Changes to the highway code.

[Stu's Brews]

Quick question: how likely is it that a cyclist doesn't also own a car? In the US there is no correlation.
thanks

I would say the vast majority of cyclists in the UK also own a car, at least for those that are over the age of 17 and can therefore drive a car.

Probably slightly different in the big cities where owning a car isn't as important.

 

[Stu's Brews]

@ stu's brews

so no change? Why would you do any of those things?
I don't see that as giving priority to cyclists, that's just what you do.

Unfortunately some people (admittedly a minority) do currently do it - I've had cars cut across my path on many occasions. It was never specifically referenced in the Highway Code before so them adding it now just reinforces what a lot of people already do as common sense.

 

[Bjorn Toulouse]

As a side thought, the problem is the British are a cross between the Germans and the Italians when it comes to driving.
Germans follow all the rules and it works.
Italians follow none of the rules and it works.
The British follow some of the rules and not others and its all done on an individual basis, because we are all the most important person on the planet.

 

[DavidDetroit]

vast majority

That confirms that any discussion about who pays for the roads is a moot point--that plus the article posted above about where and how your taxes are used as it applies to the roads.

 

[Eskimo John]

Increasingly I see moped and motorcycle delivery drivers behaving dangerously on the roads about me. It seems that most or them have L plates up and so have probably never had any instruction on how to ride a motorcycle. I have a full M/C licence and have had one for over 40 years and am only to aware of the dangers and vulnerability that this form of getting from A to B can present.
It seems crazy that we alow untested motorcyclists to take on jobs as delivery drivers.

 

[Pavros]

Have they removed the roundabout rule that you give way to the person on your right?

To be clear, they have not removed the rule that says you have to give way to the right on a roundabout. Cyclists, as with any other vehicle on the roads, are still obliged to give way to any traffic coming from the right. There is no need for vehicles to stop on a roundabout to give way.

This is the new rule relating to giving priority to cyclists:

Summary of the consultation proposals on a review of The Highway Code
Rule H3: Rule for drivers and motorcyclists
You should not cut across cyclists going ahead when turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether cyclists are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.

Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist going straight ahead to stop or swerve, just as you would do with a motor vehicle.

You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary. This includes when cyclists are:

• approaching, passing or moving off from a junction
• moving past or waiting alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic
• travelling around a roundabout

It specifically relates to situations where a vehicle overtakes a cyclist, and then immediately makes a turn (e.g. a left-turn into a junction) that cuts across the path of the cyclist.

I agree with Stu's Brews interpretation of the new rule. HOWEVER, breakfast tv (can't remember whether it was BBC or ITV) said yesterday that they had had a lawyer look at the wording of the new rule and his interpretation was that vehicles should technically/legally stop on a roundabout to give priority to cyclists wanting to join the roundabout. I think he was trying to say that the wording used had been badly drafted so this situation 'could' apply. I think this would defy all logic and safety and potentially would make road markings redundant.

 

[Stu's Brews]

I agree with Stu's Brews interpretation of the new rule. HOWEVER, breakfast tv (can't remember whether it was BBC or ITV) said yesterday that they had had a lawyer look at the wording of the new rule and his interpretation was that vehicles should technically/legally stop on a roundabout to give priority to cyclists wanting to join the roundabout. I think he was trying to say that the wording used had been badly drafted so this situation 'could' apply. I think this would defy all logic and safety and potentially would make road markings redundant.

I'm not a lawyer but if I had to guess then it is this part that they are suggesting is ambiguous:

You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary. This includes when cyclists are:

• approaching, passing or moving off from a junction

as it could be argued that this applies to a cyclist approaching a roundabout.

However, I would say that the preceding lines referring to not cutting across cyclists "when turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane" makes it clear that the rule only applies for situations where a vehicle is making a turn; not for when a cycling is approaching a roundabout.

 

[Bernie]

As a side thought, the problem is the B
The British follow some of the rules and not others and its all done on an individual basis, because we are all the most important person on the planet.

A bit harsh. The road safety record in Britain is quite good, mainly, because of the stricter measures on speeding and drink driving.

 

[Bjorn Toulouse]

Bernie
I just call it as I see it, I love driving and riding in Germany and Italy different road culture.
I hate driving anywhere near the M25 because each individual's journey seem to be the most important one on the planet.

The joy of motoring is not so much of joy anymore.

Still like heading up north though and the islands are just bliss

 

[Justin Dean]

As a side thought, the problem is the British are a cross between the Germans and the Italians when it comes to driving.
Germans follow all the rules and it works.
Italians follow none of the rules and it works.
The British follow some of the rules and not others and its all done on an individual basis, because we are all the most important person on the planet.

Sweeping statement. Not true either. The most important person in my life is my wife

 

[Chippy_Tea]

HOWEVER, breakfast tv (can't remember whether it was BBC or ITV) said yesterday that they had had a lawyer look at the wording of the new rule and his interpretation was that vehicles should technically/legally stop on a roundabout to give priority to cyclists wanting to join the roundabout. I

I saw that and it was the reason i asked this earlier in the thread -

Have they removed the roundabout rule that you give way to the person on your right?

 

[Pavros]

I saw that and it was the reason i asked this earlier in the thread -

I think they are just trying to provoke as usual by saying that the new rules are badly drafted/ambiguous. I think Stu's Brews has nailed it here...

I'm not a lawyer but if I had to guess then it is this part that they are suggesting is ambiguous:

You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary. This includes when cyclists are:

• approaching, passing or moving off from a junction

as it could be argued that this applies to a cyclist approaching a roundabout.

However, I would say that the preceding lines referring to not cutting across cyclists "when turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane" makes it clear that the rule only applies for situations where a vehicle is making a turn; not for when a cycling is approaching a roundabout.

 

[The Baron]

Just to make things clear regards Vehicle Excise Duty this where the money goes.
The money this raises is paid directly into the central government fund, which is used for projects that benefit everyone – including road work and maintenance. i.e Pot holes etc
So in theory people who pay VED do contribute more to the road up keep amongst other things. The money is also used for the like of community projects etc

 

[The Baron]

The VED is at this moment going through a transition which has been caught up in the Coronavirus problem and this is how it is being proposed to be used in the very near future.

Although VED is often referred to as road tax, this is misleading. The tax isn’t on the road: it’s on the vehicles that use it. Road tax was abolished in the 1930s and the cost of maintaining the UK’s roads is currently covered by general taxation, not specifically VED.

However, in his 2015 budget, then-chancellor George Osborne announced that a new road fund would be set up whereby all funds raised through VED will go into the building and upkeep of the UK road system. This new system was implemented by Rishi Sunak in his 2020 budget, but scheduled road works are likely to be pushed back as a result of the coronavirus outbreak.

 

[Stu's Brews]

The VED is at this moment going through a transition which has been caught up in the Coronavirus problem and this is how it is being proposed to be used in the very near future.

Although VED is often referred to as road tax, this is misleading. The tax isn’t on the road: it’s on the vehicles that use it. Road tax was abolished in the 1930s and the cost of maintaining the UK’s roads is currently covered by general taxation, not specifically VED.

However, in his 2015 budget, then-chancellor George Osborne announced that a new road fund would be set up whereby all funds raised through VED will go into the building and upkeep of the UK road system. This new system was implemented by Rishi Sunak in his 2020 budget, but scheduled road works are likely to be pushed back as a result of the coronavirus outbreak.

Probably worth pointing out that this new road fund is primarily targeted at building new or upgrading existing infrastructure rather than funding maintenance of existing roads.

 

[The Baron]

So building new and upgrading existing infrastructure would include new cycle lanes to existing infrastructure and new ones as the government are wanting to promote cycling

 

[Stu's Brews]

So building new and upgrading existing infrastructure would include new cycle lanes to existing infrastructure and new ones as the government are wanting to promote cycling

According to this article it would mostly be roads that would see the investment: Chancellor announces £27bn for roadbuilding in budget

In the same budget that the £27billion investment in roads was announced, £257million was provisioned for 'active travel', which covers cycling and walking.

 

[Bernie]

The VED is at this moment going through a transition which has been caught up in the Coronavirus problem and this is how it is being proposed to be used in the very near future.

Although VED is often referred to as road tax, this is misleading. The tax isn’t on the road: it’s on the vehicles that use it. Road tax was abolished in the 1930s and the cost of maintaining the UK’s roads is currently covered by general taxation, not specifically VED.

However, in his 2015 budget, then-chancellor George Osborne announced that a new road fund would be set up whereby all funds raised through VED will go into the building and upkeep of the UK road system. This new system was implemented by Rishi Sunak in his 2020 budget, but scheduled road works are likely to be pushed back as a result of the coronavirus outbreak.

There is more to the cost of motor vehicles borne by society than simply road maintenance: 1 administration of vehicles at DVLA and other authorities; 2 policing; 3 legislation and courts; 4 pollution, including atmospheric, noise; 5 destruction of the countryside; 6 hospitalisations. Nearly all this is caused by motorised transport.

 

[The Baron]

The devil is in the detail and if you read the full government projection this what was stated

He also promised to “return this to the use for which it was originally intended”, by creating a new road fund. “Every single penny will go into the sustained investment our roads so badly need. Tax paid on people’s cars will be spent on the roads they drive on.”

 

[Stu's Brews]

The devil is in the detail and if you read the full government projection this what was stated

He also promised to “return this to the use for which it was originally intended”, by creating a new road fund. “Every single penny will go into the sustained investment our roads so badly need. Tax paid on people’s cars will be spent on the roads they drive on.”

This is true, but it is only a portion of the investment into roads. The rest will come from other sources of taxation such as council and income tax.