As most will know, Saturday sees the introduction of a whole host of changes to the above, seemingly for the benefit of cyclists and pedestrians. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?

Haven’t read this yet in detail. The rules, IMO, could benefit the cyclists in metropolitan places like London; the current conditions are not very safe for cyclists. However, I am not sure if it is practical for motorists to use their left hands safely for manoeuvring around the corners.

LMSC Best link I could find to the actual text rather than the media sensationalism https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1041273/the-highway-code-alteration-to-the-highway-code.pdf

DavecUK Yes! I had actually downloaded a copy and saved it on our one drive last week end. Haven’t had time to read yet.

Question - how does the general public get “notified” of such changes? I’ve heard about it through obscure ways. But nothing via official channels from the DVLA or via the government in general.

MediumRoastSteam It’s covered for an example on TVs and news papers. Wouldn’t that be enough ? 😊

Some observations from a quick read through the document: There are 45+ updates and 8 new rules. At a high level, I see changes, which should minimise risks for cyclists and pedestrians in places like London. This is good IMO. Drivers of large vehicles will have to take extra looking after vulnerable road users. Most of the time, the fatalities on London roads involve larger vehicles. Prioritised road users protecting pedestrians and cyclists including on turns, changing lanes, etc. Drivers must also not turn at a junction, therefore the cyclist going straight ahead, moving past or waiting alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic or travelling around a roundabout wouldn’t have to stop or swerve. Advise to vulnerable road users to allow faster moving vehicle move ahead of them, where and if it is safer to do so. Leave enough space to allow vehicles to over take and ride on the centre of their lanes to improve visibility. Road safety is a collective responsibility. We have seen a gradual deterioration in driving standards over the period of time, which is a shame really. Equally, the vulnerable road users can also take a little care; the cyclists can wear proper clothes and wear helmets, which we always find as two problem areas.

Its almost as if we have no Transport Secretary (Grant Shapps), just a government press office releasing stuff to the papers. Given the potential for danger posed by some of the changes, I think everyone with a driving license should receive copy of the new HWC, or as an absolute minimum a link to download it.

nickr I think everyone with a driving license should receive copy of the new HWC, or as an absolute minimum a link to download it. Totally agree.

LMSC Equally, the vulnerable road users can also take a little care; the cyclists can wear proper clothes and wear helmets, which we always find as two problem areas. I think that’s the area that is missing a little more guts in terms of changes. In terms of cyclists over 18, I’d like to see mandatory laws for: Helmets Lighting Standards Insurance London Cycle lanes have probably cost in the region of 2 billion by now and take space away from roads, they are there for safety. Perhaps their use should be mandated where they exist (in all areas), not just London. And to be honest, I have heard no good reasons why they are not, especially as cycling is increasing in popularity. I have not put it as mandatory, because I know it would be contentious, but as road users, I do think cyclists should be identifiable, In case they are involved in an accident, cause one, fail to obey traffic signals, or speed in 20 mph and slower zones). For Lorries and very large vehicles, I believe it would be good if they investigated some sort of protective measures to help prevent cyclists and pedestrians going under the wheels at the sides…perhaps side skirts/bar that lower in towns? Am I being unreasonable?

DavecUK Am I being unreasonable? No. You are absolutely correct. The Government missed a great opportunity here.

Changes to the Highway Code

Baldrick

I don’t think there’s anything in the changes to the HWC to get upset about. Priority should absolutely go to the more vulnerable road users - which for the most part it has done so anyway hasn’t it? With the exception of priority to pedestrians at a parallel crossing most of it is common sense 🤷🏼‍♂️

As someone who drives an awful lot for work I’d also echo DavecUK comments on some basic accountability for cyclists. The amount of cyclists I see running red lights, dark clothing and no lighting/ hi-viz at night etc is breathtaking.
Plenty of horrendous driving too i hasten to add but at least there’s some form reprimand for those caught doing so.

DavecUK

Baldrick I think with Cyclists, I view them as very vulnerable road users…more so than pedestrians, because pedestrians can choose to stay on the kerb, a cyclist can’t choose who is passing them etc..

For me, the rules really should have included/mandated simple things that cyclists can do to make themselves even safer on the road. I don’t think the things I mentioned are particularly onerous (well insurance might cost £15, or free if you’re a member of a cycling club)…but the other things are surely just common sense.

I watched the video below, it wasn’t really a balanced view and I felt a little irresponsible. One of the things the consultant said was although wearing a helmet reduced injuries, it probably significantly reduced the number of cyclists, and therefore they were more damaged by the loss in health benefits of cycling….an odd and unproven conclusion. They kept mentioning the Netherlands which is a very different type of cycling, and lastly I knew a girl who at 19 years old had her life ruined by riding without a helmet in a quiet road, she fell off her bike, fractured her skull and got brain damage. If she had been wearing a helmet, she would have been fine. The question to ask would have been would you want your son/daughter to wear a helmet when cycling?

I remember the same sort of arguments/backlash being made about wearing seatbelts in cars and when crash helmets were made compulsory in 1973 for motorcyclists.

I suspect it’s just the natural backlash when people are told to do something…even if it’s for their own good. In the same way, media outlets are sensationalising the new rules, and quoting them incorrectly. When actually they are what most reasonable people are actually doing anyway.

Baldrick

DavecUK lovely bit of balanced journalism there. End a clip discussing cycling helmets with “well maybe you should wear a helmet”. I almost expected him to poke his tongue out.
All the clips on bike safety were from the 90’s as well - like the idea of wearing a helmet whilst cycling is from a slightly whimsical bygone age.

“Cycling isn’t dangerous, the environment is” yes. Yes it is. It’s dangerous to you when you come into contact with it at speed.
The bit about people not cycling if they were made to wear a helmet is utter nonsense. Bah the whole video is nonsense

Dusk

I think trying to get cyclists to do more is missing the bigger picture, motorists need to improve. Driving standards in the UK are pretty shocking and the self entitlement of most drivers is appalling. You only need to look at various European countries to see how it can work.

DavecUK

Dusk I think we should be doing both.

nickr

“London Cycle lanes have probably cost in the region of 2 billion by now and take space away from roads, they are there for safety. Perhaps their use should be mandated where they exist (in all areas), not just London”

The problem with compelling cyclists to use cycle lanes is that many of them are designed for the casual cyclist, the type that might have cycled on the pavement before the lanes were built. As a long time cycling commuter my average speed is probably around 15 - 20mph. I really don’t want to be cycling around bus stops, bin, street lights, rubbish and pedestrians. Some of the latest lanes force cyclists to give way at EVERY junction, totally useless and very dangerous.

I would never use this cycle lane.

DavecUK

nickr The problem with compelling cyclists to use cycle lanes is that many of them are designed for the casual cyclist, the type that might have cycled on the pavement before the lanes were built. As a long time cycling commuter my average speed is probably around 15 - 20mph. I really don’t want to be cycling around bus stops, bin, street lights, rubbish and pedestrians. Some of the latest lanes force cyclists to give way at EVERY junction, totally useless and very dangerous.

Personally, I would be in complete favour of banning all vehicles from central and Greater London. Leaving all roads available for Cycles, Pedestrians Buses and Trams if there are any. I would absolutely have no problem with that at all, as driving in London used to always be bad, and I would imagine is a nightmare nowadays. Goods vehicles could be allowed in only after all pedestrians and cyclist have pretty much vacated the roads. e.g. between Midnight and 5 am to do deliveries. cycle couriers could of course take up the slack during the day for smaller items.

The car parks could be turned into secure cycle parks *free of course" and all the cycle lanes could be removed. Plus the streets and kerbs could be kept much clearer of debris, especially with no cars and more regular cleaning. Obviously pothole work would need to continue, but probably be cheaper without all the vehicles damaging the road.

A huge amount could be saved on traffic signals and road compliance signage, with standard give way junctions…the average traffic light junction costs around a million easy and the ongoing maintenance…most of those could go. As it’s completely unnecessary for cyclists. One way streets would no longer be necessary, just a no goods vehicle sign.

I guess this could be extended to all major towns, even if they don’t have a good transport infrastructure, one could soon be built.

The savings from no traffic police having to patrol for infringements, lack of speed cameras, no parking attendants required, no congestion charge infrastructure (unless they want to charge goods vehicles, but they could do that via a tax on them), no parking meters, could run into many millions. I think there are probably 10K+ people involved in policing, parking and servicing infrastructure that would no longer be required.

Offices in central London would only have to provide very limited car parking, as all maintenance would be done between Midnight and 5 am. All people could choose to cycle, or go by public transport and the price of public transport would surely come down with all those extra people using it. Most garages could be closed and redeveloped

Java_avaJ

This is a whole other debate but helmets don’t actually protect you unless you happen to fall off at low speed, or, perhaps off-road, where you’re not going so fast but might hit your head on a branch.
Helmets are tested at relatively low speeds so when cycling at higher speeds helmets are of little use. In fact, as most cyclists, most of the time, will agree that when you fall off you most often break your collarbone, hurt your hip or knees or elbows.
There have been a number of tests which also suggest that the oval shape of a helmet can cause rotational injuries to the neck that are worse than the impact injuries they occasionally protect you from.
As a cyclist THE most dangerous things on the road and those which are most likely to hurt me are motor vehicles. There is no helmet available that will help minimise several tons of metal hitting me at speeds in excess of 20mph.
I also remember reading that pedestrians suffer more head injuries per population than cyclists, but nobody would suggest we need to make helmet wearing mandatory every time you go out the house!
Please don’t flame me, I’m just adding a different point of view as a balance.

Pompeyexile

It’s good that motorists have to be more aware of cyclists and if bringing in new laws or rules helps keep people safe then I’m all for it. BUT…. just looking at that video all of that is a complete waste of time if motorists simply ignore them.

Both those cars stopping over the cycle lane rather than behind the dotted lines means they didn’t give a chuff for the cyclist coming along and having to swerve out.

This is the same when drivers stop over an entrance/exit to a road stopping anyone wanting to turn into that road. I see it all the time. For some reason many drivers cannot abide leaving a reasonable gap to the car in front, they need to sit close enough to smell their exhaust fumes.

Pompeyexile

Stand aside Sadiq!… DavecUK…..Next Major of London

DavecUK

Pompeyexile Stand aside Sadiq!… DavecUK…..Next Major of London

Seriously though, why would anyone what to drive in London nowadays….I think it would be a much nicer place without cars and people might really find out how much pollution those buses put out.

Baldrick

DavecUK not out of choice I assure you! But the amount of tools/materials tradesmen need to carry make public transport somewhat impossible.
I’d happily never drive in London again if that was an option.

DavecUK

Baldrick not out of choice I assure you! But the amount of tools/materials tradesmen need to carry make public transport somewhat impossible.
I’d happily never drive in London again if that was an option.

Under my plan as London mayor…to keep the cyclists and pedestrians happy….you would have to pussyfoot in after 11pm or midnight… and wake up your customers , then you can do your work at night. If this work involves hammering and drilling…I could put a noise charge on you and in one fell swoop, make money for London, whilst fixing the noise problem.

Even better, I might insist you use an electric vehicle to keep the air pure, the noise level low, and I’d be helping you do your bit to go green. In fact, I would make all vehicles (including heavy goods) subject to the daily curfew, electric, so residents are not disturbed… Thus fixing the green economy and air pollution overnight.

Sure a few things in the shops might go up, and it could be more expensive getting work done, and the loss of the congestion charge money…but I feel sure all residents of Inner and Greater London would be happy to pay more council tax and public transport fares for the extra benefits…London would become a great place to live, and property price would increase, putting money into anyones pocket who doesn’t have a mortgage.

Baldrick

DavecUK it’s a brave new world! It would undoubtedly make London a much, much nicer place to live and work (for the day walkers anyway)
I’m sure there would be quite a few takers for the night work too - as to get specialists in at those hours you’d need to pay them an absolute packet!
Personally I’d still rather not work there but I might come and visit more often under your glorious leadership 😂😂

nickr

“Personally, I would be in complete favour of banning all vehicles from central and Greater London. Leaving all roads available for Cycles, Pedestrians Buses and Trams if there are any.”

Totally agree - this would work well for small towns and villages, as long as there was a route around the centre.

LMSC

IMHO, banning vehicles in places like London / Central London is neither practical nor realistic.

DavecUK

LMSC I am talking some blue sky stuff here. The difference is, I believe it should be properly planned, rather than the current method of increasing restrictions and charges. As motorists avoid driving in, the financial burden then increasingly falls to other vehicles providing goods and services.

There were surveys done which indicated that in general, the increase in cycle commuting was people moving from public transport to cycles, not motorists to cycling. The cost of commuting moving ever higher.

The money to run London still needs to be found, as offices close and less people commute by public transport, or road…where do they get it from?

Cyclists might get everything they wish for, together with some things they didn’t.

Or it might all turn out fantastic and better for everyone as politicians make smart and innovative decisions.

Pompeyexile

I think they should build a vast network of underground utility tunnels like they have at Disney and in Westworld (great programme). Workers and goods all get transported around in those and there are places they can pop up and do what they need to and then disappear again. As for transport…Electric trams, automated taxis like in Total Recall or cycle lanes or shankses Pony.

Well, we are talking of a Utopia here.

Gagaryn

Starting again at year zero would certainly mean that we aren’t burdened with trying to fix the issues that exist. But unfortunately it is too expensive and would take too long and would be unpopular. Our elected lords and masters are in charge for five years max before the unwashed proletariat need to decide whether they continue or we get a new lot who are much the same but a bit different. Telling people that they are going to have to give up their cars and that taxation will need to increase so that all transport infrastructure is replaced is a sure fire way of losing control. That’s why it’s inevitable that we get continued low level pain, short term measures that only moderately piss off everyone and that make no meaningful difference. The cycle is endless, it will never change, we are doomed to mediocrity until democracy is overthrown by a benign dictator with a penchant for electric buses, monorails and recumbants.

DavecUK

Gagaryn Starting again at year zero would certainly mean that we aren’t burdened with trying to fix the issues that exist. But unfortunately it is too expensive and would take too long and would be unpopular.

I personally think we had our chance with the building of new towns 3 or 4 decades ago, but didn’t take it. I watched a documentary (very long time ago) that talked about living where we work. I think that might have been the way forward longer term. The way we currently do things is a bit of a nonsense.

London IMO is becoming a failed city, due to ever increasing infrastructure in what is an unfit design…it was never really planned. Many decisions taken over the last 70 years were madness. Even trams, I think getting rid of those was a huge mistake…with the average traffic and bus speed in London…I think trams would now be quite relevant, definitely electric buses. The huge problem is the wrong mix of transport options.

Even when I was young and commuted I never really understood why we allowed it to happen…why do we all need to work in the same place, it wasn’t as If I ever left my London building to go to another one, my office could have been anywhere really. I remember being in a high level planning meeting for an office move of around 400 people. The plan was placed on the table and there was the M25, with a cluster of red dots around Dartford area about 980 of them, all within 15 miles of each other and near a large business park with plenty of parking. Almost 60 miles away the opposite side of the M25 was a single dot and the proposed office was 4 miles from that dot. I asked why the proposed building was 60 miles from where 98% of the people were living….it turns out the single red dot was the head of the division (and a board member) of the unit!

All the new towns, the M25, the business parks had the chance of changing this and doing it better…but it appears that nothing really changes. I’m even baffled as to why we move freight by Lorry and not by train into a central London depot, then distribute from there.

I think the biggest problem is one of self-interest for the decision makers, the hold that big business has on them and of course on our political system. I don’t much like Ian Hislop and I am not getting political, just using it as an example of how decisions may not be made for the best reasons. It’s well worth a watch and almost certainly applies to many areas outside politics, where decisions are made that affect us all.

Pompeyexile

A lot of the problems also lie with us the public… in too much of a hurry, can’t wait, need to get there quick, not prepared to share a space with anyone else unless forced to do so and often, simply don’t like change.

To stop the congestion you have to take vehicles off the road it is as simple as that. But… that would be putting a lot of people out of work like taxi drivers, delivery drivers… traffic wardens…cough!

But seriously, if it is just a case of cutting emissions then the only way is electric or banning. Electric buses for a start and I know there are already electric black cabs. The real issue is deliveries, lorries vans whatever and until there is a viable cheap electric or other non carbon emitting substitute, then banning is the only way…except you can’t because nothing would get done, so they charge them instead.

To get commuters out of their cars you have to provide a service that people want to use, which means it must be cheap, reliable and plenty of it. Buses and trams are of course great, but they can’t take you down every street, you still have to walk a certain distance in all weathers to get to your place of work etc whereas taxis take you door to door.

Yes, there are a lot of people who walk and bike in London, but just the amount of traffic shows there are a heck of a lot who either choose not to or can’t.

You may force the every day public out of their vehicles by charging, but that doesn’t work for the transport of goods and services. All that happens is the cost is passed on to the public.

Just how much revenue does the City of London or any other major city in the country get from charges, fines, parking etc? I bet it is huge. But, does it all go back on keeping the citie’s transport infrastructure up-to-date? I wonder.

There is no easy answer, no quick fix. Having said that, any fix can only work if attitudes towards transport change as a whole, by the public, industry as well as the government.

I know someone who will get in his car to travel a hundred yards out of our close, cross the street and another 100 yards down another road to get something, rather than take the three or four minutes to walk it. There are a lot of people with that attitude.

« Previous Page