you choose without being filmed by Jeremy Vine.

Richard Greenhough ● 1736d

Or as a pedestrian crossing on a zebra or pelican or puffin or toucan crossing!https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/learning-to-drive/road-crossings/

Philippa Bond ● 1735d

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/30/two-in-three-uk-drivers-unaware-of-planned-highway-code-changes?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other"At least two in three drivers were unaware of the changes before Christmas, according to the AA, which polled 13,000 of its members on the subject."Article states new code will come into effect on 29th January if approved by Parliament.

Paul Campbell ● 1728d

PaulHow many cyclists are aware of the HC ? You know about little things like stopping at red / amber lights and giving priority to Pedestrians on crossings - Just asking ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1728d

98% of cyclists don’t know about the Highway Code. And why should they?  It’s not legally binding for cars or cyclists. It’s just a guide which they hope will be ‘observed’.  Most motorists have never read the old code so why will they bother about a new code.

Steve Taylor ● 1728d

This points to an epic fail of the government.If a law changes on the books, precisely how is it any user group is supposed to know? It's one thing when the speed limit signs get replaced, quite another when its hidden verbiage. You know, Highway Code Rule 345, addendum 4.78 superceded by 4.83_2.99 as of the second Tuesday of the fourth December this decade type thing.

David Lesniak ● 1728d

How does the Highway Code suggest those walking dogs should behave ?

Richard Greenhough ● 1728d

I wasn't really aware of these "changes" but as a driver, I don't see much different to what I have always been doing. As a cyclist I see many more changes which no-one is talking about.Yet the media conversation seems totally focussed on drivers.It would be far better for everyone if Cycling organisations concentrated on communicating the changes for cyclists (their audience) rather than cars and vice versa for motor groups.  That would be better for overall awareness.... if that is everyones genuine aim? The main "changes" for drivers are:- give way to pedestrians crossing a road into which their vehicle is turning.- not cut across cyclists or horse riders going ahead when turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, to prevent “left hook” collisions.- open car doors using the “Dutch reach” method-leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds.Maybe the "dutch reach" is something I haven't always done but I have always looked back before opening my car door and all the rest,However, as a cyclist, there are a raft of new rules (taken from the 239 rules in the Highway Code) which I am sure few cyclists are aware of:-Cyclists should give way to pedestrians on shared use cycle tracks and tohorse riders on bridleways- Only pedestrians may use the pavement. Pedestrians include wheelchair and mobility scooter users.- Pedestrians may use any part of the road and use cycle tracks as well as the pavement, unless there are signs prohibiting pedestrians.- Riders must give way to pedestrians at zebra crossings- Do not pass pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles closely or athigh speed, particularly from behind. Particularly the points about road positioning. I think most cyclists including myself believe that we have the right to sit in the middle of the lane at all times (even if we do not do it). The New rules make clear when cyclists should move over. I think many more belligerent cyclists are ignorant of these rules...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 flowmore 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 beunsafe for drivers to overtake you2. 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.

Richard Potts ● 1728d

Personally think cyclists are in more danger being in centre lane andconstantly moving to the side if faster vehicle approaches from behind,Loraine's post on the Richmond Park accident highlights big problem withthis.

Janice Evans ● 1728d

I don’t think the Richmond Park incident highlights that a car was trying to overtake a bicycle using the centre of the road. Why do you think it does?

Steve Taylor ● 1727d

Steve it highlights the fact that a cyclist cannot stop as fast as the car ahead of them, they have to realise they need a safe braking distance.

Janice Evans ● 1727d

Also if in centre of the road cyclist should make sure the bike brake lightsare working for traffic following them.

Janice Evans ● 1727d

“ they have to realise they need a safe braking distance.”I would have thought that would be quite obvious to cyclists. I guess not!!!

Steve Taylor ● 1727d

“ cyclist should make sure the bike brake lightsare working for traffic following them.”Most cycles don’t have brake lights. I fact many cyclists race around at night without any lights at all.  Morons!

Steve Taylor ● 1727d

Cars turning into a side road should be indicating their intention to turn AND slowing down.  So should cyclists.  I'd love to see some film showing the difference between what the headlamps might see (if they could) and what the driver can actually see as they turn!I thought most drivers already slowed down in case that pedestrian standing on the corner stepped out.  It seems not.  They'll have to now.  I hope those pedestrians will be concentrating on what is happening on the road too!

Philippa Bond ● 1726d

This was the focus on LBC yesterday. I think the presenter was Matthew Wright. Whoever it was has been riding motorcycles in London for 30 odd years. One guest was from Stop Killing Cyclist and the other a former cop. All agreed there was an epic government fail in terms of getting the word out. The cop and the presenter agreed the bit where a cyclist can undertake was an accident waiting to happen. No surprise the third guest wanted nothing to do with cyclists being held to account for their own misjudgements.

David Lesniak ● 1726d

“ The cop and the presenter agreed the bit where a cyclist can undertake was an accident waiting to happen.”Not an accident waiting to happen. It has already happened in our family.

Steve Taylor ● 1726d

Not so long ago, these Highway Code changes would be the subject of a 'public information film' shown repeatedly on all TV channels, illustrating the right and wrong ways of opening doors in front of cyclists, overtaking them and turning into side roads. 'Leave lots of space! You know it makes sense!'

Peter Evans ● 1725d

It's only in the last few months that I have seen any public info films about the airborne spread of Covid.I completely agree.  Also children would have been taught how to behave where traffic is concerned and how and where to cross roads.  Something like the Tufty Club - does it still exist?They are far more vulnerable if they have not had the practice out and about walking on the streets.

Philippa Bond ● 1725d

We've always done this anyway because you can't be sure whether a pedestrian is going to step off the kerb or not.  Motorists should be indicating and slowing down before turning. Something that motorists should be doing and need to do anyway.  So what is the problem?

Philippa Bond ● 1725d

Great news that pedestrians can use cycle lanes too !  Also great news that the updated Highway Code effective 29 Jan 2022 makes it mandatory for cyclists on the road to move over to the left to allow cars and trucks to pass safely. Also great news that cycling 3 abreast will be illegal. 👍👍👍😁🤪 Cyclists flouting the can expect quite some backlash from motorists.

Steve Taylor ● 1725d

Philippa I agree and think the illustration as Paul posted is clear, a picture paints a thousand words.

Janice Evans ● 1725d

Controversial and maybe surprising take on the rule changes from the Speccie. The backlash in the press and social media over the weekend against changes that clarify and emphasise the responsibility of drivers to protect vulnerable road-users  kind of reinforces Ross Clark's view of the world:https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/entitled-motorists-have-ruled-the-roads-for-far-too-long"Hoorah, too, for the new rule that states motorists driving into side roads must give way to pedestrians crossing those roads. It will greatly civilise the streets, making it a lot more pleasant to walk around. No one set out to turn our towns, cities, villages and rural roads into dangerous hellholes. It just happened as motorists assumed the right to highways which were never designed for motor traffic. It was the exercise of raw power: drivers of motor vehicles lording it over the rest of us because they could.""But there is nothing unreasonable about the changes to the Highway Code, which are merely a small rebalancing in the relationship between motorists, cyclists and pedestrians — and an example of how Conservative governments can and should promote civilised values."

Paul Campbell ● 1703d

Steve  Are you deliberately misreading that?  It is safer for cyclists to NOT be close to parked cars or riding where they can be pushed right into the kerb and onto drains by motorists who insist on passing when there is not enough safe space for them to do so.So many motorists just seem to think they are entitled to pass cyclists wherever and whenever.  It is up to whether the cyclist feels safe as the more vulnerable road of the two road users.  Other motorists often have to brake suddenly and stop when they shouldn't have to in order to avoid the danger caused by impatient or ill-judged overtaking by oncoming motorists.

Philippa Bond ● 1703d

Impatience on all sides should be discouraged, such as motorists who feel that cyclists should 'get out of their way' and cyclists who feel they must always weave their way through to the front of the queue, often going up the inside of trucks. When I used to cycle in London, the advice was to position yourself in traffic where you'd be if you were driving a car. That put you squarely in other drivers' field of view, which cycling in the gutter didn't. And in normal urban traffic, a 'slow moving cyclist' is no more of an obstruction that a slow moving bus or truck, and drivers should take the same considered steps to overtake either.

Peter Evans ● 1702d

Do you refer to children also being in line with the traffic, it soundsdangerous to me and would they be seen by traffic behind who may tryto overtake.

Janice Evans ● 1702d

"It was the exercise of raw power: drivers of motor vehicles lording it over the rest of us because they could"A little cut here, some paste there et voila!It was the exercise of raw power: cyclists lording it over the rest of us because they could.C'est magnifique! When read that way it makes much more sense to see a cyclist pedalling down King Street, phone in hand, on the south side of the street even though the newly opened section of cycleway on the north side is all ready to go. Started out riding on the pavement (again, cycleway just opposite) dropped off the curb and kept against the curb where the roadway width was just reduced for that cycleway he wasn't using. Rush hour. Monday night. And her rode into the gyratory like that. He wasn't turning south as if that would be an excuse.

David Lesniak ● 1702d

"Started out riding on the pavement (again, cycleway just opposite) dropped off the curb and kept against the curb where the roadway width was just reduced for that cycleway he wasn't using."And that is why cyclists are regarded as the most hated species on the planet! It is because the arrogant fool, like you describe, gives the rest of us a bad name.

Steve Taylor ● 1702d

Forgot to ask: is holding a phone while cycling legal?If not, would it not go toward liability should a cyclist holding a phone cause an accident of any kind?

David Lesniak ● 1702d

" is holding a phone while cycling legal?"Don't know but it doesn't matter because cyclist can act illegally with total impunity. If the Police Commissioner can say with a straight face that her officers have more important things to do than confront Downing Street staff for allegedly breaking Covid LAWS, there is little hope of seeing the police take any action on cyclists breaking the law.

Steve Taylor ● 1702d

I heard on the radio this morning that part of new powers to hopefully come into law include a death by dangerous cycling clause that will hopefully cut down on some of the anti-social riding by SOME cyclists.

peter king ● 1701d

I'm sure that cyclists can already be prosecuted for dangerous and careless cycling.  How about speeding? (The Royal Parks are different from other roads and they tend to be stricter.) It would be good to see more warning notices about cyclists speeding in our local parks and their behaviour when approaching pedestrians especially from behind.  I'm sure there is something about shared paths/pavements for pedestrians and cyclists in the new Highway Code.

Philippa Bond ● 1701d

New rule H2 says “Cyclists should give way to pedestrians on shared use cycle tracks and to horse riders on bridleways.    Only pedestrians may use the pavement. Pedestrians include wheelchair and mobility scooter users. Pedestrians may use any part of the road and use cycle tracks as well as the pavement, unless there are signs prohibiting pedestrians.”

Marie Power ● 1701d

And Rule 69 for cyclists says “You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.”So I guess that includes speed limit signs.

Marie Power ● 1701d

No it doesn't. In most cases, speed limits only apply to motorised vehicles.

David Roberts ● 1701d

As a regular driver, cyclist (fair weather only) and pedestrian I am struggling to see what all the fuss is about.  The changes are sensible.Nearly every journey I take, whether in the car, on the bike or by foot I see people doing very stupid things.  That we have so few injuries and deaths on the roads is the surprise

Justin Stephenson ● 1701d

Hounslow Highways don't maintain pavements - they maintain footpaths. I spent ages trying to report a broken and rocking paving stone many years ago.And what about this?https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/n-a-3319/

Philippa Bond ● 1701d

“ I'm sure there is something about shared paths/pavements for pedestrians and cyclists in the new Highway Code.”Interesting that whilst walking on a shared path from Richmond Lock to Kew Bridge today, cyclists had NO interest in giving pedestrians reasonable  space whilst SPEEDING on the shared path. Yet they now expect cars to give them a wide berth on the ‘shared’ roads!!!

Steve Taylor ● 1701d

“ That we have so few injuries and deaths on the roads is the surprise” The new Highway Code will certainly cause more accidents, and possibly, deaths!

Steve Taylor ● 1701d

Quite Justin.The AA and RAC support the changes to the Highway Code. As would be expected of all responsible road-users. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2022/01/26/motoring-organizations-welcome-uk-highway-code-changes-that-see-pedestrians-given-priority-on-roads/?sh=184f665954bc

Paul Campbell ● 1701d

Cyclists race through parks on the 'shared paths' too.  Everyone needs to be more considerate and cyclists could consider getting a speedometer as well as a bell - they do exist - and in some places there are maximum speeds for cyclists.  They should also expect to have to get off their bikes and walk them in places...  When did you last see a cyclist walking a bike?

Philippa Bond ● 1701d

Seeing that Paul has blinked once again, I'm guessing hell froze over so best to bundle up!Paul Campbell finally advocates for pedestrian safety.Marie's post "Pedestrians may use any part of the road and use cycle tracks as well as the pavement, unless there are signs prohibiting pedestrians” comes as a great relief. Yesterday they spray painted the extent of the cycleway just outside the Best Western. The pedestrian path will be reduced by 2/3 the current width. But we can walk in the cycle way so really, it'll be just like before. I've long thought a peaceful stroll can be had the entire length of the cycleway. Can't wait to try it out! Good to know Paul cares and its now legal.Lots of evidence to see on King Street with people walking along the cycleway near the town hall construction site as well as those constantly crossing when accessing the mall clear across the cycleway and roadway stepping over the orange and white barricades with regularity. That movement indicates need. A bit like how a well-trodden dirt path becomes a paved walkway or road. The bus routes are the impediment to complete pedestrianization of that part of King Street as well as larger delivery vehicles be they commercial or domestic. I'm not that familiar with what lies between King Street and the A4 but it would seem deliveries would need to be facilitated separately for the north and south sides of the street as opposed to up the middle for both sides on King Street. Given the mall sorted out new parking to service the area, now would be a time to give that a proper think.But anyone crossing British Grove might wanna proceed with extra caution as the pedestrian signal and left turn signal out of British Grove are synchronized to be either both red or both green indicating stepping into oncoming traffic. Oops. There is no pedestrian signal when crossing west back into Chiswick so even more dangerous.

David Lesniak ● 1701d

And there are now LED Display and aural warnings on buses (eg H91, 267 etc) as they approach the Chiswick Lane bus stop to the effect that pedestrians should cross the cycle lane with caution.  Only at this bus stop, no others that I have come across on my regular routes.  Almost as if TfL recognised that the area around Chiswick Lane is now more than usually hazardous for pedestrians.

Marie Power ● 1701d

“ Almost as if TfL recognised that the area around Chiswick Lane is now more than usually hazardous for pedestrian”And how long did it take the morons to recognise this obvious fact?

Steve Taylor ● 1701d

Change is always problematic.

Philippa Bond ● 1700d

The pavement on the corner of CHR and CL will become dual use. Cyclist and pedestrians mixing to accommodate a left filter for bicycles.What could possibly go wrong?

Adrian Irving ● 1700d

So why change things Philippa ?

Maggie Dodge ● 1700d

Don't forget folks the new Highway Code starts today.When you are out and about today remember the new hierarchy of road users, give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross the road into which you are turning on your bike or in your car, drivers give way to cyclists when you are turning, and cyclists ride in the middle of your lane when the road narrows and in other situations when you deem it to be safer to ensure that you are visible and are not in danger of injudicious overtakes from vehicles behind you or an unexpected opening of a car door. Here is to safer roads for everybody from today.

Paul Campbell ● 1699d

Great Britain, 2015-2019On average, over a distance equivalent to 1,000 times round the Earth at its widest point:One cyclist is killed (0.76, in fact).34 are seriously injured.101 are slightly injured.Source: calculated from RAS 30001 (adjusted figures) & TRA 0401.

Adrian Irving ● 1699d

The new Highway Code will ensure that more cyclists and pedestrians are killed or seriously injured. That is a certainty!

Steve Taylor ● 1699d

..and by the way, no cycling on the pavement please, or through red lights or....

Peter Evans ● 1699d

You might be right Steve. Maybe they will only have to cycle 999 times around the equator before 0.76 of a cyclist goes to the big velodrome in the sky.On the other hand maybe these new measure will mean another circumnavigation will be posible. Who knows.

Adrian Irving ● 1699d

According to the Highway Code, drivers should only use their horns when their car is moving and they need to warn other road users of their presence.  I will be advising cyclist that I’m behind them A LOT. For their safety of course

Maggie Dodge ● 1698d

When I go into Chiswick again (about once a year now to drop stuff off to my accountant and go to the optician - I try to combine the visits so I don't have to go twice since the horrendous destruction of the High Road) I will spend a couple of hours strolling very, very slowly in the cycle lane, which I am entitled to do, completely ignoring the no doubt one or two expletives from the one or two cyclists using it.  I will video them, laughing, as they are apparently doing to motorists as they hold them up by riding two or more abreast.  Suggest many do the same.

Claire Moran ● 1698d

“I will video them, laughing, as they are apparently doing to motorists as they hold them up by riding two or more abreast.  Suggest many do the same.“Be very careful though because once that Lycra stifles oxygen to the brain, these people become extremely arrogant and may try to tear past you and rip your phone out of your hand whilst you are videoing them. It’s really laughable that these people spend so much time and money preparing their video recording apparatus before they venture out, obviously desperately hoping to catch some nasty motorists who may be passing them too closely. Diddums!! 

Steve Taylor ● 1698d

I'm sure many of us if not all, already drive with respect and consideration to others, be they pedestrians, cyclists or other road users. THAT should be the "new" guidance" tolerance and consideration, BUT cyclists and pedestrians still MUST have a duty of care. Obviously a child running into the road can't be expected to know, but anyone seeing a child near the roadside would think "What is it likely to do?"But for pedestrians to march out into the road expecting an HGV at 60mph to give way is so unreasonable as to place the blame squarely on the pedestrian. As for cyclists riding 2 abreast, that's unlikely in many city streets where continual traffic simply doesn't give space. But riding on the inside of HGV's? Stupid - as is using the road where a cycle lane exists. That's lycra thuggery. Care, respect and consideration needs to be exercised by all when out and about. Stating that whatever happens, the car driver is to blame, is impractical, illogical and irresponsible.

Kevin Regan ● 1698d

Not sure non-locals should be commenting on this issue.

John Hall ● 1698d

'as is using the road where a cycle lane exists. That's lycra thuggery.'The rule says 'even if there are adjoining cycle lanes and tracks, cyclists will not be obliged to use them'. Rather begs the question why so much public money is being spent on them then? Who comes up with this perverse cobblers?

Vanessa Smith ● 1698d

'Not sure non-locals should be commenting on this issue.'? This is a countrywide issue not confined to Chiswick's leafy roads. Blasted cycle lanes springing up everywhere.

Vanessa Smith ● 1697d

Just went the the High Road and it was really shit.  Very busy, people walking everywhere, doing shopping, restaurants full, thriving. Urghh. From now on I'll only go once a year, when I need new pants. 

John Hall ● 1697d

Come to Richmond. It’s great. Plenty of parking and a wonderful shopping experience. More and more new shops springing up so the High Street is rejuvenated and thriving.

Steve Taylor ● 1697d

Yes Maggie, why did women ever get the right to vote?

Andrew Jones ● 1697d

Richmond? Chav dump full of chain stores.

John Hall ● 1697d

"CHR was really shit and Richmond is a Chav dump full of chain stores" On that note may i suggest a self imposed further 2 year lockdown.

Julian Pavey ● 1697d

> Richmond? Chav dump full of chain stores.What a pompous arrogant splutter. The dog must have chewed his Observer to set him off on such a tired and emotional vent, so early in the day.

Russell Pearson ● 1697d

Is that Hall sounding off again?  I don't real his obnoxious emails. Yes, Richmond gets my vote, lovely to stroll along the river and have a coffee outdoors.  And much less stressful walking through the town centre without having to wonder if you are about to be mown down by a lycra yob.

Claire Moran ● 1697d

I suspect John Hall is poking fun at cycle lane opponents. You should take his comments on Chiswick High Road and chavs in Richmond with a pinch of salt.

Robert Fish ● 1697d

By that logic, John, we should revisit the CS9 "consultation" and toss out all those who commented from outside W4.After all, you just said it yourself.Plus there's that whole thing about One Hounslow of which Vanessa is a part. Add to that, CS9 is meant to connect Chiswick and Brentford and Isleworth and Hounslow. Again, One Hounslow.

David Lesniak ● 1697d

“ Add to that, CS9 is meant to connect Chiswick and Brentford and Isleworth and Hounslow.”Unfortunately for Chiswick business, CS9 and and the traffic chaos it ‘offers’ has deterred many ‘outsiders’ from venturing into Chiswick.

Steve Taylor ● 1697d