Spot the difference!
 

Cyclists demand new right to ride side by side
( Headline in printed copy of The Times)

New Highway Code rules to protect cyclists riding side by side
( Headline in electronic edition!)
Will Humphries


Monday October 26 2020, 9.00am, The Times


Cycling UK and British Cycling argue that riding two abreast is safer

Motorists who blast their horn while stuck behind cyclists riding two
abreast on narrow roads have been told to stay calm by a proposed
updating of the Highway Code.

Two abreast is the safest way to go, a revised Rule 66 would advise. It
tells cyclists they should feel the need to switch to single file only
“if you consider it safer to allow drivers to overtake”.

At present the rule tells cyclists: “You should . . . never ride more
than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and
round bends.” Cycling bodies have complained that this puts cyclists in
danger because riding in single file often encourages drivers to
overtake without sufficient passing distance and at dangerous places.

Cycling UK and British Cycling argue that riding two abreast is safer
because cyclists are more visible and motorists are deterred from passing.

The government plans to overhaul the Highway Code this year. A public
consultation on its proposed changes ends tomorrow.


Cycling UK proposed the new wording after consultation with clubs. The
rule reads: “You can ride two abreast and it is often safer to do so,
particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less
experienced riders. Switch to single file if you consider it safer to
allow drivers to overtake.”

They say this highlights the reasons why riding two abreast can be safer
and suggests riding in single file only when it is safe to allow drivers
to overtake.

Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns for Cycling UK, said that the rule
as it stood was misunderstood. “We regularly had situations where police
officers would misunderstand it,” he said. “It encouraged people to
think it was fine to overtake cyclists on a bend.”



It read: “[Cyclists should] ride in single file when drivers wish to
overtake and it is safe to let them do so.”

Cyclists said, however, that drivers could interpret this to suggest
that a bike rider should move into single file when a motorist wanted to
overtake.

Mr Dollimore said that the proposed wording made it clear that the
cyclists should move into single file only when they considered it safe.
Because of time pressures motoring groups were not involved in the new
rule. “The Department for Transport was keen to clarify the issue of
riding two abreast,” he said. “I am hopeful they will accept our new
proposal but I have no particular intelligence to say they are happy
with it.”

Boris Johnson announced a consultation into proposed changes to the
Highway Code in July to make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists.

A key feature of the proposals is the idea of a “hierarchy of
responsibility”, with road users who can cause the greatest harm having
a greater responsibility to reduce the threat they pose to others. The
proposals also suggest that drivers should give way to cyclists at
junctions.

Spot the difference!
 

On 26/10/2020 11:47, colwyn wrote:
Cyclists demand new right to ride side by side
( Headline in printed copy of The Times)

New Highway Code rules to protect cyclists riding side by side
( Headline in electronic edition!)
Will Humphries


Monday October 26 2020, 9.00am, The Times


Cycling UK and British Cycling argue that riding two abreast is safer

Motorists who blast their horn while stuck behind cyclists riding two
abreast on narrow roads have been told to stay calm by a proposed
updating of the Highway Code.

Two abreast is the safest way to go, a revised Rule 66 would advise. It
tells cyclists they should feel the need to switch to single file only
“if you consider it safer to allow drivers to overtake”.

At present the rule tells cyclists: “You should . . . never ride more
than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and
round bends.” Cycling bodies have complained that this puts cyclists in
danger because riding in single file often encourages drivers to
overtake without sufficient passing distance and at dangerous places.

Cycling UK and British Cycling argue that riding two abreast is safer
because cyclists are more visible and motorists are deterred from passing.

The government plans to overhaul the Highway Code this year. A public
consultation on its proposed changes ends tomorrow.


Cycling UK proposed the new wording after consultation with clubs. The
rule reads: “You can ride two abreast and it is often safer to do so,
particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less
experienced riders. Switch to single file if you consider it safer to
allow drivers to overtake.”

They say this highlights the reasons why riding two abreast can be safer
and suggests riding in single file only when it is safe to allow drivers
to overtake.

Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns for Cycling UK, said that the rule
as it stood was misunderstood. “We regularly had situations where police
officers would misunderstand it,” he said. “It encouraged people to
think it was fine to overtake cyclists on a bend.”



It read: “[Cyclists should] ride in single file when drivers wish to
overtake and it is safe to let them do so.”

Cyclists said, however, that drivers could interpret this to suggest
that a bike rider should move into single file when a motorist wanted to
overtake.

Mr Dollimore said that the proposed wording made it clear that the
cyclists should move into single file only when they considered it safe.
Because of time pressures motoring groups were not involved in the new
rule. “The Department for Transport was keen to clarify the issue of
riding two abreast,” he said. “I am hopeful they will accept our new
proposal but I have no particular intelligence to say they are happy
with it.”

Boris Johnson announced a consultation into proposed changes to the
Highway Code in July to make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists.

A key feature of the proposals is the idea of a “hierarchy of
responsibility”, with road users who can cause the greatest harm having
a greater responsibility to reduce the threat they pose to others. The
proposals also suggest that drivers should give way to cyclists at
junctions.

The AA and RAC not even consulted?

Spot the difference!
 

On 26/10/2020 14:14, JNugent wrote:

The AA and RAC not even consulted?

They are merely car mechanics.

Spot the difference!
 

On Monday, October 26, 2020 at 11:47:38 AM UTC, colwyn wrote:
Cyclists demand new right to ride side by side
( Headline in printed copy of The Times)


This was discussed on LBC this morning (see : Drivers 'urged to be aware that cyclists are allowed to ride side-by-side') by me today.

Spot the difference!
 

On Monday, October 26, 2020 at 3:00:16 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

They are merely car mechanics.

Didn't they use to warn speeding drivers of a police speed trap ahead?
Serial lawbreakers too.

Spot the difference!
 

On 26/10/2020 15:13, Simon Mason wrote:

On Monday, October 26, 2020 at 3:00:16 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

They are merely car mechanics.

Didn't they use to warn speeding drivers of a police speed trap ahead?
Serial lawbreakers too.

So when the "story" says (in terms) that there simply isn't time to act
fairly and consult organisations which can speak on behalf of the vast
majority (ie, those who travel by motor vehicle of one sort or another),
have you any idea which organisations they might have meant?

Or have you no idea?