New Highway Code Rules

Posted on 29/01/2022 22:04 by allanandjean

Like others I am a “leisure cyclist” but due to the nature of our local roads, unlit, muddy, blind bends and with a 60MPH limit, I prefer to cycle off road.

Despite this I always wear hi-viz and have lights front and rear.

Yesterday at app 1730, on an unlit 60 limit road, I came across what appeared to be three cyclists, none of whom had any hi-viz and only two had lights, with the outermost having neither.

I could see it was clear so moved across to the opposite side and passed-to find another cyclist, again with no hi-viz or rear light, app 10-15 yds ahead.

So, as far as common sense and courtesy go this bunch seemed have neither.

 

 

Posted on 30/01/2022 15:20 by Navigateur

I would have thought that in this heirarchy it would be incumbent on those at greatest risk to take the greatest care about their own safety.

Posted on 30/01/2022 21:24 by mickysf

Of all the changes this to me is the most controversial and most commonsensical! What I don't understand is the use of language-‘should give way’ as opposed to ‘must give way’! What does that mean to the hard of understanding like me?

Posted on 30/01/2022 15:16 by Twos more then one

How many cars are painted in Hi Vis
The hierarchy is correct 
Maybe the reason  i have no problem with passing cyclist, and horse is i have always  given space as i passed them, and if it meant waiting ,then i have waited 
I know that if i hit a pedestrian,a cyclist or a horse with my vehicle ,it is them that will come worse off. so i have always done what the new Code requires 
If a cyclist is in the position they show in the Highway code. and you have not seem them, then you should not been driving a vehicle 
As a pedestrian a number of times i have had word with drivers, who did not know,or said they did not , that a pedestrian  had right of way at a junction. if the pedestrian was crossing before the car go to the junction,I have always given way , no big decal 
it is time that cars where put in there place, and responsibility place on the driver of vehicles for the safety of those more vulnerable 

Posted on 30/01/2022 21:34 by Tinwheeler

When used in the Highway Code, 'must' means it’s law while 'should' is not law but can be used as evidence against you in the event of a prosecution.

Posted on 31/01/2022 09:15 by mickysf

Is this law deliberately grey?  Is this rule merely guidance? Clarity is a must as for as the Highway Code is concerned in my opinion. Shouldn’t it be devoid of ambiguity and personal interpretation?

Posted on 31/01/2022 09:22 by Tinwheeler

See my post with link and screenshot in the other thread, Micky.

Posted on 31/01/2022 09:36 by mickysf

Thanks TW but I’m still non the wiser! There appears to be an infinite number of shades of grey when it comes to helping the hard of understanding! Oh, I count myself in that number!🤪👍