- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Passing distance (West Midlands Police).jpgGovernment needs to change Highway Code rules on overtaking cyclists and car dooring says Cycling UK
Cycling UK has asked that the government make the Highway Code rule about passing cyclists less open to interpretation by stating the gap that should be left. The charity would also like to see guidance introduced for vehicle occupants to use the ‘Dutch Reach’ method of opening car doors.
The government consultation: “Remote control parking and motorway assist: proposals for amending regulations and the Highway Code” is to look at the Highway Code changes needed to accommodate such technology.
The scope of the consultation means that there may also be changes to the rules around overtaking cyclists (Rule 160) and car dooring (Rule 239) – two areas which Cycling UK believes need updating.
Rule 160 advises that drivers should: “be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. These are more difficult to see than larger vehicles and their riders are particularly vulnerable. Give them plenty of room, especially if you are driving a long vehicle or towing a trailer”
Cycling UK argues that the phrasing “give them plenty of room” is too open to interpretation and would like guidance on the gap drivers should leave.
Surrey Police make video showing drivers how to overtake cyclists safely
Close passes account for a third of threatening encounters cyclists have with motor vehicles, according to research by Dr Rachel Aldred’s Near Miss Project. The project found that they are particularly a problem for women, who on average cycle more slowly than men, experiencing a 50 per cent higher rate of close passes.
Cycling UK would also like to see guidance introduced for people to use the opposite hand when opening a vehicle door to get out. The so-called Dutch Reach method twists the person so that they can’t help but look behind them as they open the door, reducing the likelihood that they will door a cyclist.
Rule 239 of the Highway Code currently states: “you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic”
Despite this, between 2011 and 2015, there were 3,108 reported collisions where “vehicle door opened or closed negligently” was recorded as a contributing factor in incidents attended by the police.
In July, the family of Sam Boulton, a cyclist who was killed when a taxi passenger opened its door into his path, joined Cycling UK in calling for the creation of a new offence of causing serious injury or death by car-dooring.
While the Government has acknowledged the need for updates to the Highway Code to keep up with advances in technology, the last full scale review occurred in 2007 and Cycling UK would like to see something similarly extensive carried out now.
Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s Head of Campaigns and Advocacy said: “Whether it was the intention or not, the new Highway Code review is on the right path for safer cycling. It gives government the opportunity to address two of the greatest dangers to vulnerable road users: close passing and car-dooring.
“However, to make the roads safer for everyone, it is clear the scale of this consultation is too limited.
“What’s needed as we move towards increased motor vehicle automation is a holistic, not piecemeal, review of the entire Highway Code, something which could and should have dovetailed with the long promised review of all road traffic offences and penalties that we were promised in May 2014 by then Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling MP."
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- quiff 3 sec ago
Interesting. I would have expected someone else (wearing gloves) to handle the swab and administer the test to minimise that sort of contamination....
- Veloism 8 min 14 sec ago
Lol at this article. The only reason Orro are well reviewed by roadcc is because they're all mates. This brand has zero "kudos" or a good...
- eburtthebike 15 min 21 sec ago
No problem: Trump's going to fix it. The same way the tories fixed the NHS, only much, much worse.
- stonojnr 1 hour 12 min ago
Yes, and plenty of people 'drive as correctly' as him on the roads round here, tbh I always expected this outcome, simply because of my experiences...
- the little onion 1 hour 28 min ago
The bus should have been bigger and brighter coloured. How are drivers expected to spot a bright yellow double decker bus on our roads?...
- HoarseMann 2 hours 20 min ago
BBC news article on this implies anyone cycling on the road, rather than using the cycle area, is riding incorrectly! ...
- festina 3 hours 44 min ago
One thing that definitely doesn't hold up emergency vehicles is the volume of car traffic on the road or the autobesity of cars that has been going...
- slc 4 hours 14 min ago
There is a modest scientific literature on cycling shoes. It is generally sceptical about the value of greater stiffness provided by say carbon...
- Jaijai 5 hours 3 min ago
This story on its own says that's not true ....
Add new comment
12 comments
I would prefer to concentrate on a much more narrow agenda; presumed liability for motorised vehicles with zero tolerance for no insurance, a minimum ban for a year as it is for drink driving.
For a country that is supposed to be so advanced in it's social responsibility it is beyond belief that the UK does not have this law. Only 4 countries in Europe do not have presumed liability in some form or another. UK, Romania, Cyprus and Malta. This is a disgrace to be honest.
British Cycling and Cycling UK should be campaigning hard for this to change. It would likely cause an overnight change in motorists attitude to vulnerable road users as they would not be able to hide behind weak and vague laws/ guidance.
I had a big off with the help of SMIDY, pulled out on me into a roundbout, ahh bang and down I went! I had no insurance but police came so did ambulance, big fuss not nice! He was ok at first but when found out how much my cheap 2300 BTwin triban 3 would be to replace and saw the me shaped dent in the side of his car became hostile! with no insurance I had to find his details using the database and then fight on my own, very long and just a hatefull pain (3 months!!). If I have broken somthing or needed a hospital admin not just a yellow purple arms legs hips ect then the police say that they would have taken it further but as I limped away no go!
To get on point, the whole highway code, police, insurance companys are stacked against us, call it institutional anti cycling, it is below the surface and it should stop, but its a big ask and as with our curent goverment I hold little hope.
Why didn't you go to hospital?
Seriously I've learnt now if you want to make life easier for yourself to chase/enforce certain things getting a hospital doctor to check you out is best.
Yes I know, my wife was a bit anoyed with me and prob not the best thing to do! A bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, I work for the local trust so I was a sure as I could be that I was ok, and I don't like lots of fuss! So I just had a moment to wait for things to settle down let medics do my stats - ect they were ok so I bailed out and got out of there as fast as pos. I worked a 12h shift the day after - sore but good rehab!
Thanks for answering.
One reason to make a fuss is you would have raised the driver's insurance premiums more making him either drive better or getting him of the road.
I got close-passed by a van on the way home tonight - almost certainly because I wasn't in the painted cycle lane at the side of the road.
Why wasn't I in the cycle lane? Because it runs along the side of a line of occupied car parking spaces and is approximately the same width as the car doors that would open into it and I'm not going to put myself in that position of risk.
Guy I used to know had his shoulder ripped apart when a taxi passenger opened a door into him.
Dooring needs to be seen as abh assault or in the case of death then manslaughter plus extensive TV/radio promotion of the consequences, close passes need to be seen in the same way as drink driving and punished the same.
The talk of having new laws since the Alliston case should be a change in the laws that cause the most harm by far, offering more protection for vastly more people and just punishments for those harming/killing people.
As for the HC, it's a joke, advice becomes 'law' only for people on bikes and law/must for motorists is ignored or advice should be law. Crossing lanes when they are not empty should be a must not so as to protect cycle lanes and cyclists against left turning vehicles. So much needs to change.
As for filtering, I just received a letter from plod and basically despite admitting fault at the scene in front of a police officer they reckoned they didn't have enough evidence to prove with reasonable doubt that she was guilty of an offence. They ignored that she refused to give her insurance and plod have not provided me with them either.
The system is so fucked as to be a joke and seriously discriminatory depending on your mode of transport.
I don’t know what the circumstances that you were involved in but can you not use the Motor Insurance Database to get the drivers insurance company, or, if the police submitted a report to obtain details from that by paying a fee?
I'm covered by CUK legal anyways, it's just all the fucking aggro and piss weak actions of plod.
If these vehicles are going to have dead man's switches if they detect a hazard within a certain distance we should go further than just the HW Code and legislate that manufacturers set a minimum distance ( at given speeds) below which such systems must operate.
That way cars could be programmed to not be able to pass when there is insufficient space to do so to the safety of the object i.e. a cyclist, horse or pedestrian.
Also, as they're looking at certain elements of autonomous driving (parking and motorway driving) why aren't they also looking at autonomous speed control particularly in urban areas? This could have a significant impact in improving road safety.
Puzzling that they're mentioning Rule 160 which is about drivers watching out for cyclists filtering and not rule 163 which is about overtaking and surely the impetus behind the overtaking mat they've been supplying police forces with.
edit: After reading the government proposal it's because the gov are only proposing changing 160 to add that you can drive with no hands.
Once moving, you should drive with both hands on the wheel where possible. This will help you to remain in full control of the vehicle at all times. You may use advanced driver assistance systems, if used in accordance with the manufacturer’s or developer’s instructions.
The rest of 160 isn't changing.