Highway Code revision

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
They have this thing now called direct debit, it's great when I CBA to insure and pay VED in the same month :okay:
1. You still need to put the money in the DD account.
2. If they fark up the DD, then they guarantee you the refund if they overcharge, but they don't pay your fines if they undercharge or miss a charge and you're caught driving without a valid VED licence, so you still need to check it.
 
OP
snorri

snorri

Legendary Member
Always been igurant wi words, but I think we are getting to the stage where a license for life has to be challenged, periodic testing, random testing or sometime, the quality/skill of drivers is plummeting.
I believe the problem is one of mental aptitude, not a lowering of driving skills.
The vast majority of drivers could drive competently under supervision for the short time it takes to undergo a driving test.
 

BoldonLad

Über Member
Location
South Tyneside
1. You still need to put the money in the DD account.
2. If they fark up the DD, then they guarantee you the refund if they overcharge, but they don't pay your fines if they undercharge or miss a charge and you're caught driving without a valid VED licence, so you still need to check it.
Sorry, off topic but...

Youngest daughter was a financial disaster in her early years. Improved now (42).

At one point, threaten with eviction, rent arrears, court, for Council Tax arrears.

We sat down, I cleared the debts, then, convinced her to set up Direct Debits.

Three months later, debts mounting again.

Harsh words.

Daughter: "but, Dad, you said to set up Direct Debits, and, I have"
Me: "Yes, but, there has to be money left in the account to pay them!"

;)
 

T.M.H.N.E.T

Disc brakes - Stopping things since 1902
Location
Northern Ireland
1. You still need to put the money in the DD account.
2. If they fark up the DD, then they guarantee you the refund if they overcharge, but they don't pay your fines if they undercharge or miss a charge and you're caught driving without a valid VED licence, so you still need to check it.
Open bank app, swipe finger. Massively difficult task :laugh:
 
I am very concerned about the proposed new wording on the 'single file' issue. I sent the following to the consultation feedback address:




I wish to express my deep anxiety about the following wording:

“[cyclists’ should] ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake . . .”

This seems to me to be extremely dangerous.

How are cyclists supposed to know that a driver wishes to overtake?

Is there to be an automatic assumption that a driver behind cyclists wishes to overtake?

What about cyclists doing 18 in a 20 zone, or 28 in a 30 zone? (Neither of which would be particularly unusual.)

If not, how are drivers supposed to communicate that wish?

It seems to me that this wording is highly likely to encourage and reinforce existing ‘bullying behaviours’ by drivers, such as illegal use of the horn, revving the engine, or driving dangerously close behind.

I would suggest the point be made the other way round, with some form of wording such as:

“Groups of two or more cyclists should only ride single file if they feel it is safe to do so. Remember that it will take much longer for a driver to complete an overtake of a group in single file, than a group riding two abreast. In both cases, the driver should use the opposite lane, and only pass if they can see it is safe to do so.”

Thank you for considering this proposal.
 

matticus

Über Member
I wish to express my deep anxiety about the following wording:

“[cyclists’ should] ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake . . .”
Shame you could only be bothered reading the first nine words.

<sigh>
 

matticus

Über Member
To be fair, they are the only 9 words that will stick in the mind of motorists.
Currently, most think we must not ride 2-abreast. How can this make things worse?

(The wording ISNT perfect, but it IS a huge improvement on the current edition.)
 
Matticus, I don’t really understand your comment. I quoted the words that alarmed me. I did actually read the rest of the relevant sections, and that wording was what jumped out at me as a cause for concern.

‘How can this make things worse?’ -well, I thought that was exactly what I was explaining in my post.

This Highway Code revision is a big deal for cyclists. If we don’t make our feelings known we could be lumbered with something even more awful for a very long time.
 

matticus

Über Member
It's quite simple; the entire paragraph (or indeed, just the 1st sentence) has a very different meaning to the partial quote you gave.

I could misleadingly quote from the current HC:
Rule 66. You should. keep both hands on the handlebars
or
Rule 64 You MUST NOT cycle
 

T.M.H.N.E.T

Disc brakes - Stopping things since 1902
Location
Northern Ireland
Frying pan into the fire.

Majority of anti-cycling rhetoric is the belief that riding two abreast is illegal when in fact the wording of the advice is "no more than two abreast" the current suggested revision isn't better than this. However it does strengthen the need to give space when overtaking, which is contrary to the single file "suggestion" in the revision. (as explained in my initial post on P1)

No idea how often the HC is truly revised, we have a chance do to some good moving forward - the wording needs to be challenged, amended and correct.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom