|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Spot the difference!
On 26/10/2020 14:14, JNugent wrote:
The AA and RAC not even consulted? They are merely car mechanics. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Spot the difference... | brianrob1961 | UK | 38 | September 2nd 13 01:38 PM |
Spot the odd one out | Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_] | UK | 18 | October 6th 11 07:09 AM |
Front Mech's: Spot the Difference | Duncan Smith | UK | 10 | September 11th 07 09:22 AM |
slipping chain at same spot (and only that spot) | Maurice W | UK | 5 | June 3rd 07 09:49 AM |
170's to 150's = not much difference - 150's to 127's = whoa!...big difference! | babyivan | Unicycling | 11 | November 15th 05 08:27 PM |