New Highway Code

Tony666

There was a debate a while back about the new highway code making it compulsory to use cycle lanes. This was published today and I am pleased to say it doesn't. The actual wording is:

61
Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

62
Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated). When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you.


[Law HA 1835 sect 72]

63
Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.


http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837

toontra

Well done to all those who campaigned for this!

Rob Sallnow

Excellent news!!! And well done to those that campaigned for it and those in government intelligent enough to go with it.

McBain_v1

I think that the most recent CTC mag touches on this as well. It seems that progress for cyclists is coming along in slow drips. Mind you, once peak oil hits I imagine that cyclists will have a bit more a voice, since all the cagers in their carbon-belching 4x4's will be papping it

Rob Sallnow

So is the arguement for being on the road that we are not experienced or skilled enough to use such badly designed cycle facilities?

OffTheBackAdam

Tony666 wrote:

When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you.

Nothing about "pedestrians MUST keep to the side intended for pedestrians"?
The concept of cyclepaths is good, good for the general cyclist, mum popping down to the shops, kids on BMXs, Grandad off to the allotment, but what about us lot, even the fat old gits like me, belting along at 20+mph (OK, it's downhill & a tailwind :oops: )?
Pedestrians with ears full of iPod/mobile phone, walking 4 abreast, don't even take notice of other pedestrians, let along cyclist closing rapidly, but quietly.
Mind you, we all should have bells, shouldn't we, then problem solved :roll:
As for carbon-belching 4x4s, a lot of them around here, driven by farmers, horse owners who need something to tow a trailer with (Don't have one ourselves, since we usually have 4 horses to carry to competitions & the like, it's a 7 1/2 tonner for us), people needing to tow trailers with their work-tools on.
They're not all Chelsea Tractors you know?

trailtrash

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Tony666 wrote:

Mind you, we all should have bells, shouldn't we, then problem solved :roll:

Only a couple of weeks ago I'm on the Tarka Trail (old railway track cycle/ped path) and I come up behind two women walking dogs and taking up the whole path (don't you just LOVE those extending dog leads?!). I've just crossed a road so the MP3 player is turned off. I ring the bell about 40m out. Nothing. I slow down and roll up, ring the bell again 10m out. Nothing. There are some cyclists approaching in the opposite direction so I decide to wait, let them past then go for the gap. At this point a roadie comes past me and squeezes past the women/dog group. Old women says:

'Ooh, they never use their bells do they!' :roll:

I opted for restraint but rang my bell right behind her while issuing a loud and impatient 'excuse me'. She bl***y heard me that time!!

toontra

trailtrash wrote:

I opted for restraint but rang my bell right behind her while issuing a loud and impatient 'excuse me'. She bl***y heard me that time!!

Perhaps the ladies would respond to a horn. Try an Airzound

Steve928

Tony666 wrote:

There was a debate a while back about the new highway code making it compulsory to use cycle lanes. This was published today and I am pleased to say it doesn't.

All those who took the trouble to petition the Govt. using the online e-petition process received an email in July notifying them of this successful result, and this amended text that would be included in the revised Highway Code.

Does that mean that no-one here in this thread bothered to complete the e-petition..?

Rob Sallnow

SteveNcp wrote:

Tony666 wrote:

There was a debate a while back about the new highway code making it compulsory to use cycle lanes. This was published today and I am pleased to say it doesn't.

All those who took the trouble to petition the Govt. using the online e-petition process received an email in July notifying them of this successful result, and this amended text that would be included in the revised Highway Code.

Does that mean that no-one here in this thread bothered to complete the e-petition..?

Well done Sherlock.

I didn't know of an e-petition on the subject although I did know the CTC were campaigning....and that is why I have thanked those that have been responsible for the change.

Shadowduck

To the OP: I already knew, but WOOT! anyway.

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

As for carbon-belching 4x4s, a lot of them around here, driven by farmers, horse owners who need something to tow a trailer with ... *snip* ... They're not all Chelsea Tractors you know?

I don't think the majority of people have too much of a problem with people who actually need 4X4s - it's the Discovery 3 for school runs and shopping trips or the Range Rover for the businessman's ego that grind my nads.

nwallace

McBain_v1 wrote:

I think that the most recent CTC mag touches on this as well. It seems that progress for cyclists is coming along in slow drips. Mind you, once peak oil hits I imagine that cyclists will have a bit more a voice, since all the cagers in their carbon-belching 4x4's will be papping it

Doubt it, there is limited chance of fast long distance personal transport dying a death, at worst gas can be created from coal, and there is lots of usable coal seams left locally.

At best battery and on-route generation technologies will have improved to a point that cars will be capable of straight line speeds even faster than at present, acceleration will probably be considerably better than internal combustion engines as well, they will be light and near silent.
At least with a growling V8 you can hear it approaching you.

The motorcar becoming affordable by the masses rather than the few (until then you got a motorbike or cyclecar if you could afford one but not a car) was part of a revolution in personal freedom, there is no way the masses would let go of that freedom without a fight.

HJ1976

I'm loving the fact they they are advising againt smoking whilst driving as I think it is more dangerous than eating or using your phone.......plus there is the arguement as to what to do with the stub....ashtray or aim for the cyclist?!?

I have a discovery, use it for transporting me, bikes/snowboards but never the school run as i always walk my daughter to school as it is better for her to walk than sit in a car for the half mile each way!!!

Cunobelin

What I find most amusing is thatthe "Countryside" 4x4s are all smaller (both in physical and engine size), better driven and better parked than the ones that are "essential" for Chelsea!

If a farmer can tow a trailer with these why can' t the average townie?


Anyway - back to the topic.....

There is a thread on the CTC website that started with the suggestion that the CTC has no right to be a "Political" organisation and campaign on such issues!

This has led to some "interesting comments"

nwallace

Cunobelin wrote:

What I find most amusing is thatthe "Countryside" 4x4s are all smaller (both in physical and engine size), better driven and better parked than the ones that are "essential" for Chelsea!

If a farmer can tow a trailer with these why can' t the average townie?

Horses for courses, your average farmer needs a Landy to drive through fields, haul trailers and to let their 5 year old child drive around a field in. Therefore a 1.8Tdi with low gearing is perfect.
Your average Chelsea tractor needs to be configured for pose factor and motorway cruising, therefore it needs a standard car range gearbox and big engine to haul it's self around with.
If a farmer or other countryside sort of person has a Landy with a 3.5 Litre Rover V8 it is probably for use on Hill Rallies and scaring the shit out of anyone daft enough to sit in the passenger seat (Done it, the passenger door lock failing mid-way through a special test just added to the fear).

Wonder if the difference in driving standards has anything to do with Farmers wanting to avoid non-agricultural use ones drawing attention to themselves to avoid tank checks.


The Radio 3 website has a copy of the Radio Tiems fro mthe First week of the Third Programme.
Note the Ministry of Transport advert on this page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/classical/thirdprogramme/gallery/gallery.shtml?25

Turnbull2000

Thank god that common sense has prevailed.

Spotted this touch of design genius by Sunderland council today. Your just begging to get mangled round those lampposts if you use it

Tom Butcher

I notice it's one of those nice wide roads that they narrow by putting cross hatching or whatever it's called down the middle of it. I realise this is probably for safety reasons to stop motorists colliding head on when overtaking but it's a pain for cyclists.