- 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
Highway Code.PNG"Lunatic Highway Code" encourages road rage and gives cyclists carte blanche, Fair Fuel UK boss claims
The founder of Fair Fuel UK, which lobbies the government over fuel duty, has penned a provocative opinion piece published in The Sun newspaper, attacking last week's Highway Code changes, calling them a "cyclists’ charter to ride any way they wish".
Howard Cox's article titled 'Lunatic Highway Code will just encourage road rage and put cyclists at risk – Government must rethink it now' claimed the changes "must have been authored by an asylum inmate".
Cox also accused the changes of assuming every driver is a "homicidal maniac", giving cyclists the "legal right to pass ALL the blame in any traffic incident on to other road users."
The past week has seen several impassioned articles published in UK newspapers criticising the revised Code. Last week, Florida resident Richard Littlejohn published an "error-strewn" column attacking cycling in Britain, while The Telegraph published an opinion piece claiming "Pedal-pushers have taken over British roads".
Multiple major newspapers also misrepresented Highway Code changes, just days before they came into force.
> Fair Fuel UK boss blames “militant cyclist” for marking his house as petrol station on Google Maps
In the latest column to criticise the revamp brought in to protect vulnerable road users, Cox accused the "anti-driver Government" of "deliberately fuelling division between cyclists and motorists".
"What person with sound mind who rides a bicycle would want to cycle straight on at a junction on the inside of a 40-ton articulated truck that is signalling in front to turn left?" Cox asked.
"Well, guess what — one of the Highway Code changes covers exactly that. This rule gives a right of way to any cyclist passing on the inside of a left-turning vehicle or overtaking a right-turning vehicle on the outside.
"Ninety-nine per cent of sensible cyclists know this to be a highly dangerous manoeuvre. But a small minority of sanctimonious Lycra-clad riders will risk their lives to prove their pathological hatred for the motor car."
Rule 67 of the revised Highway Code actually advises, "when cycling on the road, only pass to the left of large vehicles when they are stationary or slow moving and you should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you. Be particularly careful on the approach to junctions or where a large vehicle could change lanes to the left."
The most headline-catching aspect of the changes is the new 'Hierarchy of Road Users' prioritising road users most vulnerable in a collision at the top of the hierarchy. Pedestrians are at the top, followed by cyclists and horse riders.
Under this, cyclists have a responsibility to reduce danger for pedestrians in the same way motorists have a responsibility to reduce danger to cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders.
Consequently, pedestrians are always given priority to cross a road into which you are turning, and drivers should wait for cyclists travelling straight on to pass before making a turn.
The relevant section of the Highway Code in full:
Rule H3
Rule for drivers and motorcyclists
You should not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle.
This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them. Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist, horse rider or horse drawn vehicle going straight ahead to stop or swerve.
You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary.
This includes when cyclists are: • approaching, passing or moving off from a junction • moving past or waiting alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic • travelling around a roundabout
Cox went on to slam the hierarchy: "Instead of making all road users liable for their actions or blunders, this new 'hierarchy of responsibility' is based on the size or weight of a vehicle and signifies 'presumed liability' by the back door.
"Along with offering carte blanche to ignore cycle lanes and ride on main roads instead, our 'out in the fresh air heroes' can now also ride side by side in the middle of the highway, blocking traffic, causing more frustration and severe congestion that paradoxically will give rise to increased vehicle emissions. You couldn’t make this up."
The Highway Code actually states that cyclists can use cycle lanes "where they make your journey safer and easier", and should ride in primary position in certain situations, in order to be better protected on the road.
Rule 72 outlines these situations when you should ride in the centre of the lane to make yourself as clearly visible as possible.
This is when riding on quiet roads or streets, but "if a faster vehicle comes up behind you, move to the left to enable them to overtake, if you can do so safely".
Also in slower-moving traffic, but "when the traffic around you starts to flow more freely move over to the left if you can do so safely so that faster vehicles behind you can overtake".
Finally, at the approach to junctions or road narrowings where it would be unsafe for drivers to overtake you.
Part two of Rule 72 says: "When riding on busy roads, with vehicles moving faster than you, allow them to overtake where it is safe to do so whilst keeping at least 0.5 metres away, and further where it is safer, from the kerb edge. Remember that traffic on most dual carriageways moves quickly. Take extra care crossing slip roads."
Cox concluded his piece claiming the "only winners will be lawyers, insurance companies and under-takers. Driver prosecution adverts will become a common feature across all the media."
He also made the unevidenced claim that there had been "reports of bike riders deliberately holding up traffic for up to eight miles."
"The changes are not only dangerous but counterproductive. Mark my words, they will unquestionably risk more lives too," Cox wrote.
The opinion piece was published on the same day the newspaper shared an online story titled 'Can I be fined for overtaking a cyclist in my car?', in which the question was asked: "If you get stuck behind a cyclist, will you get a fine for overtaking them?"
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- hand0j1n 1 hour 37 min ago
Hopefully the new device is a big success, but wahoo do have a lot work to do in terms of convincing that their quality control has improved. ...
- chrisonabike 27 min 11 sec ago
Agree that the moaning comes from a place of priveledge and ultimately "if only there weren't so many other people driving"....
- Simon E 2 hours 12 min ago
Have added some clarification....
- Simon E 2 hours 21 min ago
I was tempted to try Galibier gloves but opted for Endura Freezing Point from LBS last year. Not cheap (£60, I think). I'd prefer a shorter cuff...
- Simon E 2 hours 59 min ago
I can't wait that long! Here's a series that any good vlogger / 'grammer would surely recognise....
- Simon E 3 hours 8 min ago
At 2.30pm on Saturday a small hatchback car "came to rest on its side in a precarious position" near the hamlet of Ratlinghope on the west side of...
- IanMK 3 hours 45 min ago
I do wonder if Highway Planners and Councils understand all the implications of putting in traffic calming measures. They certainly take no...
- Oldfatgit 4 hours 4 min ago
How long before some waste of DNA complains about them on the footpath ... or for Grimsby [and the other shit-tips] to ban them ...
- mattw 4 hours 52 min ago
I've only just spotted this....
- Another_MAMIL 5 hours 17 min ago
I also liked Polartec NeoShell and was disappointed it was discontinued. Polartec RPM looks similar, but it's unclear how NeoShell and RPM compare....
Add new comment
74 comments
Cox by name Cock by nature. He'll have heard that before , but it doesn't make it less true!
Who cares what this Fair Fuel clown thinks.. why doesn't he stick to his advertised agenda or is he just seeking free publicity for himself? just ignore him.
I must say, the fact that the Highway Code changes have pissed so many people off really has made me extremely happy and lifted me out of the late winter gloom in a way I never thought possible - lovely.
Now they're bringing guns to the fight!
Man arrested on firearms offences over York cyclist threat
BBC Radio York
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/england/york_and_north_yorkshire
Why do people who obviously hate cyclists always refer to us as 'lycra-clad'?
Do they refer to runners as 'shorts-clad', horse riders as 'jodhpur-clad', hikers as 'leather boot-clad', dog walkers as 'lead-clad', swimmers as 'speedo-clad'?
I think those people should from now on be referred to as 'Knobhead-clad'.
It's an easy way to marginalise groups (out-groups) by identifying characteristics that are visibly different and then promoting those differences.
So we can call them Knobhead-clad then? Because the balls fall over the eyes and mean they can't see to drive properly.
I prefer to focus on their toxic behaviour rather than physical characteristics (real or imagined) as otherwise it just becomes a mud-slinging match.
plus I think with some people who repeatedly coin that "lycra clad/lout"term as disparagement, it comes with a dose of bigotry too about it, its not just about othering a group, its about othering them and holding onto certain prejudices about that group.
Absolutely - the idea is to paint a set of prejudices onto a group and reduce logical thinking. If people treat pedestrians/cyclists/scooterists/drivers as actual people, then there can be sensible discussions about why people may have different behaviour when using different transport and what might cause it.
Oh gods don't start. Had enough of that yesterday.....
"gods"? Are you trying to have a pop at atheists and monotheists there? I suspect the 0 to 1 deities activists are pretty hot on that.
You heard about the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac?
He lay awake all night wondering about the existence of dog.
Oh I'm pretty sure myself there aren't any gods- the chances of their existence is infinitesimal. I'm just not sure whether anyone's told them that....
Not even Moritasgus?
Oh no, they're ok, it's the others...
But it's only used perjoratively for cyclists, even though runners and joggers visibly wear lycra too, as well as other sportsmen and women such as swimmers, gymnasts, field sports etc. They're not sneered at for wearing the most suitable clothing for what they're doing.
Don't forget the folks participating in "athleisure" - don't want to marginalise any sub-groups, now, do we.
Not to mention going shopping, taking flights etc etc.
I used to feel quite uncomfortable stopping off in the supermarket in my cycling gear, but then I realised it's just no different to what some women are wearing in casual use anyway. And that now yoga pants are apparently acceptable clothing wherever jeans are acceptable.
Isn't that divers?
or drivers as car-clad?
I'm a commuter and 'practical cyclist' (shopping, etc) rather than a 'recreational' cyclist or a serious roadie. And I never wear lycra. And yet these people would probably still describe me as a lycra-clad cyclist: they wouldn't be looking enough to notice that I wasn't wearing lycra, but since I'm on two wheels then in their world I must be wearing lycra.
It gives them a funny feeling under the bridge
They can't help mentioning it....
Maybe it's the brightness they don't like, sunlight turning them to stone and all that?
Not sure why it doesn't bother them when it's a "workie" though (lorry drivers, highway maintenance, police...)
I guess it is one if the few area that bigots can now talk openly about without being ousted from society. If you took a baseball bat walked into the highstreet and took a swing at a random person you would rightly be cast as a nasty & sick individual and those that found it funny would be given the same tag. Lean out of a car and push a cyclist off theri bike and you will get people openly laughing about it & praise your actions though arguably the chances of killing that cyclist might be higher than a swing from a baseball bat. Every cyclist is seems must carry the burden of any crime committed on a bike. As a larger group, motorists are generally split into small groups when generalisations are applied - boy racers, white van drivers, BMW drivers etc so generally escape the same blame game for the crimes of other drivers. When people break the rules in a car they usually justify it by saying they only speed if its safe which I am sure will be the same argument cyclist that run lights will say. If a cyclists is killed it is amazing how many posts you get on social media highlighting any antisocial behaviour someone has witnessed happen on a bike. It's like blaming someone in a grey suit for the crimes of Fred West because he wore one.
well that's me fucked then as when I'm not cycling I may well be using the audi.
Although I am seriously considering whether this will be my last car, I had been thinking that once the children have finished at Uni I would downsize or get an electric car, but my employer no longer requires me to have a car, and the number of times I NEED a car over a year is very small, such that taxis or hire cars may work out cheaper than getting a new car. Might even work out cheaper than keeping my current car running. (insurance+VED+MOT+Service) before the costs of actually using it (fuel, tyres)
This is so exasperating and frustrated. I seriously don't have the energy or coherent thinking to actually vent!
Who's going to write a rebuttal, stating the facts, and send it to the Sun? It seems cyclists' voices aren't being heard this week and they need to be.
I dont even think it needs a cyclists voice or for a rebuttal in the Sun necessarily (though it would be nice). Howard Cox has been on several media outlets recently spreading the same message and it hasnt been challenged once.
And others like him have too, and yet none of them have been made to defend their position, or face up to the crazy logical conclusions they are making or are publically corrected.They can basically say what they like & get presented as experts on it, I mean how the hell did running a fuel duty campaign make him some national spokesperson on the highway code anyway.
The introduction of a road pricing scheme to raise revenue instead of fuel tax would render him and his campaign obsolete. Bring it on!
Pages