Advanced Driving Hub

For me, this review is important for horse riders, who are probably the most vulnerable in this group, but there are keen cyclists on here and we all walk

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... rse-riders

Some of this has already been in the HC but rarely followed by motorists. On a cycle I've been regularly cut up by cars turning, vehicles not observing ASL, cars passing much too close (on a number of occasions I've had an elbow clipped).

Trouble is will people read the HC and follow the rules/guidelines?

Overtaking cyclists in my part of the world is particularly bad. Being on the Surrey Hills cycling is very popular and the number of cars that overtake them in the face of oncoming vehicles or on blind bends is unbelievable. On every drive I can expect to witness several cases of this dangerous behaviour.

I doubt these proposed changes will make much difference to the attitude of car drivers. So many, when getting behind the wheel, throw common sense out of the window and adopt an attitude that they can do what they want regardless to get to their destination.

I don't apologies for my rant. I'm passionate about driving and hate seeing other motorists behaving in such selfish ways which reflects on the rest of us.

jcochrane wrote:Trouble is will people read the HC and follow the rules/guidelines?

No, and that was one point I made when giving feedback. Most motorists won't have touched a HC since they passed their driving test.

I disagree with some of the priority changes that will create more conflict and possibly cause accidents (traffic stopping on a main road because someone was about to turn off but has now had to stop to give priority to a pedestrian/cyclist who might be about to cross a road, and if you have a busy side road it's going to create a lot more congestion while traffic has to wait for a gap). It might make sense in 20mph limits, but doesn't make sense on higher speed limit roads. Some of the space requirements for overtaking seem a little optimistic too (in that some roads aren't wide enough, but I don't believe not meeting them would be inherently unsafe).

Encouraging cyclists into conflict with motorists doesn't seem sensible either. Not much use being right if you still end up in casualty/dead. I'd quite like to see a ban on organised cycling events unless the road is fully closed to other traffic. Roads are just too busy now for it to make sense.

If we really want people cycling/walking more, we need to build better infrastructure. If that means we need to knock down some buildings in historic cities, let's get on with it. Those buildings are blighting the lovely fields that were there before anyway.

jont- wrote:I disagree with some of the priority changes that will create more conflict and possibly cause accidents (traffic stopping on a main road because someone was about to turn off but has now had to stop to give priority to a pedestrian/cyclist who might be about to cross a [side] road

I've generally taken the existing rule to mean that when a person is about to take a step into the side road to cross it, or is already crossing, then I as motorist should try not to run them over. I'm not sure I see that aspect changing significantly, if I've understood correctly.

It strikes me as just another round of new rules/laws backed up by new/bigger fines as a poor substitute for better education.
As has already been pointed out, nobody reads HC after their test unless they are "a bit weird" or they are forced to for a course/test - we are in the first category.
For any Govt, education is hard. Making rules is easy and if you have a big stick then why bother with the hard stuff.

Strangely Brown wrote:It strikes me as just another round of new rules/laws backed up by new/bigger fines as a poor substitute for better education.
As has already been pointed out, nobody reads HC after their test unless they are "a bit weird" or they are forced to for a course/test - we are in the first category.
For any Govt, education is hard. Making rules is easy and if you have a big stick then why bother with the hard stuff.

I wonder how many can be enforced by camera, given the paucity of trafpol?

jcochrane wrote:...I don't apologies for my rant. I'm passionate about driving and hate seeing other motorists behaving in such selfish ways which reflects on the rest of us.

No it's not a 'rant' John - I think many here believe the same as you.

Accelerating through a long amber traffic light 'to beat the red', tailgating, overtaking anything closely, not putting headlights on as it get dark, stopping over a 'stop line', fiddling with a mobile phone even when stopped - are some of my pet hates - I'm sure other people here have their own.

Why can't everyone just drive like us!

The changes/clarifications that I think will cause the most issue are giving way, if turning left/right in a motor vehicle, to pedestrians or cyclists.

Up to now you made sensible observations and speed adjustments but now, the changes will encourage significant undertaking by cyclists in queuing traffic where cars are waiting to turn left. Also up to now I've given way to peds already crossing, but having to stop if they are waiting at the kerb edge (other than for defined crossings) is going to cause chaos/rear end shunts. We already have the surly characters who cross the road glaring at you in defiance, or are miles away with their earphones in. This has just given them priority to wander aimlessly and it will be the drivers fault if they are hit.

Sadly, these rule changes are necessary as many drivers are way to arrogant when sharing the road. They will still drive the same. Those of us who obey the rules will then be put at risk for stopping (see the other topic about riding/driving at the posted limit, where the limit is ignored by everyone else).

Ta Da

And the IAM News Release today is titled
"UK drivers and motorcyclists unconvinced by proposed new Highway Code fearing more conflict with cyclists and pedestrians"

There's a surprise...

Just in case anyone missed the results of the IAM's survey (login not needed):
UK drivers and motorcyclists unconvinced by proposed new Highway Code fearing more conflict with cyclists and pedestrians

One thing missing from the survey was a breakdown of how many of those completing it were regular cyclists or riders. This may be related to my perception that the membership really don't like to share the road:

IAM Survey wrote:The new Code doesn’t suggest any obligation on cyclists to use cycle lanes or tracks when they are present, and a resounding 80 per cent of IAM RoadSmart’s poll respondents believe this is a mistake.

At least the new proposals have some clarification on riding two abreast:

DfT proposed change wrote:[cyclists’ should] ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so. When riding in larger groups on narrow lanes, it is sometimes safer to ride two abreast

and on road positioning:

DfT proposed change wrote: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 move over to the left if you can do so safely so that faster vehicles behind you can overtake when the traffic around you starts to flow more freely
─ at the approach to junctions or road narrowings where it would be unsafe for drivers to overtake you

DfT proposed change wrote:2/ 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 0.5m away from the kerb edge. Remember that traffic on most dual carriageways moves quickly. Take extra care crossing slip roads.

although I'm not sure that 0.5m is a good starting point - it needs more emphasis on "at least."