Hi ,
It looks like you're using an ad blocker.



The revenue generated from the adverts on the site is a critical part of our funding - and it's because of these ads that I can offer the site for free. But using the site for free AND blocking the ads doesn't feel like a great thing to do, which is why this box is so large and inconvenient. Some sites will completely block your access, but I'm not doing that - I'm appealing to your good nature instead. Did you know that you can allow ads for specific sites, whilst still blocking them on others?

Thanks,
Ian Williams aka Fetch
or for an ad-free Fetcheveryone experience!

Consultation on a review of the Highway Code

3 watchers
Sep 2020
9:51pm, 6 Sep 2020
19,691 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
ChrisHB
Don't think we're discussing this yet, but if anyone wants to consultate*:

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk

* have your say but be thoroughly ignored
Sep 2020
10:05pm, 6 Sep 2020
19,692 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
ChrisHB
I'm sure when I first met the Highway Code at the age of about eight, I could understand it easily. Now it's a very different story.
Sep 2020
10:17pm, 6 Sep 2020
11,491 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
rf_fozzy
Rule 204 is the controversial change.

Allows for litigation in the case of cyclist v pedestrian which is what the right wing press have been spinning out of proportion for years.

The only other thing I picked up on in passing is the change to the two abreast rule which is the other thing the nutjobs whinge about

The rest seems somewhat ok to me. But I'm not an expert in this area.

I expect British Cycling and other road safety people will say a lot.
Sep 2020
1:08pm, 7 Sep 2020
7,229 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Sigh
If they're going to these lengths, then they should include a rule about extendable dog leads, the ones which are effectively random tripwires as the dog scoots off in a random direction while their owner scrolls on their phone, paying no attention.
Sep 2020
1:16pm, 7 Sep 2020
5,415 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Wine Legs
Rule 66: Two abreast change doesn't make much sense... it doesn't consider that it takes longer for a vehicle to pass two cyclists in tandem than it does for two cyclists along side each other, yet both require the passing vehicle to cross the centre line on the road, therefore requiring just as much width either way. The single file thing encourages cars to squeeze past when there's insufficient space to do so safely for the cyclist(s).

Got something to say?

To join the discussion, sign in or join us.

About This Thread

Maintained by ChrisHB
Don't think we're discussing this yet, but if anyone wants to consultate*:

https://asse...
  • Show full description...

Related Threads

  • cars
  • cycling
  • legal
  • transport

Report This Content

You can report any content you believe to be unsafe. Please let me know why you believe this content is unsafe by choosing a category below.



Thank you for your report. The content will be assessed as soon as possible.










Back To Top

Tag A User

To tag a user, start typing their name here:
X

Free training & racing tools for runners, cyclists, swimmers & walkers.

Fetcheveryone lets you analyse your training, find races, plot routes, chat in our forum, get advice, play games - and more! Nothing is behind a paywall, and it'll stay that way thanks to our awesome community!
Get Started
Click here to join 114,312 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here