mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Comparing https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...ion-proposals-on-a-review-of-the-highway-code with my rant at https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/bad-cycling-advice-in-the-highway-code.262435/ makes me think this...
Rule 59: The clothing gibberish seems to be left unchanged and they double down on the helmet promotion by cherry-picking evidence. Bad move.
Rule 60: Unchanged. Complying with this rule still won't be enough to make you legally lit.
Rule 61: Merged with Rule 63 and rephrased. Still inaccurate because, as we all know, not all cycleways "are provided for safety" as the proposed new wording claims. Some of them are legitimately provided to make cycling faster or easier (allowing red light bypasses or turns banned to motorists) and some are dodgily provided so the old men in limos can basically say "get orf moi roahd" in reply to fault reports from cyclists.
Rule 64: unfixed.
Rule 66: the old wording is "ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends" and the new is even worse "ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so" - no no no. Cyclists should not have to decide if it is safe for drivers to overtake. Two abreast always, please.
Rule 67: "be aware of traffic coming up behind you" was the bad old wording. It's not clear to me whether it survives.
Rule 68: unfixed?
Rule 69: unchanged despite being patently false.
Rule 71: a good change about ASLs which I think solves the problem!
Rule 72: was not on my rant list but the new wording puts cyclists too close to the kerb (0.5m!) and makes them responsible for deciding whether it's safe for drivers to overtake. The instruction to ride centre-lane on quiet or slow roads and junctions is good, though.
Rule 74: the crap advice "It may be safer to wait on the left until there is a safe gap or to dismount and push your cycle across the road" remains in the rewrite.
Rule 75: wasn't on my original rant and the new wording fails to mention that you can pretty much always make a two-stage turn at signal-controlled junctions even if there aren't markings, or to suggest how it should be done: I prefer to stop to the right of the crossing, to maximise the advanced-start over the motorists like an ASL, but there's still no guidance on this.
Old Rule 77 (new 79): they've actually strengthened the dodgy suggestion to "If you are turning right you can ride in the left or right-hand lanes". As I understand it, this is basically a lethal hangover from the bad old 1970s Cycling Proficiency Test which should be deleted entirely now.
Old rule 79 (new 81): apparently unfixed despite being completely out of date!
Old Rule 81 (merged with 80 and 82 to become 82): still crap but requires a law change to fix properly. Still needs better advice on level crossings.
Other than that, the changed rule 140 is great, finally directing "You should give way to cyclists approaching or using the cycle track when turning into or out of a junction" and reminding all users "cyclists are not obliged to use cycle lanes or cycle tracks". Rule 167 is a similar reminder not to left hook cyclists in cycle lanes either. Rule 163 at long last establishes 1.5m and 2.0m passing distances.
Many of the other changes look like simple updates to match current law, or mirrors of the above. Dutch Reach gets in, which I'm not too excited about but it's no worse than what it replaces.
Rule 59: The clothing gibberish seems to be left unchanged and they double down on the helmet promotion by cherry-picking evidence. Bad move.
Rule 60: Unchanged. Complying with this rule still won't be enough to make you legally lit.
Rule 61: Merged with Rule 63 and rephrased. Still inaccurate because, as we all know, not all cycleways "are provided for safety" as the proposed new wording claims. Some of them are legitimately provided to make cycling faster or easier (allowing red light bypasses or turns banned to motorists) and some are dodgily provided so the old men in limos can basically say "get orf moi roahd" in reply to fault reports from cyclists.
Rule 64: unfixed.
Rule 66: the old wording is "ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends" and the new is even worse "ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so" - no no no. Cyclists should not have to decide if it is safe for drivers to overtake. Two abreast always, please.
Rule 67: "be aware of traffic coming up behind you" was the bad old wording. It's not clear to me whether it survives.
Rule 68: unfixed?
Rule 69: unchanged despite being patently false.
Rule 71: a good change about ASLs which I think solves the problem!
Rule 72: was not on my rant list but the new wording puts cyclists too close to the kerb (0.5m!) and makes them responsible for deciding whether it's safe for drivers to overtake. The instruction to ride centre-lane on quiet or slow roads and junctions is good, though.
Rule 74: the crap advice "It may be safer to wait on the left until there is a safe gap or to dismount and push your cycle across the road" remains in the rewrite.
Rule 75: wasn't on my original rant and the new wording fails to mention that you can pretty much always make a two-stage turn at signal-controlled junctions even if there aren't markings, or to suggest how it should be done: I prefer to stop to the right of the crossing, to maximise the advanced-start over the motorists like an ASL, but there's still no guidance on this.
Old Rule 77 (new 79): they've actually strengthened the dodgy suggestion to "If you are turning right you can ride in the left or right-hand lanes". As I understand it, this is basically a lethal hangover from the bad old 1970s Cycling Proficiency Test which should be deleted entirely now.
Old rule 79 (new 81): apparently unfixed despite being completely out of date!
Old Rule 81 (merged with 80 and 82 to become 82): still crap but requires a law change to fix properly. Still needs better advice on level crossings.
Other than that, the changed rule 140 is great, finally directing "You should give way to cyclists approaching or using the cycle track when turning into or out of a junction" and reminding all users "cyclists are not obliged to use cycle lanes or cycle tracks". Rule 167 is a similar reminder not to left hook cyclists in cycle lanes either. Rule 163 at long last establishes 1.5m and 2.0m passing distances.
Many of the other changes look like simple updates to match current law, or mirrors of the above. Dutch Reach gets in, which I'm not too excited about but it's no worse than what it replaces.
