How nice to see someone look at these rules calmly and sensibly. The clickbait media have done nothing to explain why these rules are changing, but they have demonstrated perfectly why they’re necessary. We’re all human beings just trying to get somewhere, some of us walk, some of us cycle and some of us drive. But no matter what our method of movement, we’re all someone’s parent, sibling, child, friend or colleague.
Unfortunately, Ashley's audience is among the group that are most likely to be already implementing these rules, and least likely to oppose them. Looking pretty much everywhere else sees a contingent of people complaining about how 1.5m passing for a cyclist is impossible and they won't be doing it
satistics don't agree most cyclists accidents reported are interpreted as the cyclist getting hurt when actual fact 80% of time it's the cyclist hurting a pedestrian but when they go to the hospital it's just registered as a cyclist accident and they have no training no insurance and the damage they do to parked cars every day is unacceptable and they just ride away not only this but they are a danger to children in prams I've seen it dozens of times at a traffic lights at a junction when the lights go red they just swivel to the left and ride across the pedestrian crossing and the back on there original route just to avoid lights but in the process I've seen them hitting babies out of prams and also when wemon with prams can't get on a train because of bikes left were prams should get priority and they pay no road tax but act like they built the road with there own 2 hands and have you ever seen them riding with a friend they ride side by side in the middle of the road just so they can have a convenient chat while traffic piles up behind for miles.
You’re dead right about clickbait media. I’ve had loads of news articles suggested to me in my news feed but none of them really convey the new changes very well. They get your attention and then just repeat the headline 5 times with adverts, photos and other headlines interspersed.
@@Felled-angel 80% you got any sources? if a bike hits a person its like the world burst in the flames when someone is killed everyday on the road by a driver (3000+ per year deaths and injuries )r. it happens so often it not news anymore...it why 3rd party insurance is the Law and not full comp
@@Felled-angel please hand your licence back in - you're not safe to be driving with this attitude. You're massively misinformed and are discriminating against a whole community based on anecdotal evidence. You certainly aren't "a man of the people".
Do you know why I like Ashley's videos? He thinks of us, the traffic, as a community that are equal. I really like that. Thanks Ashley and I will make sure I do pay attention not to use primary position and swap over to the kerb to take over as it is unnecessary risk. I don't perform it, but it is still a thing that is worth considering and the view from the driver's side is really valuable in this(one of the main reasons why I do watch your videos - to learn what drivers experience).
really, think of it as, why would you pass a car that is turning to its blind side, on the blind side it is turning towards? especially if you are starting from the middle of the lane behind it?
@@ashley_neal All 3 videos are great and well explained. I have seen others, also from DI's, who have got the changes very wrong indeed. Keep up the good work.
I get the concern but it doesn't feel like something people would naturally do. If you're in primary the chances are the lane is narrow and there would not be room to pass on the left. I certainly have never passed a vehicle on the left at a junction in the absence of a well marked cycle lane, and would advise against it.
If a cyclist moves from primary position to left side of a car that has indicated its turn, just to assume priority, it should be dealt with as a dangerous undertake by the cyclist and the motor vechicle held not at fault. If they were always on the left then yes the new rules are correct.
No - if the motor vehicle was always ahead , the new guidance is ill considered , absurd and dangerous ; the ONLY safe advice is DO NOT OVERTAKE ON THE LEFT THROUGH JUNCTIONS .
I do a fair bit of driving in North Wales and the Lakes as I love walking in the hills and mountains there. A lot of the time it just needs some degree of common sense and courtesy from all concerned. Last time I was in North Wales I ran into a group of cyclists (well not literally haha) on a very narrow country road who were clearly part of the same club. Rather than risking barging past each one at the earliest chance I just sat back and gave them room. No more than 3 minutes later there was a large driveway and every single one of them stopped there and waved me past. Didn't delay my journey by much and in return everyone was kept safe. About 10 minutes after I reached my car park the rode in as well and I had a pleasant chat about where each was going with one of them.
3 minutes to some motorists is like the worse thing that could ever happen to them, it's pretty unusual for that period of time for there not to be enough room to overtake safely but well done to you, it's rare as rocking horse shit tbh. Most the time I'm not wanting someone in a motor behind me for too long but I ride on my own so its less of a problem, I'm not in a race so if there is a spot to slow down and I can wave someone through to overtake I'll take it. Just people chilling out and not thinking they have to get from A-B in shortest time possible, and I include that to people riding bikes as well.
@@ynotnilknarf39 the problem was the lane was barely more than a car wide, so there wasn't much room to pass. I swear if I'd rolled down my windows I could have touched the hedge on the side of the road as I drove lol
Thanks for all three updates. When cycling I agree, if I adopt primary position at a junction I stay out there and complete the junction pretty much as if I was in my car. I certainly don't nip back in to the left to "undertake" if the opportunity arises.
But the majority do - and they are the same ones that have no lights , no audible warning , and cycle doesn,t conform to use and construction regulations for road use- how do they get away with it? - because they do not have a registration plate as many other road users .
As a cyclist if I was in Primary position and the vehicle in front indicates left whilst I was gaining on them my instinct would be to go further right and pass on the outside as they turned, not go left, as that space is always going to close. The main point for me is that most on road cycle lanes are not 2m wide therefore when a driver passes a cyclist in a cycle lane they will still need to move out to give the appropriate clearances. That painted line is no protection from the buffeting wind from the vehicle at high speed.
This is one of the reasons why in most situations I overtake on the right when cycling (just as a motorcycle would 'filter'). I have more space, I can see oncoming traffic and I won't be blocked by cars that are close to the curb.
the wind never bothered me much. it was the realization that if I hit something and took a spill, I would land under a car, that made me stop thinking drivers were being silly for giving me wide clearances
There are definitely improvements that can be made to the new rules/guidance. But the mainstream media seem to be getting these updates wrong and that's causing some misinformation. At the end of the day, whatever type of road user you are, we are all humans. Use the road with great care for yourself and all others you encounter.
There are some shocking drivers out there, no question, but there are also some shocking cyclists out there too. Just around the corner from where I live there is a main road along a busy shopping "high street". It used to have wide pavements, parallel parking bays on either side of the road and two lanes in each direction for traffic. Recently the pavements were narrowed slightly and a cycle lane added, causing the loss of 1 lane of traffic in each direction, but many cyclists still insist on using the road instead of the cycle lane. WHY? (Rhetorical)
Remarkably, the only good written piece on the changes I've seen was in the Guardian this week (Common myths about what UK Highway Code changes will mean). Summed up with " much of this is standard good sense and courtesy anyway, while other elements, such as the primary position and riding two abreast, have been in the rules for many years but are still routinely unknown to drivers". Even motoring rags have misrepresented the changes, which elicits some fairly extreme responses from the readers/viewers.
@@paulwood5803 why is irrelevant, deal with it, cyclists are allowed on every road except motorways, believe it or not the vast majority of car drivers are excellent, but there is still an army whose ignorance is invincible, people who don't understand why cyclists would rather use the road than cycle lanes ill kept by local Councils strewn with glass, ignorant people who still pay mythical road tax ,who if it existed thinks it gives them entitlement over non payers of mythical road tax, ignorant of the fact that it's easier to overtake 8 cyclists riding two abreast than 8 in single file. The Highway code is for everyone. Please don't retort with cyclists jumping red lights etc etc
Good shout on the potential for cyclist to undertake from the primary position to gain priority over a vehicle turning left into a junction. As much as that manoeuvre is an accident waiting to happen, I can see some not so switched on cyclists doing so. Hopefully that technicality gets addressed quickly. Great video Ashley. Top work.
Couldn't agree more - I cycle to work everyday, and see riders going up the inside of a well positioned car turning left all the time. While it's a good change for drivers to not cut across cycles on the left, it shouldn't be encouraged for bikes to switch position to go up their as Ashley said. I stick behind in primary, and usually end up waiting and waiting as the driver is unable to complete their manoeuvre because cyclists keep having a go!
The fix from primary is to pass on the side opposite to which the car is turning, unless you aren't confident other road users that may also turn in/out are aware of you. (Plus other overtaking cars/ motorbikes/ cyclists)
Why would that ever be a problem? For this to even be possible, the turning car would have to be standing at the intersection for a good amount of time and not be able to complete the turn, while the main direction of the road is clear both ahead of the cyclist and ahead of the intersection. This can only happen if the turn is blocked by something that's not going away in a hurry - in which case continuing is perfectly safe for the cyclist and won't inconvenience the driver at all. Otherwise, there's not going to be enough time for the cyclist to catch up if they kept anywhere near a sensible following distance.
@@jandl1jph766 I see it all the time. eg a car is waiting to turn into a side road, indicating and waiting for a pedestrian to cross. Going up the inside here is not a good idea, as the driver is likely going to have their attention on the pedestrian. Of course they do still have to look out for you, but it will be just as easy to wait behind in primary. They'll be gone as soon as the pedestrian is finished and everyone is on their way.
I was always told by my instructor (and that's over 20 years ago) that if your turning left and there is a cyclist ahead not to overtake them regardless, use common sense slow down and go BEHIND them. Also that you should always check a blind spot before opening a car door to account for cyclists etc. It seems to me that for the most part these new highway code updates are basically adding in some things that decent drivers should have been doing anyway simply through common sense and courtesy.
Totally agree, I have been doing this as a habit and common sense, and I can see many car drivers especially new drivers are nervous as they are still acquiring grips with driving, and are barely in control of their cars let alone surroundings, and judging behind and ahead , motorists themselves become victim of such careless or inconsiderate drivers often pull out of junctions, its not about a war between cyclist and cars but overall there are bad car drivers and idiot cyclist too.
Also these are blanket guidances, each situation should be judged on its own merit, that's where the common sense , judgement and experience comes in. It's not a one size fits all.
My concern is that cyclists will undertake vehicles indicating left, have priority and use it to, erm, perhaps boost their income. There is talk that motor vehicles that undertake can be prosecuted. In general I do not object to cyclists undertaking but undertaking a vehicle signalling to turn left is stupid.
If a cyclist starts to undertake you will you be expected to move to the right to give the 2 meter distance? Motorcyclists often place themselves between lanes of traffic (filtering) with considerably less than 2 meters of clearance from the cars, what happens there?
@@jensaugust743 I don't disagree, but in London recently in heavy traffic, cycles were appearing randomly from all direction weaving in and out it traffic. Its difficult to see them sometimes particularly in the dark when other vehicle headlights mess up your vision or the cyclists haven't got lights. I just don't understand why cyclists regularly put themselves in dangerous situations. This includes not using a good new cycle lane in a location where the road is narrow and significantly sloped meaning bikes are down at under 10 mph and cars/lorries can't overtake. It just looks like cyclists are being awkward.
@@ianm408 if you're taking a left turn, and are worried about cyclists undertaking you, just position yourself right next to the left kerb, and thus prevent anyone from getting through on the left.
As a cyclist and motorist, I find the new rule that cyclists to a motorist's left should have priority at a junction to be mind blowingly stupid. If the cyclist is ahead, they should position themselves in the centre of the lane so that a motorist cannot place them on the left. Telling cyclists that is is OK to position themselves on the left of vehicles at junctions is leading them to putting themselves at risk, because it is an absolute certainty that there will be cases where a driver is unaware that the situation has changed since they stopped, and hit the cyclist with potentially serious consequences. It's not a case of who's in the wrong. The fact that it will continue to happen makes it a daft rule change.
It's to avoid a cyclist being cut up at a junction, which is obviously safe and should be happening already. Watch the video. Sounds like you've never ridden a bike TBH
One morning, travelling into work on my motorbike to a company with traffic lights at the entrance, I approached the junction, left indicator on for at least 100m prior to the turning, and riding right up against the cycle lane. Just before leaning in to the left hand turn, I did my due diligence checks. Check the left mirror and a glance over the left shoulder (because you never know!). Sure enough a Lycra clad chap was right on my left tail pipe, head down looking at his handle bars. I quickly managed to sit the bike up and missed him by inches. If the lights had bee on RED, he would have finished up being hit, hitting the front wing or passenger compartment of a car or under the wheels of a commercial vehicle. According to the new rules, I would have been at fault, despite the cyclist failing to pay attention to the road and traffic around him and undertaking a moving vehicle, which is illegal. If he had hit the back of my bike, does the responsibility transfer to him, just as it would for another vehicle running into the back of my bike? Does he carry, or is he obliged to carry insurance for damage? In a collision with cross traffic, if he had gone through on RED, who would carry the responsibility? The vehicle crossing the junction on GREEN? The Cyclist? I foresee an explosion of "accidents" involving "cyclists" and "pedestrians" at junctions all over the UK, simply for the compo from insurance companies. I was taught defensive driving/riding techniques, hence the "life saver" glance over the shoulder. I even did it as part of the "Cycling Proficiency" course I did at school. You position yourself so that you cover all bases from being hit. On one ride-out, one of the pack commented "you knew he was going to do that, didn't you", referring to a car that had braked hard in front of us and then applied a turn signal just before the manoeuvre. "How?". It was the driver's driving style and his side to side head movement that gave it away. He was looking for the turning and saw it at the last moment. Being lead bike at the time, I'd throttled off and dropped back a few extra yards, just in case. Defensive techniques. Correct positioning and speed. Being prepared to brake suddenly. Being in the right gear to react in time and being aware of those around me. Maybe a requirement for ALL cyclists to register their bicycle, pay a nominal annual road tax and carry a minimum third party insurance would sharpen up the inattentive suicide jockeys that are over represented within the cycling community. What are your thoughts?
@@garymitchell5899 Tell me how these changes stop this from happening? Is the current situation that the drivers are checking the mirror, seeing the cyclist and thinking 'well ... the highway code says I can do this' and drives into them? People don't check their mirrors. It's never safe to pass on the left when traffic is moving. If I'm passing a car I will overtake down the middle of the road.
@@garymitchell5899 Looks as if you didn't even read the post (check the first three words). I know what the intention is. I'm just saying that encouraging cyclists to place themselves to the left of cars at a junction is an invitation to the death and injury of cyclists. Just because they may have right of way will not protect them from said death or injury if an in attentive driver does not realise they are there. The code should be that a cyclist turning left should position themselves in the centre of the lane so that larger vehicles CANNOT pass and cut them up..
The way the same rules are stated here in Germany roughly translates to "anyone turning must yield to traffic following the direction of the road, unless otherwise indicated by a sign or signal". Much simpler and perfectly clear...
@@pocky1scot1 No you have not let the traffic pass if you're in front they should see your signal to turn and let you do so if you're behind let them go straight on then turn
Well done Ashley on a clear explanation of the new rules. I always give cyclists room when passing and slow down and give plenty of room for horses and pedestrians. I do a lot of country lane driving so I encounter these instances quite alot.
but we live at a stables and many drivers drive fast at a stables entrance, despite horses coming out or crossing the field. There is little situation awareness
I do quite a bit of driving around a well known university city that has a very high number of cyclists. I've always tried to keep a good look out and give cyclists lots of space and room to manoeuvre, but even then I probably have to make an emergency stop every week or so as some suicidal cyclist hops off the curb or suddenly changes direction. Few of them have lights and many have dirty or obscured reflectors and are wearing dark clothing. To be honest, on the rare occasions when I see a cyclist wearing high vis with proper lights I feel like pulling over and thanking them!
It boils down to the simple concept of ‘Sharing The Road’. Unfortunately, too many of us - regardless of our mode of transport - see getting from A to B as a competition 🙁
@@sw1000xg we dont pay to use the road... its based on pollution. Roads are funded by general taxation. hence: " How Road Tax/Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) is calculated VED is calculated according to the CO2 tailpipe emissions for all vehicles registered since March 2001. For cars registered before March 2001 the tax is calculated based on engine size. Zero emission vehicles (BEVs) are exempt. Plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) are subject to modest VED and any plug-in hybrids that cost £40,000 or more are subject to pay an annual supplement for 5 years (starting from the second time the vehicle is taxed). "
@@joecater894 Do you drive a car, and do you know what it`s like to be stuck behind 10_20 cyclist`s in a club riding 2_3 abreast on narrow winding roads. The government is paying £1000s to keep the traffic flowing, and take it back from the motorist on TAX, while cyclist`s hold up traffic for free.
Many thanks for your balanced reaction to the changes that are imminent. It is really refreshing especially with the distressing columns and reactions on mainstream media (printed and televised). It has been very disappointing that people have responded with such anger without looking at the proof document that is available to the public. I never considered switching to the near side of a left turning vehicle when I’ve been following. My instinct has always been to follow or switch to the offside. Looking through the amendments/rewording I actually find that they’re all clarifying road craft I’ve been practicing on the bike for over 45 years and 35years in the car. Thanks again.
Thanks for this great analysis, as others have said, this is respectful of everyone, and as a non-driver, I wish all drivers were like Ashley. When cycling, I have always ‘acted like a car’, taking primary position at junction to stake my place and stop cars cutting me off. I wait my turn at junctions and when traffic slows, I think it’s dangerous to weave through and some cyclists, like some motorists, need to stop being in such a rush. As a pedestrian, I only assume the right to cross at pelicans, zebras, and if the road is clear when I begin to cross (assuming 30 mph). It’s much clearer for everyone to have a shared understanding about when and how people cross roads. For the rule to work, people will just have to start noticing pedestrians more when driving, and calm it down in places were there are lots of people.
This is all very well presuming the driver has seen the cyclist to there left. When I'm cycling I don't like to undertake vehicles especially at junctions.
That's good, because the new rules say that you shouldn't do that, and the old rules _already_ said that you shouldn't do that. See rule 72 from the 2021 rules: "When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left." and rule 74 from the new 2022 rules: "When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left." There isn't really the loophole here that people are suggesting. Doing what was suggested already was against the Code, and will continue to be.
Seems to me that there is so much mis-information out there (media particularly). I was watching GMTV this morning, a piss poor interpretation by Mr. Ed Balls, saying that motorists on roundabouts would have to give way to cyclists joining from their left... obv. incorrect but how many people will have watched and believed that little nugget ? Get yourself on there Ashley, they need someone like you to put them straight.
I’m still worried that Cyclists will assume priority and that drivers will miss the cyclists even after doing proper mirror checks. You’ve always said that priority is given not taken. I’d put money on that cyclists are going to be hit more frequently due to this and other cars will get rear ended.
Absolutely correct. With all the "rights" cyclists demand must come responsibilities. Requirement to pass a test of competency with an appropriate licence. Mandatory registration plates for bike. Cycling tax applied to help fund cycle lanes and their impact on other road users. Limited to roads with a maximum of 30 mph.
there is still a caveat in the amendments though that states: "None of this detracts from the responsibility of ALL road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, to have regard for their own and other road users’ safety. "
I'm interested in how the powers that be envisage resolving the situation when a car has stopped a left turn for a pedestrian to cross in a busy cycling city like London. Whilst stopped for the pedestrian this will allow enough time for a whole flock of cyclists who the car had previously past safely to catch back up. Now once the pedestrian has crossed the car can still not proceed (along with the other cars that stopped behind the first as they couldn't get past it) until the entire group of cyclists who are now passing the car on left have proceeded past the car. That's not even taking the situation into account of a busy town centre with an almost continuous flow of pedestrians that may cause the "vehicles most wait for pedestrians wishing to cross" to be an unbroken scenario.
@@ferguszade5594 while some of that might make sense, the 30mph roads only thing, effectivity bans cyclists from riding along country lanes which, for good or ill, are generally the national speed limit....
Great series Ashley! Thanks for the effort putting together. Thoughts that spring to mind as a part time driver / cyclist / pedestrian! : 1) You may be in the right. But don't be dead right. I always feel super sketchy up the left hand side of traffic, (e.g. rider at 3m10, sat in the blind spot. Hope all okay). And I won't be stepping out in front of traffic to cross at junctions any time soon. Basically on a bike I assume everyone is a homicidal drunk/drug driver and ride defensively. When drivers are considerate (i.e. obey the rules!) I'll always wave / smile, get out they way as efficiently as possible. I dont see this changing. 2) If a road layout had 2 vehicle lanes, where the left hand lane went straight on, and the right hand lane was for straight on / left turns across the other lane it would not pass planning. Appreciate this arises as a result of legacy infrastructure for bike lanes, but that must change. (Great expereince riding hire bikes around Berlin recently which has sequenced lights for cars, cylists and pedestrians, seperate lanes etc.) 3) I'd be super wary to pass up the left side of vehicles on a bike (even in a poorly painted cycle lane), and would slow at junctions in anticipation, ready to stop should a left hook arise. 4) I guess if the rule encourages more people to pay proper attention to near side at junctions and to what pedestrians are up to then it should reduce accidents, and at least liability will be clear. Time for pedestrians to get a hatcam?
many places in my state have the right turn lane (we drive on the right side of the road) cross the cycle lane far enough back that the driver isn't slowing, yet, when they cross the cycle lane. this puts the cyclist outside their turn and avoids conflict as long as the driver isn't driving alongside the cyclist. also, here, it is made clear, a right/left hook is when a driver overtakes and THEN turns across the cyclist's path. if the cyclist has been behind the car the entire time, then it is not a hook. it may be a turn without proper signaling, but not a hook.
On the "give way to cyclists coming up on the left" point - if you were driving along a road with a bus lane to your left and you wanted to turn across the bus lane to access a side road, would you cut across the path of an approaching bus? I'm sure that there are quite a few drivers that would cut across a cyclist's path but not across a bus' path.
Yes everyone with a brain can recognise that. But these changes need to better clarify where there is no 'lane' to the left. If you had a bus behind you on a normal single traffic road you would expect the bus to wait behind you while turning left. Not undertake you on the left. Currently though the wording allows a cyclist to do this, stupidly dangerous of them but also legally correct. It genuinely frightens me that I would be responsible as the car driver if a cyclist did that.
A good analogy might be exiting a dual carriageway. Before doing this, you must be in the left-hand lane. If necessary, you must slow down so that you can find a gap in the traffic to move into the left hand lane. Similarly, if there is a bus or cyclist to your left, you might need to slow down to find a gap in the traffic to your left in order to make a left turn. That applies to a bus lane or cycle lane to your left.
@@pocky1scot1 In a lot of cases, it's not a cyclist undertaking, but a driver trying to overtake and then turn left immediately. If there isn't room to overtake and clear a large enough gap to turn left without the cyclist having to slow down, the driver should not perform the overtaking manoeuvre before the left turn.
Thanks for the video series, it's nice to know how the perception of cyclists might change in the future. I'm going to play it safe and assume no-one will follow these rules at first, and then re-assess how I cycle as we see changes in behaviour and therefore also in risk.
This is the correct way to go about it IMO. I usually avoid it like the plague, but the comments on a recent Daily Mail article about these changes were genuinely quite scary. Everything ranging from "It's another woke conspiracy" to people openly admitting that they weren't going to follow the new rules and that they would start going out of their way to cause accidents to "send a message."
@@thisaccountisdead168 reading the daily mail comments section on cycling issues sounds like a good way to get your heart rate going faster than riding an actual bike.
I think your videos are great, I've learnt a lot from them as has my daughter who is about to start driving lessons. Personally I think the way to ensure everyone is up to date with new rules and guidelines is to reassess competence every 2 to 5 years like we do in the rail industry.
I think the best explanation I've heard of this is that is just a formalisation of common courtesy. Never understood what advantage a driver thinks they are getting overtaking a cyclist prior to emerging or leaving the main carriageway at a junction. It has been blown out of proportion, IE the difference between centre of a lane and centre of a road.
No reasonable driver would overtake ANY other road user then turn left across them , but equally , no reasonable cyclist should consider overtaking through a junction where traffic already ahead my turn left , and remember an indicator lamp may have just failed moments earlier without the driver being aware , so do not rely on little flashing lights .
Sensible advice as ever Ashley. I would imagine a very short Highway Code that just said ‘use the roads sensibly, respect others and make your safety and the safety of others a priority’ but having seen driving offences for drivers to properly clear their windscreens of frost or ice in cold weather, so their visibility is not impaired means we have to write prescriptive, detailed codes for those without ‘common sense’. Stay safe.
This one doesn't really strike me as much of a change as they pretty much logical. If you count the cycle lane as it is, a lane. You're cutting across a lane when at a junction, so the cyclist, even behind you, should be given way if needed. The same should be applied for roads without cycle lanes, but that sounds more judge the situation on it own merits However, the one I'll be surprised if people change for is the cyclist overtake. Everyone's perception of Enough Space is different, and I see some pretty awful overtakes of cyclists already. On the flipside, I also don't believe many cyclists will move to the left of a lane to let others pass, as the media over the changes has been 'cyclists, use the middle of the lane'
Well, you'd think, right? But only yesterday, a car cut across me in exactly this way, and the driver looked completely baffled by my annoyance. I don't think underlining this requirement will do any harm at all.
Cycle lanes here in Scotland have give way lines where they come to junctions , some even have their own traffic lights , making it clear to cyclists that they must give way to turning traffic if present .
Im a bit lost on 3:13 so if traffic is doing lets say 10mph setting off and im turning left and a cyclist comes up the nearside at 25mph, i have to stop and let them go straight? Wouldnt this cause issues for people behind who may not react in time/not know why you are stopping..i would say if a cyclist sees an indicator, stay behind that vehicle surely? This is what I took from this part but i could be wrong..?😅
I'm amazed the first part of H3 has become statutory. I drove bigger vans for years and I ALWAYS check that left hand mirror before turning left - as should every motorist. No need to stop suddenly - adjust speed accordingly. Easy.
Great analysis Ashley, thank you. As a cyclist I don’t feel I’d take the primary position if I was approaching a lefthand turn I was planning to turn at. I agree this is an omission as I find a key way to keep safe when cycling in traffic is to be consistent and visible. A cyclist switching from primary to the left hand side would perhaps confuse the driver ahead, or reduce the driver’s chances of spotting you on the inside.
I think Ashley's point was that a cyclist in primary position following a car that indicates left might choose to leave the primary position and dive down the left side as the car in front slows for the turn. This could happen when oncoming traffic makes overtaking by the cyclist an unattractive option, and also when there is a slow moving queue in their own lane. As written, there doesn't seem to be a defence for the driver that the cyclist has just done something suicidal. Ashley's suggestion that the cyclist be instructed (in the Highway Code) to stay in the primary position (and consequently have to wait for the car in front to complete their left turn) seems sensible to me.
Just made a similar point - only you made it far more concisely These rules are not the horror show the media have painted them - well, for those who consider their own and others safety on the road - be seen, be predictable and be considerate and they are about what happens now for decent folk!
@@dbracer that is the most sensible to me, as well. the statement, cars should not do something that forces the cyclist to stop, slow, or swerve does not mean cyclists should force cars ahead of them to stop, slow, or swerve.
@@dbracer I’m agreeing on this. I think that late switch is not good. I’d stay left the whole time if I wanted to go straight on. And would stay behind the car if I wanted to turn.
Food for thought, the new guidance on distances for overtaking cyclists would imply a minimum width of a cycle lane of ~3m as anything less would not allow heavy traffic to pass the cyclist leaving the expected clearance. Presumably this could be less in situations where the lane is properly divided with a kerb.
It must be a psychological thing. As a cyclist, if there's a constant stream of traffic less than 3 metres to your right, you get used to it. However, a sudden swoop and surge in speed of a vehicle overtaking you is a different experience. Also, they are saying 2 m or 3 m in order to err on the side of caution because they know people are poor at judging clearances without demarcation.
Partially agreed. My issue with kerbs is that they never fully protect the cyclist, but should help with stopping cars encroaching the space, be it driving or parking, so if the cyclist slides over on wet leaves, ice etc. they're going under the wheels of a motor vehicle 1m away from them no matter if there's a kerb between them.
You’ll find that cyclists will not be bothered if the passing motorist makes full use of lane 2 or the oncoming lane. It’s when they pass and their off side wheels barely cross the dividing line it becomes an issue especially at speed. A few lorry drivers have told me when they pass they straddle lane 1 & 2 in order to protect me from an undertaking motorists but they ensure they’re far enough out for me not to be pulled under their wheels by the back draught.
Actually, the 1.5m gap rule when overtaking cyclists, as a driver, is something I 100% agree with. Just imagine it is a farm truck in front of you. That thing is not much faster than your average cyclist. How do you overtake? You wait for an opening, signal, switch lanes, overtake, switch back to your lane. I have been doing this every time I overtake a cyclist, since the day I started learning to drive. It's not hard. Imagine it's a slow moving, large vehicle. Simple. Then the new 1.5m rule will be something you won't even notice. But oh boy when I see a car in front of me speed past a cyclist at 60 mph blasting that cyclist right off the road... who the hell gave that driver a license in the first place?
@@CelestisForgeUK So much this. People keep whimpering to me there’s not enough room and I tell them if there’s another lane there’s room. If it’s a B road. There’s still room. You pull right across and drop your speed. If it’s a single track wait patiently for the cyclist to use a passing place because you know what they will and it will only be a few hundred metres! Taught all this when learning to drive over 35 years ago
One thing I'd like discussed. Cyclists please use lights on bikes, wear something reflective, you are hard to make out without lights and dark clothing
Excellent clarity as always . If everyone was taught to drive or ride with the level of awareness and proper behaviour displayed by Mr neal the UK would have the safest roads in the world !
I allowed a cyclist to continue passed a junction when I wanted to turn left this evening. Probably delayed my journey by about 5 seconds at most. I wasn't aware of these changes coming but I did this as I don't have "must get infront syndrome".
I think the main problem that cyclists face is that the road system is designed entirely around cars, and then bikes are just dumped onto the road to join them. Bikes are not cars, but they are handled almost exactly the same by the road system. Paint on the road is not enough. Changes like this may help cyclists and are cheap to implement, it's a change to a document, but if the government really wanted to help, they would be investing more into protected cycling lanes
If cyclists paid to use the roads,as car owners do, then the coul have more protection. As it stands,cyclists are merely a pain in the arse on the roads. Not all,but most.
@@simonpiper4696 The Vehicle Excise Duty all cars owners must pay is not paying for the road maintenance and upkeep; that is done by local and general taxes all citizens pay. What the VED does is tax cars based on their greater emissions and as cycling has negligible emissions it is not included. So everyone paying taxes pays for the upkeep of the road; they are not just for vehicle's use.
@Tomasz Hutchings except no, vehicle tax does go towards roads, because by your logic 100% of vehicle tax money should be go to counteracting emissions which we all know is bullshit
@@seemslegit6203 The majority of tax money (whether VED/council or local tax) gets put into effectively one big pot and most doesn't get ringfenced for specific uses. So all tax payers are in effect paying for the upkeep of the road; even if they have no intention of using it. I don't understand where you're getting the logic about all of VED being used for emissions reductions; as I've never mentioned that and it's just a way of internalising excess vehicle emissions.
I had to rewatch the bit you were saying about primary and left turns. I can't imagine as a cyclist being in primary, seeing someone ahead indicate left and then try and go around them on the left. If you ever see it happen, please make a video of it. Because it sounds ridiculous.
"The second part of H3 is common sense" but the problem with common sense is that it isn't that common. Having ridden a bike extensively in France and Holland, drivers in the UK do not consider cyclists as equal road users - that needs to change and I hope these new rules aid that change
@@OneLessCar I won't cycle on busy highways - it is far too dangerous .- there are floral tributes where cyclists and pedestrians have died all along busy main roads . it's safer by car !
An Undertaking cyclist at a junction is putting themselves in danger if the vehicle in front has a left signal on and has had it on before the cyclist caught up as the vehicle slows down . Are we going to fit the " caution this vehicle is turning left" sound from HGV's on all cars? A competent cyclist will look at the nearside mirror to see if they have been seen or just hold back but ability varies as it does in all road users.
To be fair (and as a cyclist) the standard road layout which has a cycle lane in the gutter tends to lead to this result, especially in heavy (car) traffic where the cycle lane often moves more quickly. I have spent a lot of time educating my own son about how to behave when riding in such cycle lanes, especially around left-turnings, to always assume that the car won't have seen you and is going to turn, regardless of what they are (or are not) signalling. This means ensuring that you are not riding up the inside of a car as you pass a junction, and you need to judge your speed carefully to make sure you are in a gap at such danger points. The new advice (which I've always advised anyway) is that if you are in any doubt about your own safety, get out of the cycle lane and join the main flow of traffic in primary position to be 100% sure that you are visible to other road users. This is good advice and it's why cycle lanes are not mandatory for bikes. (well, that and the shocking condition of many of them!)
3:09 I was always taught (not from instructors but parents) that I should be giving way to cyclists going straight even if turning left and I’m ahead. So I was surprised that this turns out to be a new rule.
@MIGHTY MQB 'Blind spots' occur when HGV drivers and car drivers don't look properly. They can see in the mirrors, they just choose not to move their heads a bit to take in all that the mirrors can show,
This is one of the problems around the publicity of the new updates. The government have dropped the ball. Much of the changes don't introduce new rules, they have introduced I think 3 new rules. Such as pedestrian priority at side roads. And reworded just over 30 for clarification of intent, as they were being constantly missinterpreted, or frequently ignored. This one of the ones that been clarified, it's not new. Vehicles proceeding ahead have always had priority over vehicles turning. This clarifies that bicycles are valid vehicles, they get to keep priority when going ahead at junctions, and road layout may place them to the left of cars that want to turn, but the bicycle still has priority.
@@ynotnilknarf39 humans make mistakes. Do you want to just assume you have been seen ? Or assume they know the new advice? I won't be assuming and will always defer to a car, because they could kill me. Waiting patiently behind them will keep me safe.
@ynotnilknarf39 nah I have worked with HGVS as a banks man you obviously no nothing about HGVs there is a massive blind spot hence most HGVs have big warning signs saying so to keep clear with these new rules there will be many more cyclists wrapped round the supersingles.
The rules are kinda strange tbh especially since most drivers aren't aware. Why should cyclists be given priority? Surely if you're on a bike and the car in front of turning left you shouldn't try going past him. Surely bike lanes are better than having bikes act like privileged cars?
Like the clear explanation! I already do all of these things when driving and when passing a cyclist/horse rider etc. I pretty much go as far onto the other side of the road as is safe to pass. I figure that if the cyclist falls off or a horse bolts whilst I am alongside them, the further away the better! Does the code also give any mention of following cyclists / horse riders? People often are too close behind them if they have to stop suddenly.
This......i had a look in the highway code but cant see anything about the giving space behind. But ofc most drivers use common sense, but yet most drivers just dont give a sh%$, hence why we getting these new rules it not going to stop them. But it did say on the high way is to never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends...which cycles ignore to do.
Yes it does. The old 2021 rules said to treat horses as a potential hazard. The changed rule 215 in the new 2022 rules says what to do _when you see_ a horse on the road, and doesn't just talk about overtaking an equestrian as the old rule did. It talks about approaching and pulling away from, too. There are several rules changes that M. Neal and the newspapers have not talked about at all, and this is one of them.
Great video Ashley once again ,I hope people take note of the changes to keep every one safe who and what ever you use to commute, I do have one question, shouldn’t cyclists be forced to wear helmets , hivis vest and have lights on there cycles ? What are your thoughts on this ?
The rule that effectively grants cyclists priority even if they are approaching from behind is really dangerous. This is no longer about equality on the road, but creates a precedent for dangerous situations.
@@velokernow3696 im not sure what you mean by that. Situation where a cyclists approaching from behind has priority only increases that killing capacity by increased possibility of an accident.
Just seen “Blackbelt Barrister” with his take on the proposed changes to The Highway Code. I believe HM Government needs do a thorough publicity campaign as I’ve only see the proposed changes on both yours and a couple of other UA-cam channels!
There was a public consultation and people could write what they thought about it. I completed the Survey. I don't understand why people just don't watch the news, it was there for all to see. Maybe too many people are just watching football or royal news all the time
@@beaulieuonnp593 Point taken. Me, I use the BBC web news, where you more or less pick what to read/watch. Therefore quite easily miss it. Nevertheless, it would be beneficial to publicise the new Highway Code prior to implementing it and pointing out the changes.
As a car driver I would never pass a car that's waiting to turn on the side they're indicating on, I don't know why we're saying it's OK for very vulnerable cyclists to do just that.
A comedian said in the 50's they were allowed to play with fireworks etc, the dumb ones didn't make it. The same could be said for cyclists and pedestrians that disregard common sense. Maybe it will become mandatory for everyone to have cameras fitted at all times?
The existing rule 72 says that it is _not_ OK for cyclists to do that, and the new rule 74 is going to say the very same thing. "Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left." The idea that "we" are saying it is OK to do this is not based in the reality of what the existing 2021 or the new 2022 Highway Code in fact say.
@@JdeBP You're right, "we" are not saying it, the Highway Code literally does. Rule 163 states:- "Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you." In the instance that a car stops to wait to turn right, the traffic may queue behind it. A Cyclist is then allowed to pass that traffic on the right. If the cyclist is continuing ahead as it approaches the car waiting to turn, the car must wait for the cyclist to pass, this is confirmed in rule 76. Rule 76 for cyclists states:- "Going straight ahead. If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into [...] the side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise (see Rule H3)." Rule H3 confirms this by stating to drivers:- "You should not cut across cyclists [...] going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction... Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist [...] to stop... Wait for the cyclist to pass the junction before turning. This also applies [...] if you are turning right or left into the junction." There is also an illustration attached to Rule H3 that shows a cyclist behind a car has priority to pass on the side the car is indicating on, in this case the left. Rule 76 for cyclists continues;- "Check that you can proceed safely, particularly when approaching junctions on the left alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic. Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road." This does not say that you must not complete the manoeuvre, but that you should do so with caution. Rule 74 to which you refer is only in relation to the cyclist also turning at the same junction. Rule 74 for cyclists states:- "Turning. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you [...] into the side road... Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left." This means do not make the turn whilst on the inside of a vehicle that you know to be also making the turn, instead slow down and allow space.
Not we - it is the lunatics who are trying to take over the asylum who are saying this utter nonsense . Fortunately it is only advice , very bad advice .
Primary position is great for making yourself more conspicuous to road users in general. The situation you describe; following a car in primary that is about to turn into a minor road, is perhaps one where secondary is more likely the driver will anticipate you passing on the left. Nonetheless, the easy fix in primary is to pass with caution on the opposite side to which the car is turning. Be mindful of other users who may use the break in flow caused by the turning car as an opportunity to emerge and haven't properly observed you.
Perhaps we should also adapt that cyclists are bound by the same rules as motor or motorcyclists, they are taking part in traffic so are by law bound by the same rules, if you drive through a red light as cyclist and have a driving licence you will get the same penalty as a motorist, in certain cases points on your driving licence. This is the case in germany, a country i lived in 27 years.
Thanks Ashley. I didn't know that these changes were coming until I watch your videos. I'm older than 21 and remember the government road safety cartoons constantly being played on all channels when I was a kid. It seems there is definitely a lack of communication concerning the highway code updates.
They're updated every couple of years and in the new copies of the HC as well as on the HC website. You choosing not to look and check for updates just makes you a poor driver, government cannot hold your hand through life
The vast majority of those changes are common sense and what most drivers were doing anyway. Unfortunately the government has used the opportunity to throw in stupid ideas like giving way to pedestrians on a roundabout, and allowing cyclists to take a primary position and then switch to staying close to the pavement to force the car to stop (there’s nothing in the rules explicitly preventing the scenario ash pointed out).
A very sensible and balanced run-through of the changes. So much more thoughtful than some of the mass media opinion pieces which are simply sowing division on our roads.
A driving instructor was parked .. his engine may or may not have been running ... in a cycle lane with broken white lines but there were double yellow lines adjacent to the kerb. The instructor was sitting alone in the driver's seat. I stopped and told him that he shouldn't be parked there. He commented about the broken white lines not being a solid white line, which I understand. However, I mentioned the double yellow lines. He told me to read the Highway Code. He wasn't 'loading' a pupil and he wasn't 'unloading' a pupil. Was I correct?
Most of those rules are just common sense and are already covered in the existing highway code. People who are operating outside the rules of common sense will ignore the new rules too. Many of the cyclists around us already believe they have a right of way in all circumstances.
It's really tiresome to see this cliche cager nonsense going on every video - probably a few riders do assume priority for whatever reason, potentially they get knocked off. The majority of drivers seem to believe in right of way (even though it doesn't exist - ironic on a driving school channel you'd repeat that myth) but more seriously, look how much death and destruction drivers do every year to other drivers, pedestrians, cyclists etc - deal with that before whinging about riders
When I was learning to drive 30 years ago my driving instructor told me I should always think ahead and show common sense for everyone on the road or path as you don't know what there gonna do
Ah I really don't get these changes. Again as many people mentioned in comments on the previous video, in many European countries traffic going straight on the same road gets priority over turning traffic. That includes pedestrians, cyclists, horse-drawn carriages, maybe even helicopters who knows. The point is why does this have to be so convolutedly stated in the UK and how on earth was this not a thing before????
I'm from the Netherlands and I don't understand it at all, especially this "primary position" stuff. Does that mean that in slow-moving traffic the cyclist should squeeze between the cars instead of keeping besides them? It seems that the UK is trying to reinvent the wheel here, in a bad way.
Because riding a bike almost died out in the UK and there were too few cyclists, no one really cared about it. There is a huge increase in the recent years and it isn't caused by the pandemic only. Many people actually found it beneficial to ride a bike in the town, it is usually a combination of economical, ecological and convenience. Of course, a speed of transport, or fitness is a large part of it as well, that is why you will see a large number of road cyclists in UK in comparison to Europe mainland.
Actually, it was a thing before. Some people actually taught it that way, in decades gone by. Strictly speaking, though, as the Highway Code itself states, there's no "gets priority" _anywhere_, neither in the Highway Code nor in the underlying U.K. law. There's only situations where people are told they have to "give way". People give priority to others, and the law tells them when to do so. The law itself doesn't give priority, though, or specify circumstances where people can take priority. So "give way to traffic whose path you are crossing" is the better formulation of the rule of thumb.
Aside of being a motorist, *I am a cyclist too* I ride about 6,000 miles a year (really, I do! - for weight loss / control). I really DON'T want more secluded, never swept cycle lanes. Most people in their cars are decent individuals but about once a quarter I get the "overtake and just turn left" clowns or "overtake, pull back to the left then brake hard" types too. I always wear a helmet. I always wear bright yellow clothing. I have 4 back lights (of which one flashes) at the back, 5 at the front (of which one flashes). One of each of the still front and back set of lights are on permanently too as I ride along day or night (the rest I keep until dark). The part of the road I prefer to use is the part where your left wing mirror would be. This gives me options to come back to the left to miss a pot-hole if I see it very late (like when it's dark) without otherwise having to swerve to the right were I riding along by or in the gutter. I do NOT ride on the pavement unless permitted (or instructed by a policeman, etc) I will always obey a red stop light *WHERE I HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION THEY WILL ACTUALLY AT SOME POINT CHANGE FOR +ME+ ALONE* that means _without having to wait 10,20,30,40 ??? minutes for a car to come along for it trip the sensors because the signals have NOT been calibrated to "see me approach" properly_ (and before you all start moaning - for the love of God please understand I don't want to ride across a red traffic light even if the road is empty PLEASE FIX THEM! I am sick of reporting them!) My bike has brakes and is properly maintained and I also DO have 3rd party insurance too _though I question how some insurers (who are not interested in my losses {just those I might do to others} want to price the insurance at around £100 per annum when my tonne weight car is only £185 per annum._ I usually ride in the evening (going after around 8 pm but sometimes as late as midnight). About once a month I have people throw MacDonald's packets, beer cans and all other detritus at me while I'm minding my own business. WHY? I really am not in the way! (especially not at that time of night). For what it's worth, I don't and won't be undertaking traffic indicating to go left that was there before me _even though these new rules imply I somehow now get right of way._ Undertaking like this may be a way to get to the undertakers! At the end of the day, this is about driving / riding / walking RESPECTFULLY of other people. We are all people too, BTW. Try to be predictable. Indicate and don't "surprise" other people. We will all make mistakes. Let's apologise when we make ours and be prepared for try to forgive the minor transgressions of others, no matter how we're getting around. 10 people a day die on our roads. Put your phone away and don't touch the bloody thing until you get to where you're going. Likewise, if you wouldn't want someone to maim a member of your family through being inebriated, don't mix any amount of alcohol with any form of mechanised transport (including cycling). If you wouldn't want this done to you then *don't do it to anyone else!* Stay safe out there and use places like Ashley's here and elsewhere to refine and suggest improvements so we can all learn from it. The roads can be safer with a little patience and forethought / consideration.
Is there going to be a video on the changes about cyclists and roundabouts? That's the change which most concerns me as it seems the most dangerous. "If you are turning right you can ride in the left or right-hand lanes and move left when approaching your exit. Position yourself in the centre of your lane if it is safe to do so (see Rule 72) and signal right to indicate that you are not leaving the roundabout." Surely it's safer to just ride primary in the correct lane rather than cutting across traffic at each exit.
That advice has been in the highway code for some time. Personally I think it is dangerous and if you are really not confident about roundabouts then dismount and walk round using the exits. I would always cycle round roundabouts the same as I would if I were driving. Other drivers may not understand what "special" rules cyclists have, so I just do what they should be doing and hopefully no-one is surprised.
@@steveworrall3705 Yes similar but more vague advice is currently in the highway code about staying left on roundabouts as a cyclist but it's crazy to double down on that bad advice when the rest of the code is being changed to put pedestrians first and when to take a priority position. I can't think of worst advice to give someone than to intentionally take the wrong lane at a roundabout.
@@kwlkid85 I don't think they are doubling down, I think it has just been shown because the rule number has changed. As it is included/highlighted though, many cyclists (who are perhaps not car drivers) may well think it is good advice and end up in conflict.
@@steveworrall3705 They have updated it before it was rule 77: "You may feel safer walking your cycle round on the pavement or verge. If you decide to ride round keeping to the left-hand lane you should be aware that drivers may not easily see you take extra care when cycling across exits. You may need to signal right to show you are not leaving the roundabout watch out for vehicles crossing your path to leave or join the roundabout". Now it's rule 79: "If you are turning right, you can ride in the left or right-hand lanes and move left when approaching your exit. Position yourself in the centre of your lane if it is safe to do so (see Rule 72) and signal right to indicate that you are not leaving the roundabout. Alternatively, you may feel safer walking your cycle round on the pavement or verge. If you decide to ride round keeping to the left-hand lane you should be aware that drivers may not easily see you, take extra care when cycling across exits. You should signal right to show you are not leaving the roundabout and watch out for vehicles crossing your path to leave or join the roundabout. Where a roundabout has separate cycle facilities, you should use these facilities where they make your journey safer and easier although you are not obliged to use them. This will depend on your experience and skills and the situation at the time."
Whilst these changes are welcomed, we need to see more cycle lanes being implemented. Cars and bikes travel at very different speeds and so when sharing the same area of road, of course there’s going to be conflict. Here in the Netherlands they use raised cycle lanes that are separated from the road and pavement and these work very well. I think when it comes to cycling, the UK has a lot to learn from Europe.
Unfortunately the UK is a victim of its ancient, cramped and illogical transportation system layout, often dating back hundreds (if not thousands) of years. It is not conducive to modern methods of mass movement that gives a balanced approach. The Netherlands has a fantastic separation of transport methods due much in part to its much newer network development of mass movement, along with an egalitarian principle sadly lacking in the UK.
@K it's an easy cop out to say it's only a few seconds. But in this location it can be as long as a minute delay for dozens of vehicles all because the cyclist doesn't want to negotiate safer but slightly interrupted journeys.
Priority rules like these have been in place in the Netherlands since 2001 and they've worked out pretty well. It took some adjusting, but it most definitely has made walking and cycling safer. Before 2001 it was like it was in the UK: fast traffic has priority over slow. However one major difference is that in the 6 months before the rule change an information campaign was held that explained the rules, and it do so ad nauseam. You really couldn't get away from those ads. I'm quite surprised these rules went into affect so quietly. Then again, I guess the UK government has been busy with other things ;)
Generally speaking most of the changes for cyclists I was doing anyway. I remember being told to give cyclists the same space as overtaking a small car when I was learning to drive. What does concern me is cyclists passing traffic on the left and travelling in blind spots. This particularly applies to HGV's. I don't think cyclists or any road user should be given special permissions to undertake vehicles. Undertaking can increase risk and for anyone driving a mechanically propelled vehicle can lead to being charged with careless driving. I believe that all road users should pay due care and attention. I do think cyclists taking prime position is something that should become the norm, particularly in slow moving, heavy traffic or narrow roads. I do wonder whether bicycles using the roads should be equipped with lights, indicators and mirrors and wear high visibility clothing at night? I agree in principle to the changes. I am concerned how it will work in practice.
There are no 'blind spots', only people who don't look properly. Been driving 30 years and cycling on road almost 40, never had an issue regards locating road users because I actually lean forward, turn my head and use my mirrors correctly. So it does concern me when the victim blaming BS comes out and use 'blind spot' as an excuse to kill and maim.
My perception of pedestrians , cyclists , horse riders or all vehicles not mechanically propelled on roads is treat them like an antique vase . No jiggling taking chances with or generally just take wide berth and be careful . Always been this way should be really any way . Really good sound advice and great clarification , more should be made aware to public though as most have no clue . 👍
I was cycling riding and Scooter rider for long time then after car drivers now a minibus driver so Awareness in safe driving Most essential but what I can't understand is if cyclist Are using the public road shouldn't may have the responsibility of using the highway code themself Giving out hand signals to let drivers and other people on the road know what they doing if they were turning left they do L left hand signal and if they on the right side they do a right hand signal to make drivers aware which way they going also they should have high viz. Lights Too often is not countably they should put that in the highway code I always give people give way now this is in effect immediately I try tell other drivers to be wary of what they do when they behind the wheel, by the way I was Driving instructor for my sister and she pass 1st go so I've done very proud She's very safe driver fantastic videos of your driving school and lessons
So when passing parked cars cyclists should move out into the Lane to avoid opening doors effectively adopting primary position, they should also slow down in case pedestrians emerge from between the cars. I can see that's not going down well with the following car drivers despite the slow speed being being exactly the same speed car drivers should have in those circumstances.
Said cyclists should , first and foremost , sa with all other road users , take rear observation BEFORE reaching parked cars and , if about to be overtaken , WAIT until they have been overtaken before proceeding .
@@kenbrown2808 Always am when driving . Use of horn if passing buses at stops , allowing space and remembering that person just may be deaf . Observation links like people getting up inside a bus you are following , or sight of feet under a bus you are approaching also forewarn you of hazards . Getting off a bus and darting out in front of it is pretty stupid though - always wait until the bus has departed so you can see both ways and be seen ; if there is a pedestrian crossing , which there often is near bus stops , then USE IT .
Glad l watched this, I hadn't picked up on the overtaking a cyclist at speed of over 30mph it's 2m. Almost everyone is saying you can't overtake at all if over 30mph. So you, can just give them more space.
Nice video, the cycling rules are pretty spot on as you've very clearly pointed out. I totally agree with the taking primary position as well, just hope it doesn't generate aggro with idiotic vehicle drivers, although that rarely happened with me when I used to cycle 250 miles a week. Personally I'm in favour of more formal training for cyclists though. When I switched up my commute to a motorcycle I noticed the broad range between a competent and incompetent cyclist as a road user. Even basic safety points like shoulder/lifesaver checks before overtaking weren't used (nearly resulting in me rear ending an experienced cyclist who just swerved out in front of me with headphones in when we were both sharing a bus lane). At the next lights I advised him to shoulder check for his own safety, whereupon another cyclist retorted that "I shouldn't be in their lane anyway". Fortunately the big blue sign directly in front of us enabled me to swiftly educate without need for argument. We wouldn't dream of sending people out on 125cc bikes without CBT training, so why not for cyclists? After all, with electric bikes now many bicycles are as quick if not quicker in city traffic.
The demise of the Cycling Proficiency Test, which was conducted as an after school activity under the aegis of RoSPA back when I took it, in favour of the "Bikeability" scheme. does not seem to be helpful, and looks like a typical example of the good idea fairy turning something simple that worked into a vastly over-complicated administrator's dream.
I don't deny some cyclists cycle with very little awareness, but I worry that formal training will just put a large percentage of cyclists off even starting, thereby lessening the numbers of cyclists on the road and making it less safe for the cyclists remaining, due to the fact that cars expect cyclists even less. We need more cyclists on the road, not less. I genuinely understand your points but I just worry about what formal training will do cycling numbers, which need to go up and not down.
@@edj4833 'Safety in numbers' doesn't work though, especially when each interaction occurs more often than not with one cyclist and one other road user. What's going to put a cyclist off more? A test or course that ensures their safety or getting into a collision that they've unwittingly caused? After all, CBT statistics have remained stable over the last decade despite it being mandatory and ever more costly (now ~£120). Should we remove that test to ensure we get more riders and 125's (and their electric equivalents) on the road as they're eminently better for the environment and congestion than cars? We need more cyclists, yes, but we need more GOOD cyclists.
@@rjpm92 I respectfully disagree about "safety in numbers". In some ways I feel safer cycling in London than the countryside, just because drivers in general expect cyclists to be there. To your second point, most cyclists don't get into collisions, but would be more put off by cr*ppy driving. Especially the more nervous potential cyclists (statistically more female) who would love to cycle and are sensible but look at the standard of some drivers/ infrastructure and decide to give it a miss. I do genuinely see your points, but if I persuade a friend that trying the bike would be beneficial for them, and they are prevented from coming out with me for a ride because of the bureaucracy of going through a costly and time consuming test, what then? A potential cyclist will then never have the experience of falling in love with the bike, will stay in her car and contribute to falling cycling numbers.
@@edj4833 Yeah, I get your first point. The only thing is that there's always going to be fewer cyclists in the countryside than in the city, both by number and density, so there's still that disparity that renders it moot, although I do agree with you in that a greater expectancy of a cyclist is safer. To the second, it's those nervous and inexperienced riders that the training is specifically for. It's those nervous riders that keep to the left at roundabouts when heading straight over on a second exit 'to get out of the way' and get caught up with cars exiting across them. Yes, the new highway code has catered for that and put the onus on the car driver to predict the cyclist. But some prior confidence and training to dominate the lane could prevent the incident even occurring in the first place. How many cyclists do we see creeping up the inside of lorries at stop lights only to get caught out by the traffic moving off before they've cleared? Sadly, off the top of my head, it's often women that get killed in that scenario from the news reports I remember hearing. Again, prior training to show exactly what a lorry driver can see and why doing that is so deadly could prevent a life being lost. Yes, the highway code now puts the onus and, arguably, blame on the lorry driver in that situation... but that doesn't save that life. Training does. As for the third point, every positive for not having training you mention there can be applied to CBT riding motorcyclists. Again, if the main reason for not having training is so that a more favourable mode of transport than cars can be more accessible for more people then they should scrap the CBT for motorcycles as well then. There are plenty of ways to encourage and allow people to enjoy the benefits of cycling without necessitating road use. I myself have done tens of thousands of miles mountain biking, BMX track riding and Velodrome riding, as well as countless miles riding my road bikes on dedicated paths (I used to live in Cardiff so the Taff Trail was a particular favourite). We can still encourage people to cycle, and more dedicated places to do so is part of the answer. All I'm suggesting is that, for safety's sake, a level of training is preferable should a casual cyclist wish to become a 'road user' which can only increase their safety, confidence and, subsequently, their enjoyment.
A very good video Ashley indeed. I hope the rules do get given out properly and we all do our best for road safety. The speeds you mentioned about slowing down is actually something I'm good at I think I usually slow down when I see a pedestrian far up a road maybe crossing and when I see cyclists I other situations. I'm heading out on my bike again so when these changes become law Saturday I hope it goes ok for me and everyone. Your video is so helpful
Daily Mail comments have been in uproar RE these changes. A lot of anger towards cyclists. Seems mostly irrational. I cycle purely for pleasure, not to commute or even stay fit just to get out into the countryside.
The Mail and it’s contemporaries have handled this appallingly. Not only have they triggered the drivers with very little brain, this fake outrage provides a stage for the militant cyclists. I have a foot in all camps, pedestrian, cyclist, driver, motorcyclist and in my experience the nonsense seen in the Mail’s comments section just doesn’t exist. I find people are by and large pleasant, accommodating, respectful and considerate on the roads but how long will it last when the most read English language website on Earth is intent on creating tribal conflict for clicks?
A bit like this headline from the Daily Express, "Cyclists kill or maim two pedestrians every week, according to statistics" Though the article did mention that the statistics did not include who was to blame, it was clearly slanted against cyclists.
Always look out for cyclists & give them plenty of room etc whilst I'm driving, however, here in London, SOME cyclists are a danger to themselves with how they ride. They think nothing of jumping red lights/zebra crossings (at high speeds) also whilst pedestrians are crossing. They don't slow/look when coming from a side road (even seen them shoot through give ways into other cyclists as they were not looking). I have no issue with the onus being on the vehicle as they can injure/kill easily......BUT, 100% responsibility should not be on the vehicle's, cyclists need to be more responsible also (saying this as I am also a cyclist)
Not suprising surely. Some cyclists do the same in the Netherlands, also especially in bigger cities like Amsterdam/Rotterdam. This is equally true for car drivers though. And just like motorists they get fined when for example going through red. Not all the time, but again, that's also true for motorists.
@@Being_Jeff the youth's in London are now mostly on electric scooters & are much more dangerous to themselves than cyclists, but that's another rant altogether 😂
@@Goat-wh1qw and yet, TfL data over 10 years proves that not only do just as many car drivers do that, there are far more serious consequences - 71% of all people hit and killed or seriously injured by a road user jumping a red light were hit by cars, just 4% by bikes. Cars are the danger, cars speed, jump lights, don't look - and add on drink driving, mobile phone use, doing makeup/hair etc etc. Deal with the serious issue first
I'm in agreement with these new advisories and I think most people were doing a lot of this already, but I did notice that the cyclist in the accident clip was sitting in a potential blind spot for the driver. I think most drivers check their blind spots when they're changing lanes on the motorway but much less so when on A roads, especially a left manoeuvre.
@@michaelandreou4996 I drive a car and I would like more protection from thoughtless dangerous drivers when I cycle on the road. What about those drivers who do not pay a "road fund licence" for example those that drive electric cars?
In the absence of a cycle lane, I suspect motorists wishing to turn left will pull close into the kerb well in advance of the junction to ensure any cyclists behind them will not be able to come alongside and therefore to put themselves in danger. In my opinion this would be the safe and appropriate thing to do for all concerned.
We're not even at the start of that journey. To give you an idea. The Dutch have spent 25% of their entire road transport budget on bike infrastructure since the mid 1970's. UK less than 1% in that time. Of course they get that back in health spending, lower pollution & congestion levels, fewer collisions etc. Their bike lanes have paid for themselves many times over,.
@@seemslegit6203 motorway speeds are slower than the UK’s during the day..64 mph, but raised to 80 after 7pm. But the best thing about driving in the Netherlands is drivers don’t have to mix with cyclists anywhere but quiet residential streets..Cyclists are fined for not using cycle lanes, however they are of such high quality cyclists are fine with that. I’m not sure about a comparison between driving tests, but enforcement for all users is much stricter in the Netherlands. & punishment more severe.
What happens at a Junction when there is a pedestrian/ traffic island 25-30 feet away from the intersection. Which in my case would mean I have already turned left and the whole of my motorcycle is on the road I've turned into, and I've yet to encounter a pedestrian, waiting or wanting to cross. This is a situation locally, at a particularly busy T junction, some pedestrians will use the traffic island, others who cant be bothered to walk up to the crossing point will cross at the roads widest point (fluted junction). In the latter case one will give priority to pedestrians under the new rules, but what about at the traffic island further away?
Interesting to see the UK changing these rules to a situation where they're very much like the ones we have where I live, which is the Netherlands. I'm honestly surprised that these rules are only coming in now rather than decades ago... Who would even dare get on a bike if any motor vehicle is allowed to cut you off at a junction? Same thing for the last video, about pedestrians gaining right-of-way over traffic turning in at the junction. So everyone in the UK has had to look over their shoulder at every junction on the off chance someone's about to come careening from behind and cut in front / run you over? Horrifying.
Yes its called "STOP, LOOK and LISTEN" something we Brits were taught for years and something I have drummed into my kids.I can't believe even if you have had our new rules for years that you just step into the road and hope any driver behind you has seen you. You may have priority, you may have right of way, but as pedestrian vs a car you are going to lose.
A pedestrian on foot can perform an emergency stop in a fraction of a second. A driver slamming the brakes of a multi tonne vehicle will take much longer. Look, I get it. pedestrians squishy, cars badbad. Drivers really should take care around pedestrian traffic. Absolutely! But as a pedestrian, are you really going to take that chance? Because if I, as a driver, have a momentary lapse in attention, and run you over, worst thing can happen to me is I lose my license and get some jail time. Worst thing that can happen to you is you are dead. Or at the very least severely injured. No, I think EVERYONE should take care and consider other road users. Everyone! Yes, there is an embarrassingly large number of idiot drivers, who either never heard of the Highway Code, or get their license and then conveniently ignore it. But tell me: how many pedestrians and cyclists picked up the book and read the relevant rules that apply to them? Because I never heard of "theory test for cyclists" being mandatory. Or mandatory insurance on push bikes. Cars and large vehicles should absolutely do everything to keep squishy bags on legs safe. But forcing drivers to be the only ones responsible for any kind of accident, even when they are clearly not at fault, is beyond ridiculous.
One specific question: A shared use cycle path crosses a side-road near me. There are no markings on the road to indicate the presence of the cycle path across the junction, but neither are there "cyclists dismount" signs. Going by H3 and Rule 184 I think cars (and motorcycles etc) entering or leaving the side-road should give way to cyclists on the cycle path crossing the side-road (or waiting to cross). Is this correct?
I feel likes this is more of plaster over a gaping wound than proper solution. The truth is the UK road system needs major reform and rebuilding for the modern road usage. It needs proper space for the cyclist and pedestrian, it needs bigger space for the car and other road vehicles. It needs more parking spaces as well. changing a few rules and suggestion in the high way code will not work most people or break the rules or drive like mad max endangering everyone will not follow them anyway. There bad drivers, riders and pedestrians all groups have bad eggs. Proper enforcement by police is needed and maybe a re-look in how people are taught to begin with for all road use. I have seen dangerous drivers, cyclists who are clearly not watching where they are or most scary of all wearing all black with no helmet or lighting in pitch darkness in the road. Everyone needs to step up really.
I agree with you totally; however, the obvious issue here is funding/money. I shudder to think how much it would cost to upgrade the road network sufficiently and it would, presumably, take a very long time. I'm far from an expert though so maybe it is feasible.
@@MartinParnham Well our government normally wastes billions on stupid projects each year. The failed track and trace App for example cost us near £37 billion to develop. It never worked and so a waste. I'm sure some overpaid useless managers in over bloated departments in ministries can be thrown out to save money. Maybe cut the over sized MP wages to and expensive. This is a long term smart investment in the future of the UK Long term, and it will create jobs and in the long run more money and pay it's self back. More than the H2 money pit train ever will. Look they always find money when they magically need or want, so I sure they will find it for this project to. It could even be done in stages.
The rules are fair enough. But..... Cyclists should be mandated to be visible - the amount who don't even have lights in the gloomy mornings is amazing.
All good advice as usual as an ADI myself been teaching these new rules or awhile now, the only problem I foresee is drivers who have been driving for awhile may not reread the Highway Code updates. Hopefully new drivers can educate others and maybe help there parents out with the new rules too. What do you think Ashley……
In my opinion the new rules relating to cyclists will do little for safety but lots for the egos of the male dominated cycling lobby. If they really were thinking about safety then they would be advocating defensive riding. I have just recently passed my motorcycling tests and now have my full licence, that experience has taught me to be more defensive, to try and anticipate the actions of others by putting myself in the safest position possible in the circumstances. These amendments do not do anything like that. On giving way to cyclists going straight on, how can it be safe that the entity with poorest visibility or opportunity to see the cyclist must give way when it's obvious that the cyclist has the best view and opportunity to anticipate the cars actions? This whole thing plays into the cycling, car hating lobby and their selfish agenda and i fear will make them even more angry and righteous but not any safer.
The giving space when passing parked cars is at least part of defensive cycling. For the most part cyclists already have to ride defensively. With up to 75% of car/cycle accidents being the fault of the motorist, they have to. As you say, your motorbike riding experience has shown you the value of anticipation and riding defensively. Cyclists will have gained similar experience. "cycling car hating lobby" The overwhelming majority of cyclists are also drivers. If this lobby exists how can I join in order to amend their motives from the inside? "Selfish agenda" I cannot find a copy of this agenda. Do you have one you could share?
You raise an excellent point about publicity and one that I would echo until I'm hoarse. The most I've heard about these changes is frankly from your videos and people (usually) moaning about them on Twitter. The official channels though? Not a peep. Thanks to you I know all about them but if I were to go and ask my wife, mother, even my brother who's a police officer, how much they know about them, I'll bet money they all answer "what changes?"
I think it's about time that cyclists should have a registration number on their bikes so THEY can be held responsible for their actions, too. I see so many cyclists riding on the road, then the path and not stopping at a red traffic light or zebra crossings. not having lights, but there is just no way of stopping them nore prosecuting for breaking the law! So, giving the cyclists who have this type of mind set more power on our roads is quite frankly ludicrous and dangerous too!
@@stokes8626 Eh that is a solvable problem if it was something that was actually needed which I don't think it is. Wouldn't be that hard to engineer a mount to attach the plates to the vertical struts under the seat and handlebar (Or onto the front/rear baggage rack if fitted). More to the point is I fail to see the need for this and especially not one sufficient for hitting cyclists with if I am not mistaken something like a thousand pounds or so to have a bicycle certified and registered as a motor vehicle and that is without the cost of the plates themselves. A bicycle is not a motor vehicle and doesn't need to be subjective to certification and registrations requirements designed for motor vehicles that due to the complexity of the latter have fees that are higher than the cost of the entire bicycle.
Agreed I've seen cyclists cause damage and even hit people and just carry on. Just last week one came flying along the middle of two lanes of stationery traffic and took off someones wing mirror and kept on going.
@@seraphina985 Who said anything about certify a cycle as a motor vehicle (which is impossible because it doesn't have a motor) and imposing large charges?
@@thomasnichol5127 Then it would be impossible for it to get a registration number then those are the rules. All registered vehicles need to be certified and meet a bunch of other standards before they can be registered.
Great video thank you. Where I live there are many narrow single width lanes with often many pedestrians. Should I wait behind a pedestrian while they walk the lane or, like now squeeze slowly passed when they have stood still, having indicated they are aware of me. The legal distance isnt possible.
How nice to see someone look at these rules calmly and sensibly. The clickbait media have done nothing to explain why these rules are changing, but they have demonstrated perfectly why they’re necessary. We’re all human beings just trying to get somewhere, some of us walk, some of us cycle and some of us drive. But no matter what our method of movement, we’re all someone’s parent, sibling, child, friend or colleague.
Unfortunately, Ashley's audience is among the group that are most likely to be already implementing these rules, and least likely to oppose them. Looking pretty much everywhere else sees a contingent of people complaining about how 1.5m passing for a cyclist is impossible and they won't be doing it
satistics don't agree most cyclists accidents reported are interpreted as the cyclist getting hurt when actual fact 80% of time it's the cyclist hurting a pedestrian but when they go to the hospital it's just registered as a cyclist accident and they have no training no insurance and the damage they do to parked cars every day is unacceptable and they just ride away not only this but they are a danger to children in prams I've seen it dozens of times at a traffic lights at a junction when the lights go red they just swivel to the left and ride across the pedestrian crossing and the back on there original route just to avoid lights but in the process I've seen them hitting babies out of prams and also when wemon with prams can't get on a train because of bikes left were prams should get priority and they pay no road tax but act like they built the road with there own 2 hands and have you ever seen them riding with a friend they ride side by side in the middle of the road just so they can have a convenient chat while traffic piles up behind for miles.
You’re dead right about clickbait media. I’ve had loads of news articles suggested to me in my news feed but none of them really convey the new changes very well. They get your attention and then just repeat the headline 5 times with adverts, photos and other headlines interspersed.
@@Felled-angel 80% you got any sources? if a bike hits a person its like the world burst in the flames when someone is killed everyday on the road by a driver (3000+ per year deaths and injuries )r. it happens so often it not news anymore...it why 3rd party insurance is the Law and not full comp
@@Felled-angel please hand your licence back in - you're not safe to be driving with this attitude. You're massively misinformed and are discriminating against a whole community based on anecdotal evidence.
You certainly aren't "a man of the people".
Do you know why I like Ashley's videos? He thinks of us, the traffic, as a community that are equal. I really like that. Thanks Ashley and I will make sure I do pay attention not to use primary position and swap over to the kerb to take over as it is unnecessary risk. I don't perform it, but it is still a thing that is worth considering and the view from the driver's side is really valuable in this(one of the main reasons why I do watch your videos - to learn what drivers experience).
Agreed!
🙏
really, think of it as, why would you pass a car that is turning to its blind side, on the blind side it is turning towards? especially if you are starting from the middle of the lane behind it?
@@ashley_neal All 3 videos are great and well explained. I have seen others, also from DI's, who have got the changes very wrong indeed. Keep up the good work.
I get the concern but it doesn't feel like something people would naturally do. If you're in primary the chances are the lane is narrow and there would not be room to pass on the left.
I certainly have never passed a vehicle on the left at a junction in the absence of a well marked cycle lane, and would advise against it.
If a cyclist moves from primary position to left side of a car that has indicated its turn, just to assume priority, it should be dealt with as a dangerous undertake by the cyclist and the motor vechicle held not at fault. If they were always on the left then yes the new rules are correct.
No-one is going to do that ludicrously over the scenario
No - if the motor vehicle was always ahead , the new guidance is ill considered , absurd and dangerous ; the ONLY safe advice is DO NOT OVERTAKE ON THE LEFT THROUGH JUNCTIONS .
I do a fair bit of driving in North Wales and the Lakes as I love walking in the hills and mountains there. A lot of the time it just needs some degree of common sense and courtesy from all concerned.
Last time I was in North Wales I ran into a group of cyclists (well not literally haha) on a very narrow country road who were clearly part of the same club. Rather than risking barging past each one at the earliest chance I just sat back and gave them room. No more than 3 minutes later there was a large driveway and every single one of them stopped there and waved me past.
Didn't delay my journey by much and in return everyone was kept safe. About 10 minutes after I reached my car park the rode in as well and I had a pleasant chat about where each was going with one of them.
3 minutes to some motorists is like the worse thing that could ever happen to them, it's pretty unusual for that period of time for there not to be enough room to overtake safely but well done to you, it's rare as rocking horse shit tbh.
Most the time I'm not wanting someone in a motor behind me for too long but I ride on my own so its less of a problem, I'm not in a race so if there is a spot to slow down and I can wave someone through to overtake I'll take it.
Just people chilling out and not thinking they have to get from A-B in shortest time possible, and I include that to people riding bikes as well.
@@ynotnilknarf39 the problem was the lane was barely more than a car wide, so there wasn't much room to pass. I swear if I'd rolled down my windows I could have touched the hedge on the side of the road as I drove lol
Thanks for all three updates. When cycling I agree, if I adopt primary position at a junction I stay out there and complete the junction pretty much as if I was in my car. I certainly don't nip back in to the left to "undertake" if the opportunity arises.
But others will ... there can be a fierce competitive spirit in some cyclists ...
But you know full well that others do and now more will do.
But the majority do - and they are the same ones that have no lights , no audible warning , and cycle doesn,t conform to use and construction regulations for road use- how do they get away with it? - because they do not have a registration plate as many other road users .
As a cyclist if I was in Primary position and the vehicle in front indicates left whilst I was gaining on them my instinct would be to go further right and pass on the outside as they turned, not go left, as that space is always going to close.
The main point for me is that most on road cycle lanes are not 2m wide therefore when a driver passes a cyclist in a cycle lane they will still need to move out to give the appropriate clearances. That painted line is no protection from the buffeting wind from the vehicle at high speed.
This is one of the reasons why in most situations I overtake on the right when cycling (just as a motorcycle would 'filter'). I have more space, I can see oncoming traffic and I won't be blocked by cars that are close to the curb.
the wind never bothered me much. it was the realization that if I hit something and took a spill, I would land under a car, that made me stop thinking drivers were being silly for giving me wide clearances
All good comments. 👍
Or if the driver twitches the wheel left just the slightest for any reason, they will hit you. And no, a plastic wand will not help!
There are definitely improvements that can be made to the new rules/guidance. But the mainstream media seem to be getting these updates wrong and that's causing some misinformation. At the end of the day, whatever type of road user you are, we are all humans. Use the road with great care for yourself and all others you encounter.
'Legacy Media' is more accurate. I now get my road news from Ashley.
What the main stream media and misinformation, never 🤫.
There are some shocking drivers out there, no question, but there are also some shocking cyclists out there too. Just around the corner from where I live there is a main road along a busy shopping "high street". It used to have wide pavements, parallel parking bays on either side of the road and two lanes in each direction for traffic. Recently the pavements were narrowed slightly and a cycle lane added, causing the loss of 1 lane of traffic in each direction, but many cyclists still insist on using the road instead of the cycle lane. WHY? (Rhetorical)
Remarkably, the only good written piece on the changes I've seen was in the Guardian this week (Common myths about what UK Highway Code changes will mean). Summed up with " much of this is standard good sense and courtesy anyway, while other elements, such as the primary position and riding two abreast, have been in the rules for many years but are still routinely unknown to drivers". Even motoring rags have misrepresented the changes, which elicits some fairly extreme responses from the readers/viewers.
@@paulwood5803 why is irrelevant, deal with it, cyclists are allowed on every road except motorways, believe it or not the vast majority of car drivers are excellent, but there is still an army whose ignorance is invincible, people who don't understand why cyclists would rather use the road than cycle lanes ill kept by local Councils strewn with glass, ignorant people who still pay mythical road tax ,who if it existed thinks it gives them entitlement over non payers of mythical road tax, ignorant of the fact that it's easier to overtake 8 cyclists riding two abreast than 8 in single file. The Highway code is for everyone. Please don't retort with cyclists jumping red lights etc etc
Good shout on the potential for cyclist to undertake from the primary position to gain priority over a vehicle turning left into a junction. As much as that manoeuvre is an accident waiting to happen, I can see some not so switched on cyclists doing so. Hopefully that technicality gets addressed quickly. Great video Ashley. Top work.
Couldn't agree more - I cycle to work everyday, and see riders going up the inside of a well positioned car turning left all the time. While it's a good change for drivers to not cut across cycles on the left, it shouldn't be encouraged for bikes to switch position to go up their as Ashley said.
I stick behind in primary, and usually end up waiting and waiting as the driver is unable to complete their manoeuvre because cyclists keep having a go!
The fix from primary is to pass on the side opposite to which the car is turning, unless you aren't confident other road users that may also turn in/out are aware of you. (Plus other overtaking cars/ motorbikes/ cyclists)
Certainly cyclists would end up doing this automatically whilst going downhill with all that potential energy at their disposal who wouldn't want to.
Why would that ever be a problem? For this to even be possible, the turning car would have to be standing at the intersection for a good amount of time and not be able to complete the turn, while the main direction of the road is clear both ahead of the cyclist and ahead of the intersection. This can only happen if the turn is blocked by something that's not going away in a hurry - in which case continuing is perfectly safe for the cyclist and won't inconvenience the driver at all. Otherwise, there's not going to be enough time for the cyclist to catch up if they kept anywhere near a sensible following distance.
@@jandl1jph766 I see it all the time. eg a car is waiting to turn into a side road, indicating and waiting for a pedestrian to cross.
Going up the inside here is not a good idea, as the driver is likely going to have their attention on the pedestrian. Of course they do still have to look out for you, but it will be just as easy to wait behind in primary. They'll be gone as soon as the pedestrian is finished and everyone is on their way.
I was always told by my instructor (and that's over 20 years ago) that if your turning left and there is a cyclist ahead not to overtake them regardless, use common sense slow down and go BEHIND them. Also that you should always check a blind spot before opening a car door to account for cyclists etc.
It seems to me that for the most part these new highway code updates are basically adding in some things that decent drivers should have been doing anyway simply through common sense and courtesy.
absolutly
Totally agree, I have been doing this as a habit and common sense, and I can see many car drivers especially new drivers are nervous as they are still acquiring grips with driving, and are barely in control of their cars let alone surroundings, and judging behind and ahead , motorists themselves become victim of such careless or inconsiderate drivers often pull out of junctions, its not about a war between cyclist and cars but overall there are bad car drivers and idiot cyclist too.
Also these are blanket guidances, each situation should be judged on its own merit, that's where the common sense , judgement and experience comes in.
It's not a one size fits all.
My concern is that cyclists will undertake vehicles indicating left, have priority and use it to, erm, perhaps boost their income. There is talk that motor vehicles that undertake can be prosecuted. In general I do not object to cyclists undertaking but undertaking a vehicle signalling to turn left is stupid.
I don't think it's too unreasonable to expect a driver turning left to have a glance in their mirror before they do so
What does happen is a car driver will overtake then slow down for the turn meaning the cyclist will overtake unless they also slow down.
If a cyclist starts to undertake you will you be expected to move to the right to give the 2 meter distance? Motorcyclists often place themselves between lanes of traffic (filtering) with considerably less than 2 meters of clearance from the cars, what happens there?
@@jensaugust743 I don't disagree, but in London recently in heavy traffic, cycles were appearing randomly from all direction weaving in and out it traffic.
Its difficult to see them sometimes particularly in the dark when other vehicle headlights mess up your vision or the cyclists haven't got lights.
I just don't understand why cyclists regularly put themselves in dangerous situations. This includes not using a good new cycle lane in a location where the road is narrow and significantly sloped meaning bikes are down at under 10 mph and cars/lorries can't overtake.
It just looks like cyclists are being awkward.
@@ianm408 if you're taking a left turn, and are worried about cyclists undertaking you, just position yourself right next to the left kerb, and thus prevent anyone from getting through on the left.
As a cyclist and motorist, I find the new rule that cyclists to a motorist's left should have priority at a junction to be mind blowingly stupid. If the cyclist is ahead, they should position themselves in the centre of the lane so that a motorist cannot place them on the left. Telling cyclists that is is OK to position themselves on the left of vehicles at junctions is leading them to putting themselves at risk, because it is an absolute certainty that there will be cases where a driver is unaware that the situation has changed since they stopped, and hit the cyclist with potentially serious consequences. It's not a case of who's in the wrong. The fact that it will continue to happen makes it a daft rule change.
It's to avoid a cyclist being cut up at a junction, which is obviously safe and should be happening already. Watch the video. Sounds like you've never ridden a bike TBH
One morning, travelling into work on my motorbike to a company with traffic lights at the entrance, I approached the junction, left indicator on for at least 100m prior to the turning, and riding right up against the cycle lane. Just before leaning in to the left hand turn, I did my due diligence checks. Check the left mirror and a glance over the left shoulder (because you never know!). Sure enough a Lycra clad chap was right on my left tail pipe, head down looking at his handle bars. I quickly managed to sit the bike up and missed him by inches.
If the lights had bee on RED, he would have finished up being hit, hitting the front wing or passenger compartment of a car or under the wheels of a commercial vehicle.
According to the new rules, I would have been at fault, despite the cyclist failing to pay attention to the road and traffic around him and undertaking a moving vehicle, which is illegal. If he had hit the back of my bike, does the responsibility transfer to him, just as it would for another vehicle running into the back of my bike? Does he carry, or is he obliged to carry insurance for damage?
In a collision with cross traffic, if he had gone through on RED, who would carry the responsibility? The vehicle crossing the junction on GREEN? The Cyclist?
I foresee an explosion of "accidents" involving "cyclists" and "pedestrians" at junctions all over the UK, simply for the compo from insurance companies.
I was taught defensive driving/riding techniques, hence the "life saver" glance over the shoulder. I even did it as part of the "Cycling Proficiency" course I did at school. You position yourself so that you cover all bases from being hit. On one ride-out, one of the pack commented "you knew he was going to do that, didn't you", referring to a car that had braked hard in front of us and then applied a turn signal just before the manoeuvre. "How?". It was the driver's driving style and his side to side head movement that gave it away. He was looking for the turning and saw it at the last moment. Being lead bike at the time, I'd throttled off and dropped back a few extra yards, just in case. Defensive techniques. Correct positioning and speed. Being prepared to brake suddenly. Being in the right gear to react in time and being aware of those around me.
Maybe a requirement for ALL cyclists to register their bicycle, pay a nominal annual road tax and carry a minimum third party insurance would sharpen up the inattentive suicide jockeys that are over represented within the cycling community. What are your thoughts?
@@garymitchell5899 Tell me how these changes stop this from happening? Is the current situation that the drivers are checking the mirror, seeing the cyclist and thinking 'well ... the highway code says I can do this' and drives into them?
People don't check their mirrors. It's never safe to pass on the left when traffic is moving. If I'm passing a car I will overtake down the middle of the road.
@@garymitchell5899 Looks as if you didn't even read the post (check the first three words). I know what the intention is. I'm just saying that encouraging cyclists to place themselves to the left of cars at a junction is an invitation to the death and injury of cyclists. Just because they may have right of way will not protect them from said death or injury if an in attentive driver does not realise they are there. The code should be that a cyclist turning left should position themselves in the centre of the lane so that larger vehicles CANNOT pass and cut them up..
The new rules were clearly written by the same crazies who created smart motorways
The way the same rules are stated here in Germany roughly translates to "anyone turning must yield to traffic following the direction of the road, unless otherwise indicated by a sign or signal". Much simpler and perfectly clear...
true. so simple, yet it encompasses every situation described in this video. sometimes we Germans truly are efficient.
The same is true in NL afaik.
Exactly this is how it should be done.
So you have to let traffic behind you pass before taking your turn? Nonsense, not clear at all.
@@pocky1scot1 No you have not let the traffic pass if you're in front they should see your signal to turn and let you do so if you're behind let them go straight on then turn
Well done Ashley on a clear explanation of the new rules. I always give cyclists room when passing and slow down and give plenty of room for horses and pedestrians. I do a lot of country lane driving so I encounter these instances quite alot.
Same for me too.🦮🚶♀️🐎🚴♂️🙂
but we live at a stables and many drivers drive fast at a stables entrance, despite horses coming out or crossing the field. There is little situation awareness
I do quite a bit of driving around a well known university city that has a very high number of cyclists. I've always tried to keep a good look out and give cyclists lots of space and room to manoeuvre, but even then I probably have to make an emergency stop every week or so as some suicidal cyclist hops off the curb or suddenly changes direction. Few of them have lights and many have dirty or obscured reflectors and are wearing dark clothing. To be honest, on the rare occasions when I see a cyclist wearing high vis with proper lights I feel like pulling over and thanking them!
It boils down to the simple concept of ‘Sharing The Road’. Unfortunately, too many of us - regardless of our mode of transport - see getting from A to B as a competition 🙁
Then they should pay for the use of the road like the rest of us.
@@sw1000xg we dont pay to use the road... its based on pollution. Roads are funded by general taxation.
hence:
"
How Road Tax/Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) is calculated
VED is calculated according to the CO2 tailpipe emissions for all vehicles registered since March 2001. For cars registered before March 2001 the tax is calculated based on engine size.
Zero emission vehicles (BEVs) are exempt. Plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) are subject to modest VED and any plug-in hybrids that cost £40,000 or more are subject to pay an annual supplement for 5 years (starting from the second time the vehicle is taxed).
"
@@joecater894 VED is a tax LMFAO! If you don't pay you CAN'T USE THE ROADS HAHAHAHAH STFU
@@joecater894 Do you drive a car, and do you know what it`s like to be stuck behind 10_20 cyclist`s in a club riding 2_3 abreast on narrow winding roads. The government is paying £1000s to keep the traffic flowing, and take it back from the motorist on TAX, while cyclist`s hold up traffic for free.
@@joim3480 pedestrians past council tax for the pavements. But cars can't use it
Many thanks for your balanced reaction to the changes that are imminent. It is really refreshing especially with the distressing columns and reactions on mainstream media (printed and televised). It has been very disappointing that people have responded with such anger without looking at the proof document that is available to the public.
I never considered switching to the near side of a left turning vehicle when I’ve been following. My instinct has always been to follow or switch to the offside. Looking through the amendments/rewording I actually find that they’re all clarifying road craft I’ve been practicing on the bike for over 45 years and 35years in the car.
Thanks again.
Thanks for this great analysis, as others have said, this is respectful of everyone, and as a non-driver, I wish all drivers were like Ashley. When cycling, I have always ‘acted like a car’, taking primary position at junction to stake my place and stop cars cutting me off. I wait my turn at junctions and when traffic slows, I think it’s dangerous to weave through and some cyclists, like some motorists, need to stop being in such a rush. As a pedestrian, I only assume the right to cross at pelicans, zebras, and if the road is clear when I begin to cross (assuming 30 mph). It’s much clearer for everyone to have a shared understanding about when and how people cross roads. For the rule to work, people will just have to start noticing pedestrians more when driving, and calm it down in places were there are lots of people.
This is all very well presuming the driver has seen the cyclist to there left. When I'm cycling I don't like to undertake vehicles especially at junctions.
That's good, because the new rules say that you shouldn't do that, and the old rules _already_ said that you shouldn't do that. See rule 72 from the 2021 rules: "When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left." and rule 74 from the new 2022 rules: "When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing
down to turn left." There isn't really the loophole here that people are suggesting. Doing what was suggested already was against the Code, and will continue to be.
Really well explained thank you I will forward your link to my 3 daughters who all drive, thank you xx
Seems to me that there is so much mis-information out there (media particularly). I was watching GMTV this morning, a piss poor interpretation by Mr. Ed Balls, saying that motorists on roundabouts would have to give way to cyclists joining from their left... obv. incorrect but how many people will have watched and believed that little nugget ? Get yourself on there Ashley, they need someone like you to put them straight.
Thanks for doing these videos, so many poor attempts online at it analysing these rules.
I’m still worried that Cyclists will assume priority and that drivers will miss the cyclists even after doing proper mirror checks. You’ve always said that priority is given not taken. I’d put money on that cyclists are going to be hit more frequently due to this and other cars will get rear ended.
Absolutely correct. With all the "rights" cyclists demand must come responsibilities. Requirement to pass a test of competency with an appropriate licence. Mandatory registration plates for bike. Cycling tax applied to help fund cycle lanes and their impact on other road users. Limited to roads with a maximum of 30 mph.
there is still a caveat in the amendments though that states:
"None of this detracts from the responsibility of ALL road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, to have regard for their own and other road users’ safety. "
I'm interested in how the powers that be envisage resolving the situation when a car has stopped a left turn for a pedestrian to cross in a busy cycling city like London. Whilst stopped for the pedestrian this will allow enough time for a whole flock of cyclists who the car had previously past safely to catch back up. Now once the pedestrian has crossed the car can still not proceed (along with the other cars that stopped behind the first as they couldn't get past it) until the entire group of cyclists who are now passing the car on left have proceeded past the car. That's not even taking the situation into account of a busy town centre with an almost continuous flow of pedestrians that may cause the "vehicles most wait for pedestrians wishing to cross" to be an unbroken scenario.
@@ferguszade5594 Congratulations on managing to hit all the anti-cyclist bingo numbers in one go. Mr Toad would be proud of you.
@@ferguszade5594 while some of that might make sense, the 30mph roads only thing, effectivity bans cyclists from riding along country lanes which, for good or ill, are generally the national speed limit....
Great series Ashley! Thanks for the effort putting together. Thoughts that spring to mind as a part time driver / cyclist / pedestrian! :
1) You may be in the right. But don't be dead right. I always feel super sketchy up the left hand side of traffic, (e.g. rider at 3m10, sat in the blind spot. Hope all okay). And I won't be stepping out in front of traffic to cross at junctions any time soon. Basically on a bike I assume everyone is a homicidal drunk/drug driver and ride defensively. When drivers are considerate (i.e. obey the rules!) I'll always wave / smile, get out they way as efficiently as possible. I dont see this changing.
2) If a road layout had 2 vehicle lanes, where the left hand lane went straight on, and the right hand lane was for straight on / left turns across the other lane it would not pass planning. Appreciate this arises as a result of legacy infrastructure for bike lanes, but that must change. (Great expereince riding hire bikes around Berlin recently which has sequenced lights for cars, cylists and pedestrians, seperate lanes etc.)
3) I'd be super wary to pass up the left side of vehicles on a bike (even in a poorly painted cycle lane), and would slow at junctions in anticipation, ready to stop should a left hook arise.
4) I guess if the rule encourages more people to pay proper attention to near side at junctions and to what pedestrians are up to then it should reduce accidents, and at least liability will be clear. Time for pedestrians to get a hatcam?
many places in my state have the right turn lane (we drive on the right side of the road) cross the cycle lane far enough back that the driver isn't slowing, yet, when they cross the cycle lane. this puts the cyclist outside their turn and avoids conflict as long as the driver isn't driving alongside the cyclist.
also, here, it is made clear, a right/left hook is when a driver overtakes and THEN turns across the cyclist's path. if the cyclist has been behind the car the entire time, then it is not a hook. it may be a turn without proper signaling, but not a hook.
On the "give way to cyclists coming up on the left" point - if you were driving along a road with a bus lane to your left and you wanted to turn across the bus lane to access a side road, would you cut across the path of an approaching bus? I'm sure that there are quite a few drivers that would cut across a cyclist's path but not across a bus' path.
Exactly.
Yes everyone with a brain can recognise that. But these changes need to better clarify where there is no 'lane' to the left. If you had a bus behind you on a normal single traffic road you would expect the bus to wait behind you while turning left. Not undertake you on the left. Currently though the wording allows a cyclist to do this, stupidly dangerous of them but also legally correct. It genuinely frightens me that I would be responsible as the car driver if a cyclist did that.
A good analogy might be exiting a dual carriageway. Before doing this, you must be in the left-hand lane. If necessary, you must slow down so that you can find a gap in the traffic to move into the left hand lane. Similarly, if there is a bus or cyclist to your left, you might need to slow down to find a gap in the traffic to your left in order to make a left turn. That applies to a bus lane or cycle lane to your left.
@@pocky1scot1 In a lot of cases, it's not a cyclist undertaking, but a driver trying to overtake and then turn left immediately. If there isn't room to overtake and clear a large enough gap to turn left without the cyclist having to slow down, the driver should not perform the overtaking manoeuvre before the left turn.
@@pocky1scot1 how about using your mirrors and doing a blind spot check if you're worried??
Thanks for the video series, it's nice to know how the perception of cyclists might change in the future. I'm going to play it safe and assume no-one will follow these rules at first, and then re-assess how I cycle as we see changes in behaviour and therefore also in risk.
This is the correct way to go about it IMO. I usually avoid it like the plague, but the comments on a recent Daily Mail article about these changes were genuinely quite scary.
Everything ranging from "It's another woke conspiracy" to people openly admitting that they weren't going to follow the new rules and that they would start going out of their way to cause accidents to "send a message."
@@thisaccountisdead168 reading the daily mail comments section on cycling issues sounds like a good way to get your heart rate going faster than riding an actual bike.
Just look after yourself - you cannot rely on others to do it for you .
I think your videos are great, I've learnt a lot from them as has my daughter who is about to start driving lessons.
Personally I think the way to ensure everyone is up to date with new rules and guidelines is to reassess competence every 2 to 5 years like we do in the rail industry.
💯💯💯
I think the best explanation I've heard of this is that is just a formalisation of common courtesy.
Never understood what advantage a driver thinks they are getting overtaking a cyclist prior to emerging or leaving the main carriageway at a junction.
It has been blown out of proportion, IE the difference between centre of a lane and centre of a road.
It would help if more people in the UK cycled on public roads. Drivers would soon understand how to pass correctly.
No reasonable driver would overtake ANY other road user then turn left across them , but equally , no reasonable cyclist should consider overtaking through a junction where traffic already ahead my turn left , and remember an indicator lamp may have just failed moments earlier without the driver being aware , so do not rely on little flashing lights .
I have a front facing dash cam. I am now going to get a rear facing one as well.
Sensible advice as ever Ashley. I would imagine a very short Highway Code that just said ‘use the roads sensibly, respect others and make your safety and the safety of others a priority’ but having seen driving offences for drivers to properly clear their windscreens of frost or ice in cold weather, so their visibility is not impaired means we have to write prescriptive, detailed codes for those without ‘common sense’. Stay safe.
This one doesn't really strike me as much of a change as they pretty much logical. If you count the cycle lane as it is, a lane. You're cutting across a lane when at a junction, so the cyclist, even behind you, should be given way if needed. The same should be applied for roads without cycle lanes, but that sounds more judge the situation on it own merits
However, the one I'll be surprised if people change for is the cyclist overtake. Everyone's perception of Enough Space is different, and I see some pretty awful overtakes of cyclists already. On the flipside, I also don't believe many cyclists will move to the left of a lane to let others pass, as the media over the changes has been 'cyclists, use the middle of the lane'
the law where I am is, in essence, if you don't have enough space to pass a car, you don't have enough space to pass a cyclist.
Well, you'd think, right? But only yesterday, a car cut across me in exactly this way, and the driver looked completely baffled by my annoyance. I don't think underlining this requirement will do any harm at all.
Problem is, by that logic, you would be turning left from the right lane. Which goes against how lanes should work.
Cycle lanes here in Scotland have give way lines where they come to junctions , some even have their own traffic lights , making it clear to cyclists that they must give way to turning traffic if present .
I think every sensible driver should be investing in a dashcam, front & rear if possible, to protect themselves........
Agree, in fact they should be mandatory in all vehicles and perhaps then we could see an improvement on the average motorists driving habits.
Im a bit lost on 3:13 so if traffic is doing lets say 10mph setting off and im turning left and a cyclist comes up the nearside at 25mph, i have to stop and let them go straight?
Wouldnt this cause issues for people behind who may not react in time/not know why you are stopping..i would say if a cyclist sees an indicator, stay behind that vehicle surely?
This is what I took from this part but i could be wrong..?😅
I'm amazed the first part of H3 has become statutory. I drove bigger vans for years and I ALWAYS check that left hand mirror before turning left - as should every motorist. No need to stop suddenly - adjust speed accordingly. Easy.
it is NOT statutory , it is only (bad and dangerous) advice .
Great analysis Ashley, thank you.
As a cyclist I don’t feel I’d take the primary position if I was approaching a lefthand turn I was planning to turn at.
I agree this is an omission as I find a key way to keep safe when cycling in traffic is to be consistent and visible. A cyclist switching from primary to the left hand side would perhaps confuse the driver ahead, or reduce the driver’s chances of spotting you on the inside.
I think Ashley's point was that a cyclist in primary position following a car that indicates left might choose to leave the primary position and dive down the left side as the car in front slows for the turn. This could happen when oncoming traffic makes overtaking by the cyclist an unattractive option, and also when there is a slow moving queue in their own lane.
As written, there doesn't seem to be a defence for the driver that the cyclist has just done something suicidal.
Ashley's suggestion that the cyclist be instructed (in the Highway Code) to stay in the primary position (and consequently have to wait for the car in front to complete their left turn) seems sensible to me.
Just made a similar point - only you made it far more concisely
These rules are not the horror show the media have painted them - well, for those who consider their own and others safety on the road - be seen, be predictable and be considerate and they are about what happens now for decent folk!
so as a cyclist you are gonna go against guidance? Cyclists are the devil. BUY A CAR.
@@dbracer that is the most sensible to me, as well. the statement, cars should not do something that forces the cyclist to stop, slow, or swerve does not mean cyclists should force cars ahead of them to stop, slow, or swerve.
@@dbracer I’m agreeing on this. I think that late switch is not good. I’d stay left the whole time if I wanted to go straight on. And would stay behind the car if I wanted to turn.
Food for thought, the new guidance on distances for overtaking cyclists would imply a minimum width of a cycle lane of ~3m as anything less would not allow heavy traffic to pass the cyclist leaving the expected clearance. Presumably this could be less in situations where the lane is properly divided with a kerb.
It must be a psychological thing. As a cyclist, if there's a constant stream of traffic less than 3 metres to your right, you get used to it. However, a sudden swoop and surge in speed of a vehicle overtaking you is a different experience. Also, they are saying 2 m or 3 m in order to err on the side of caution because they know people are poor at judging clearances without demarcation.
Partially agreed. My issue with kerbs is that they never fully protect the cyclist, but should help with stopping cars encroaching the space, be it driving or parking, so if the cyclist slides over on wet leaves, ice etc. they're going under the wheels of a motor vehicle 1m away from them no matter if there's a kerb between them.
You’ll find that cyclists will not be bothered if the passing motorist makes full use of lane 2 or the oncoming lane. It’s when they pass and their off side wheels barely cross the dividing line it becomes an issue especially at speed. A few lorry drivers have told me when they pass they straddle lane 1 & 2 in order to protect me from an undertaking motorists but they ensure they’re far enough out for me not to be pulled under their wheels by the back draught.
Actually, the 1.5m gap rule when overtaking cyclists, as a driver, is something I 100% agree with. Just imagine it is a farm truck in front of you. That thing is not much faster than your average cyclist. How do you overtake? You wait for an opening, signal, switch lanes, overtake, switch back to your lane. I have been doing this every time I overtake a cyclist, since the day I started learning to drive. It's not hard. Imagine it's a slow moving, large vehicle. Simple. Then the new 1.5m rule will be something you won't even notice.
But oh boy when I see a car in front of me speed past a cyclist at 60 mph blasting that cyclist right off the road... who the hell gave that driver a license in the first place?
@@CelestisForgeUK So much this. People keep whimpering to me there’s not enough room and I tell them if there’s another lane there’s room. If it’s a B road. There’s still room. You pull right across and drop your speed. If it’s a single track wait patiently for the cyclist to use a passing place because you know what they will and it will only be a few hundred metres! Taught all this when learning to drive over 35 years ago
One thing I'd like discussed. Cyclists please use lights on bikes, wear something reflective, you are hard to make out without lights and dark clothing
Excellent clarity as always . If everyone was taught to drive or ride with the level of awareness and proper behaviour displayed by Mr neal the UK would have the safest roads in the world !
I allowed a cyclist to continue passed a junction when I wanted to turn left this evening. Probably delayed my journey by about 5 seconds at most. I wasn't aware of these changes coming but I did this as I don't have "must get infront syndrome".
Further more cyclist was well illuminated and in a high vis jacket 👍
Wow that emerge at 1:57 was pretty special. Great video, glad to see some clarity on these points.
I think the main problem that cyclists face is that the road system is designed entirely around cars, and then bikes are just dumped onto the road to join them. Bikes are not cars, but they are handled almost exactly the same by the road system. Paint on the road is not enough. Changes like this may help cyclists and are cheap to implement, it's a change to a document, but if the government really wanted to help, they would be investing more into protected cycling lanes
If cyclists paid to use the roads,as car owners do, then the coul have more protection. As it stands,cyclists are merely a pain in the arse on the roads. Not all,but most.
@@simonpiper4696 The Vehicle Excise Duty all cars owners must pay is not paying for the road maintenance and upkeep; that is done by local and general taxes all citizens pay. What the VED does is tax cars based on their greater emissions and as cycling has negligible emissions it is not included. So everyone paying taxes pays for the upkeep of the road; they are not just for vehicle's use.
@@simonpiper4696 but a motorists dose not pay to use the Rd as your tax disc is a motor vehicle tax not a Rd tax
@Tomasz Hutchings except no, vehicle tax does go towards roads, because by your logic 100% of vehicle tax money should be go to counteracting emissions which we all know is bullshit
@@seemslegit6203 The majority of tax money (whether VED/council or local tax) gets put into effectively one big pot and most doesn't get ringfenced for specific uses. So all tax payers are in effect paying for the upkeep of the road; even if they have no intention of using it. I don't understand where you're getting the logic about all of VED being used for emissions reductions; as I've never mentioned that and it's just a way of internalising excess vehicle emissions.
I had to rewatch the bit you were saying about primary and left turns. I can't imagine as a cyclist being in primary, seeing someone ahead indicate left and then try and go around them on the left. If you ever see it happen, please make a video of it. Because it sounds ridiculous.
"The second part of H3 is common sense" but the problem with common sense is that it isn't that common. Having ridden a bike extensively in France and Holland, drivers in the UK do not consider cyclists as equal road users - that needs to change and I hope these new rules aid that change
It would help if more people in the UK cycled on public roads. They'd soon understand!
Cyclists are not equal road users,70 percent of them are idiots.
@@OneLessCar Way too dangerous!
@@Slash1066 it really isn't. Statistics show otherwise
@@OneLessCar I won't cycle on busy highways - it is far too dangerous .- there are floral tributes where cyclists and pedestrians have died all along busy main roads . it's safer by car !
Thanks Mr Neal Clear and concise again. As for the ending.....just fantastic👏👏
Many thanks!
An Undertaking cyclist at a junction is putting themselves in danger if the vehicle in front has a left signal on and has had it on before the cyclist caught up as the vehicle slows down . Are we going to fit the " caution this vehicle is turning left" sound from HGV's on all cars? A competent cyclist will look at the nearside mirror to see if they have been seen or just hold back but ability varies as it does in all road users.
sadly, there are some cyclists who appear to read these changes as drivers must assume all cyclists are now blue light vehicles.
To be fair (and as a cyclist) the standard road layout which has a cycle lane in the gutter tends to lead to this result, especially in heavy (car) traffic where the cycle lane often moves more quickly. I have spent a lot of time educating my own son about how to behave when riding in such cycle lanes, especially around left-turnings, to always assume that the car won't have seen you and is going to turn, regardless of what they are (or are not) signalling. This means ensuring that you are not riding up the inside of a car as you pass a junction, and you need to judge your speed carefully to make sure you are in a gap at such danger points.
The new advice (which I've always advised anyway) is that if you are in any doubt about your own safety, get out of the cycle lane and join the main flow of traffic in primary position to be 100% sure that you are visible to other road users. This is good advice and it's why cycle lanes are not mandatory for bikes. (well, that and the shocking condition of many of them!)
3:09 I was always taught (not from instructors but parents) that I should be giving way to cyclists going straight even if turning left and I’m ahead. So I was surprised that this turns out to be a new rule.
Yes! Why would anyone not do this?
@MIGHTY MQB 'Blind spots' occur when HGV drivers and car drivers don't look properly. They can see in the mirrors, they just choose not to move their heads a bit to take in all that the mirrors can show,
This is one of the problems around the publicity of the new updates. The government have dropped the ball.
Much of the changes don't introduce new rules, they have introduced I think 3 new rules. Such as pedestrian priority at side roads. And reworded just over 30 for clarification of intent, as they were being constantly missinterpreted, or frequently ignored.
This one of the ones that been clarified, it's not new.
Vehicles proceeding ahead have always had priority over vehicles turning. This clarifies that bicycles are valid vehicles, they get to keep priority when going ahead at junctions, and road layout may place them to the left of cars that want to turn, but the bicycle still has priority.
@@ynotnilknarf39 humans make mistakes. Do you want to just assume you have been seen ? Or assume they know the new advice? I won't be assuming and will always defer to a car, because they could kill me. Waiting patiently behind them will keep me safe.
@ynotnilknarf39 nah I have worked with HGVS as a banks man you obviously no nothing about HGVs there is a massive blind spot hence most HGVs have big warning signs saying so to keep clear with these new rules there will be many more cyclists wrapped round the supersingles.
All in all, be more aware, less aggressive and respectful to vulnerable road users and people who may need to use it (ie. pedestrians)
Amen!
Like cyclists will do that......
The rules are kinda strange tbh especially since most drivers aren't aware. Why should cyclists be given priority? Surely if you're on a bike and the car in front of turning left you shouldn't try going past him.
Surely bike lanes are better than having bikes act like privileged cars?
All in all , the vulnerable should be conscious of their own vulnerabilities and exercise more caution ; it is THEY who have everything to lose .
every driver should do an e-learning course on changes to the highway code at least annually.
Like the clear explanation! I already do all of these things when driving and when passing a cyclist/horse rider etc. I pretty much go as far onto the other side of the road as is safe to pass. I figure that if the cyclist falls off or a horse bolts whilst I am alongside them, the further away the better! Does the code also give any mention of following cyclists / horse riders? People often are too close behind them if they have to stop suddenly.
This......i had a look in the highway code but cant see anything about the giving space behind. But ofc most drivers use common sense, but yet most drivers just dont give a sh%$, hence why we getting these new rules it not going to stop them. But it did say on the high way is to never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends...which cycles ignore to do.
Yes it does. The old 2021 rules said to treat horses as a potential hazard. The changed rule 215 in the new 2022 rules says what to do _when you see_ a horse on the road, and doesn't just talk about overtaking an equestrian as the old rule did. It talks about approaching and pulling away from, too. There are several rules changes that M. Neal and the newspapers have not talked about at all, and this is one of them.
Great video Ashley once again ,I hope people take note of the changes to keep every one safe who and what ever you use to commute, I do have one question, shouldn’t cyclists be forced to wear helmets , hivis vest and have lights on there cycles ? What are your thoughts on this ?
The rule that effectively grants cyclists priority even if they are approaching from behind is really dangerous. This is no longer about equality on the road, but creates a precedent for dangerous situations.
Yes there is unfortunately a tiny minority who will put themselves in harms way to prove a point.
There is no equality when one vehicle has the capacity to kill the other.
@@velokernow3696 I would never walk behind a reversing truck ...pretty sure cycling up the inside of one at a junction is equally stupid.
@@velokernow3696 im not sure what you mean by that. Situation where a cyclists approaching from behind has priority only increases that killing capacity by increased possibility of an accident.
@@markhamilton7289 not always
I've learnt a lot from your videos and they've helped me to become a better driver. Your advice and video's makes driving a lot more enjoyable
Just seen “Blackbelt Barrister” with his take on the proposed changes to The Highway Code. I believe HM Government needs do a thorough publicity campaign as I’ve only see the proposed changes on both yours and a couple of other UA-cam channels!
There was a public consultation and people could write what they thought about it. I completed the Survey. I don't understand why people just don't watch the news, it was there for all to see. Maybe too many people are just watching football or royal news all the time
@@beaulieuonnp593 Point taken. Me, I use the BBC web news, where you more or less pick what to read/watch. Therefore quite easily miss it. Nevertheless, it would be beneficial to publicise the new Highway Code prior to implementing it and pointing out the changes.
@@beaulieuonnp593 Or dealing with a loved one dying from Covid?
As a car driver I would never pass a car that's waiting to turn on the side they're indicating on, I don't know why we're saying it's OK for very vulnerable cyclists to do just that.
This really is the first sensible constructive comment I've seen here.
A comedian said in the 50's they were allowed to play with fireworks etc, the dumb ones didn't make it. The same could be said for cyclists and pedestrians that disregard common sense. Maybe it will become mandatory for everyone to have cameras fitted at all times?
The existing rule 72 says that it is _not_ OK for cyclists to do that, and the new rule 74 is going to say the very same thing. "Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left." The idea that "we" are saying it is OK to do this is not based in the reality of what the existing 2021 or the new 2022 Highway Code in fact say.
@@JdeBP You're right, "we" are not saying it, the Highway Code literally does.
Rule 163 states:-
"Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you."
In the instance that a car stops to wait to turn right, the traffic may queue behind it. A Cyclist is then allowed to pass that traffic on the right. If the cyclist is continuing ahead as it approaches the car waiting to turn, the car must wait for the cyclist to pass, this is confirmed in rule 76.
Rule 76 for cyclists states:-
"Going straight ahead. If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into [...] the side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise (see Rule H3)."
Rule H3 confirms this by stating to drivers:-
"You should not cut across cyclists [...] going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction... Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist [...] to stop... Wait for the cyclist to pass the junction before turning. This also applies [...] if you are turning right or left into the junction."
There is also an illustration attached to Rule H3 that shows a cyclist behind a car has priority to pass on the side the car is indicating on, in this case the left.
Rule 76 for cyclists continues;-
"Check that you can proceed safely, particularly when approaching junctions on the left alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic. Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road."
This does not say that you must not complete the manoeuvre, but that you should do so with caution.
Rule 74 to which you refer is only in relation to the cyclist also turning at the same junction.
Rule 74 for cyclists states:-
"Turning. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you [...] into the side road... Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left."
This means do not make the turn whilst on the inside of a vehicle that you know to be also making the turn, instead slow down and allow space.
Not we - it is the lunatics who are trying to take over the asylum who are saying this utter nonsense . Fortunately it is only advice , very bad advice .
Primary position is great for making yourself more conspicuous to road users in general. The situation you describe; following a car in primary that is about to turn into a minor road, is perhaps one where secondary is more likely the driver will anticipate you passing on the left.
Nonetheless, the easy fix in primary is to pass with caution on the opposite side to which the car is turning.
Be mindful of other users who may use the break in flow caused by the turning car as an opportunity to emerge and haven't properly observed you.
really, the older I get the more I think anyone overtaking anyone in an intersection is an unnecessary risk.
How bout just not passing the vehicle turning as you’re vulnerable take some personal responsibility perhaps
@@chrisjarman7996 That's an option too, but if assess that you can reasonably make progress you should.
@@cyclecam6328 agreed
If a car rather than a van , bus or truck , a cyclist should be able to see over and beyond it .
I’ve just bought an e-bike with the intention of cycling to work every day. I’m petrified. Thanks for spreading the word Ashley.
Perhaps we should also adapt that cyclists are bound by the same rules as motor or motorcyclists, they are taking part in traffic so are by law bound by the same rules, if you drive through a red light as cyclist and have a driving licence you will get the same penalty as a motorist, in certain cases points on your driving licence. This is the case in germany, a country i lived in 27 years.
And so it should be .
Thanks Ashley. I didn't know that these changes were coming until I watch your videos. I'm older than 21 and remember the government road safety cartoons constantly being played on all channels when I was a kid. It seems there is definitely a lack of communication concerning the highway code updates.
They're updated every couple of years and in the new copies of the HC as well as on the HC website. You choosing not to look and check for updates just makes you a poor driver, government cannot hold your hand through life
I've enjoyed the zen school of motoring adverts that pop up on UA-cam. Have you seen those?
The vast majority of those changes are common sense and what most drivers were doing anyway. Unfortunately the government has used the opportunity to throw in stupid ideas like giving way to pedestrians on a roundabout, and allowing cyclists to take a primary position and then switch to staying close to the pavement to force the car to stop (there’s nothing in the rules explicitly preventing the scenario ash pointed out).
A very sensible and balanced run-through of the changes. So much more thoughtful than some of the mass media opinion pieces which are simply sowing division on our roads.
It takes some bollocks to undertake someone turning left wether you have right of way or not
it takes an absence of senses
A driving instructor was parked .. his engine may or may not have been running ... in a cycle lane with broken white lines but there were double yellow lines adjacent to the kerb. The instructor was sitting alone in the driver's seat. I stopped and told him that he shouldn't be parked there. He commented about the broken white lines not being a solid white line, which I understand. However, I mentioned the double yellow lines. He told me to read the Highway Code. He wasn't 'loading' a pupil and he wasn't 'unloading' a pupil. Was I correct?
Most of those rules are just common sense and are already covered in the existing highway code. People who are operating outside the rules of common sense will ignore the new rules too. Many of the cyclists around us already believe they have a right of way in all circumstances.
Yep. They're too busy updating Instagram to look in their mirrors anyway!
@@GilesWendes and motorist too busy reading a paper or watching TV in their car
It's really tiresome to see this cliche cager nonsense going on every video - probably a few riders do assume priority for whatever reason, potentially they get knocked off.
The majority of drivers seem to believe in right of way (even though it doesn't exist - ironic on a driving school channel you'd repeat that myth) but more seriously, look how much death and destruction drivers do every year to other drivers, pedestrians, cyclists etc - deal with that before whinging about riders
When I was learning to drive 30 years ago my driving instructor told me I should always think ahead and show common sense for everyone on the road or path as you don't know what there gonna do
Ah I really don't get these changes. Again as many people mentioned in comments on the previous video, in many European countries traffic going straight on the same road gets priority over turning traffic. That includes pedestrians, cyclists, horse-drawn carriages, maybe even helicopters who knows. The point is why does this have to be so convolutedly stated in the UK and how on earth was this not a thing before????
I'm from the Netherlands and I don't understand it at all, especially this "primary position" stuff. Does that mean that in slow-moving traffic the cyclist should squeeze between the cars instead of keeping besides them? It seems that the UK is trying to reinvent the wheel here, in a bad way.
What it means is if the cyclist is on the left of the car, the car has to give way.
But I personally don't see these changes actually changing anything on the road.
Because riding a bike almost died out in the UK and there were too few cyclists, no one really cared about it. There is a huge increase in the recent years and it isn't caused by the pandemic only. Many people actually found it beneficial to ride a bike in the town, it is usually a combination of economical, ecological and convenience. Of course, a speed of transport, or fitness is a large part of it as well, that is why you will see a large number of road cyclists in UK in comparison to Europe mainland.
Actually, it was a thing before. Some people actually taught it that way, in decades gone by. Strictly speaking, though, as the Highway Code itself states, there's no "gets priority" _anywhere_, neither in the Highway Code nor in the underlying U.K. law. There's only situations where people are told they have to "give way". People give priority to others, and the law tells them when to do so. The law itself doesn't give priority, though, or specify circumstances where people can take priority. So "give way to traffic whose path you are crossing" is the better formulation of the rule of thumb.
Aside of being a motorist, *I am a cyclist too* I ride about 6,000 miles a year (really, I do! - for weight loss / control). I really DON'T want more secluded, never swept cycle lanes. Most people in their cars are decent individuals but about once a quarter I get the "overtake and just turn left" clowns or "overtake, pull back to the left then brake hard" types too. I always wear a helmet. I always wear bright yellow clothing. I have 4 back lights (of which one flashes) at the back, 5 at the front (of which one flashes). One of each of the still front and back set of lights are on permanently too as I ride along day or night (the rest I keep until dark). The part of the road I prefer to use is the part where your left wing mirror would be. This gives me options to come back to the left to miss a pot-hole if I see it very late (like when it's dark) without otherwise having to swerve to the right were I riding along by or in the gutter.
I do NOT ride on the pavement unless permitted (or instructed by a policeman, etc) I will always obey a red stop light *WHERE I HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION THEY WILL ACTUALLY AT SOME POINT CHANGE FOR +ME+ ALONE* that means _without having to wait 10,20,30,40 ??? minutes for a car to come along for it trip the sensors because the signals have NOT been calibrated to "see me approach" properly_ (and before you all start moaning - for the love of God please understand I don't want to ride across a red traffic light even if the road is empty PLEASE FIX THEM! I am sick of reporting them!)
My bike has brakes and is properly maintained and I also DO have 3rd party insurance too _though I question how some insurers (who are not interested in my losses {just those I might do to others} want to price the insurance at around £100 per annum when my tonne weight car is only £185 per annum._ I usually ride in the evening (going after around 8 pm but sometimes as late as midnight). About once a month I have people throw MacDonald's packets, beer cans and all other detritus at me while I'm minding my own business. WHY? I really am not in the way! (especially not at that time of night). For what it's worth, I don't and won't be undertaking traffic indicating to go left that was there before me _even though these new rules imply I somehow now get right of way._ Undertaking like this may be a way to get to the undertakers!
At the end of the day, this is about driving / riding / walking RESPECTFULLY of other people. We are all people too, BTW. Try to be predictable. Indicate and don't "surprise" other people. We will all make mistakes. Let's apologise when we make ours and be prepared for try to forgive the minor transgressions of others, no matter how we're getting around. 10 people a day die on our roads. Put your phone away and don't touch the bloody thing until you get to where you're going. Likewise, if you wouldn't want someone to maim a member of your family through being inebriated, don't mix any amount of alcohol with any form of mechanised transport (including cycling). If you wouldn't want this done to you then *don't do it to anyone else!*
Stay safe out there and use places like Ashley's here and elsewhere to refine and suggest improvements so we can all learn from it. The roads can be safer with a little patience and forethought / consideration.
I think it's a shame that there's so many drivers who are utterly careless that these had to be made rules.
Some of the clips amaze me. As you say Ashley i would have thought most people would already be doing this.
Is there going to be a video on the changes about cyclists and roundabouts? That's the change which most concerns me as it seems the most dangerous. "If you are turning right you can ride in the left or right-hand lanes and move left when approaching your exit. Position yourself in the centre of your lane if it is safe to do so (see Rule 72) and signal right to indicate that you are not leaving the roundabout." Surely it's safer to just ride primary in the correct lane rather than cutting across traffic at each exit.
That advice has been in the highway code for some time. Personally I think it is dangerous and if you are really not confident about roundabouts then dismount and walk round using the exits. I would always cycle round roundabouts the same as I would if I were driving. Other drivers may not understand what "special" rules cyclists have, so I just do what they should be doing and hopefully no-one is surprised.
@@steveworrall3705 Yes similar but more vague advice is currently in the highway code about staying left on roundabouts as a cyclist but it's crazy to double down on that bad advice when the rest of the code is being changed to put pedestrians first and when to take a priority position. I can't think of worst advice to give someone than to intentionally take the wrong lane at a roundabout.
@@kwlkid85 I don't think they are doubling down, I think it has just been shown because the rule number has changed. As it is included/highlighted though, many cyclists (who are perhaps not car drivers) may well think it is good advice and end up in conflict.
@@steveworrall3705 They have updated it before it was rule 77:
"You may feel safer walking your cycle round on the pavement or verge. If you decide to ride round keeping to the left-hand lane you should be aware that drivers may not easily see you take extra care when cycling across exits. You may need to signal right to show you are not leaving the roundabout watch out for vehicles crossing your path to leave or join the roundabout".
Now it's rule 79:
"If you are turning right, you can ride in the left or right-hand lanes and move left when approaching your exit. Position yourself in the centre of your lane if it is safe to do so (see Rule 72) and signal right to indicate that you are not leaving the roundabout. Alternatively, you may feel safer walking your cycle round on the pavement or verge.
If you decide to ride round keeping to the left-hand lane you should be aware that drivers may not easily see you, take extra care when cycling across exits. You should signal right to show you are not leaving the roundabout and watch out for vehicles crossing your path to leave or join the roundabout.
Where a roundabout has separate cycle facilities, you should use these facilities where they make your journey safer and easier although you are not obliged to use them. This will depend on your experience and skills and the situation at the time."
Great video!! Especially at 4 minutes 45 seconds. Thank you!!
Whilst these changes are welcomed, we need to see more cycle lanes being implemented. Cars and bikes travel at very different speeds and so when sharing the same area of road, of course there’s going to be conflict. Here in the Netherlands they use raised cycle lanes that are separated from the road and pavement and these work very well. I think when it comes to cycling, the UK has a lot to learn from Europe.
There are lots of cycle lanes which lots of cyclists refuse to use.
Yes to go hand in hand with the hierarchy Idea cycle lanes higher than roads, footpaths higher than cycle lanes
Unfortunately the UK is a victim of its ancient, cramped and illogical transportation system layout, often dating back hundreds (if not thousands) of years. It is not conducive to modern methods of mass movement that gives a balanced approach.
The Netherlands has a fantastic separation of transport methods due much in part to its much newer network development of mass movement, along with an egalitarian principle sadly lacking in the UK.
@@nickbea3443 agreed. But this situation is not fixable. Too many people in a small country.
@K it's an easy cop out to say it's only a few seconds. But in this location it can be as long as a minute delay for dozens of vehicles all because the cyclist doesn't want to negotiate safer but slightly interrupted journeys.
Priority rules like these have been in place in the Netherlands since 2001 and they've worked out pretty well. It took some adjusting, but it most definitely has made walking and cycling safer. Before 2001 it was like it was in the UK: fast traffic has priority over slow. However one major difference is that in the 6 months before the rule change an information campaign was held that explained the rules, and it do so ad nauseam. You really couldn't get away from those ads. I'm quite surprised these rules went into affect so quietly. Then again, I guess the UK government has been busy with other things ;)
Generally speaking most of the changes for cyclists I was doing anyway. I remember being told to give cyclists the same space as overtaking a small car when I was learning to drive. What does concern me is cyclists passing traffic on the left and travelling in blind spots. This particularly applies to HGV's.
I don't think cyclists or any road user should be given special permissions to undertake vehicles. Undertaking can increase risk and for anyone driving a mechanically propelled vehicle can lead to being charged with careless driving. I believe that all road users should pay due care and attention.
I do think cyclists taking prime position is something that should become the norm, particularly in slow moving, heavy traffic or narrow roads.
I do wonder whether bicycles using the roads should be equipped with lights, indicators and mirrors and wear high visibility clothing at night?
I agree in principle to the changes. I am concerned how it will work in practice.
I agree about cyclists passing on the left, i cycle a lot and have never passed on the left and never will, it's too risky.
There are no 'blind spots', only people who don't look properly. Been driving 30 years and cycling on road almost 40, never had an issue regards locating road users because I actually lean forward, turn my head and use my mirrors correctly.
So it does concern me when the victim blaming BS comes out and use 'blind spot' as an excuse to kill and maim.
My perception of pedestrians , cyclists , horse riders or all vehicles not mechanically propelled on roads is treat them like an antique vase . No jiggling taking chances with or generally just take wide berth and be careful . Always been this way should be really any way . Really good sound advice and great clarification , more should be made aware to public though as most have no clue . 👍
These videos have given a great explanation to the new rules. Haven't really seen any government push on this and it scares me. Chaos will ensue
it was all over the news
I was cycling riding and Scooter rider for long time then after car drivers now a minibus driver so Awareness in safe driving Most essential but what I can't understand is if cyclist Are using the public road shouldn't may have the responsibility of using the highway code themself Giving out hand signals to let drivers and other people on the road know what they doing if they were turning left they do L left hand signal and if they on the right side they do a right hand signal to make drivers aware which way they going also they should have high viz. Lights Too often is not countably they should put that in the highway code I always give people give way now this is in effect immediately I try tell other drivers to be wary of what they do when they behind the wheel, by the way I was Driving instructor for my sister and she pass 1st go so I've done very proud She's very safe driver fantastic videos of your driving school and lessons
So when passing parked cars cyclists should move out into the Lane to avoid opening doors effectively adopting primary position, they should also slow down in case pedestrians emerge from between the cars. I can see that's not going down well with the following car drivers despite the slow speed being being exactly the same speed car drivers should have in those circumstances.
yes, my first thought was that the cars should also be wary of a pedestrian darting out.
Said cyclists should , first and foremost , sa with all other road users , take rear observation BEFORE reaching parked cars and , if about to be overtaken , WAIT until they have been overtaken before proceeding .
@@kenbrown2808 Always am when driving . Use of horn if passing buses at stops , allowing space and remembering that person just may be deaf .
Observation links like people getting up inside a bus you are following , or sight of feet under a bus you are approaching also forewarn you of hazards . Getting off a bus and darting out in front of it is pretty stupid though - always wait until the bus has departed so you can see both ways and be seen ; if there is a pedestrian crossing , which there often is near bus stops , then USE IT .
Glad l watched this, I hadn't picked up on the overtaking a cyclist at speed of over 30mph it's 2m. Almost everyone is saying you can't overtake at all if over 30mph. So you, can just give them more space.
Nice video, the cycling rules are pretty spot on as you've very clearly pointed out. I totally agree with the taking primary position as well, just hope it doesn't generate aggro with idiotic vehicle drivers, although that rarely happened with me when I used to cycle 250 miles a week.
Personally I'm in favour of more formal training for cyclists though. When I switched up my commute to a motorcycle I noticed the broad range between a competent and incompetent cyclist as a road user. Even basic safety points like shoulder/lifesaver checks before overtaking weren't used (nearly resulting in me rear ending an experienced cyclist who just swerved out in front of me with headphones in when we were both sharing a bus lane). At the next lights I advised him to shoulder check for his own safety, whereupon another cyclist retorted that "I shouldn't be in their lane anyway". Fortunately the big blue sign directly in front of us enabled me to swiftly educate without need for argument.
We wouldn't dream of sending people out on 125cc bikes without CBT training, so why not for cyclists? After all, with electric bikes now many bicycles are as quick if not quicker in city traffic.
The demise of the Cycling Proficiency Test, which was conducted as an after school activity under the aegis of RoSPA back when I took it, in favour of the "Bikeability" scheme. does not seem to be helpful, and looks like a typical example of the good idea fairy turning something simple that worked into a vastly over-complicated administrator's dream.
I don't deny some cyclists cycle with very little awareness, but I worry that formal training will just put a large percentage of cyclists off even starting, thereby lessening the numbers of cyclists on the road and making it less safe for the cyclists remaining, due to the fact that cars expect cyclists even less. We need more cyclists on the road, not less. I genuinely understand your points but I just worry about what formal training will do cycling numbers, which need to go up and not down.
@@edj4833 'Safety in numbers' doesn't work though, especially when each interaction occurs more often than not with one cyclist and one other road user.
What's going to put a cyclist off more? A test or course that ensures their safety or getting into a collision that they've unwittingly caused? After all, CBT statistics have remained stable over the last decade despite it being mandatory and ever more costly (now ~£120). Should we remove that test to ensure we get more riders and 125's (and their electric equivalents) on the road as they're eminently better for the environment and congestion than cars?
We need more cyclists, yes, but we need more GOOD cyclists.
@@rjpm92 I respectfully disagree about "safety in numbers". In some ways I feel safer cycling in London than the countryside, just because drivers in general expect cyclists to be there.
To your second point, most cyclists don't get into collisions, but would be more put off by cr*ppy driving. Especially the more nervous potential cyclists (statistically more female) who would love to cycle and are sensible but look at the standard of some drivers/ infrastructure and decide to give it a miss.
I do genuinely see your points, but if I persuade a friend that trying the bike would be beneficial for them, and they are prevented from coming out with me for a ride because of the bureaucracy of going through a costly and time consuming test, what then? A potential cyclist will then never have the experience of falling in love with the bike, will stay in her car and contribute to falling cycling numbers.
@@edj4833 Yeah, I get your first point. The only thing is that there's always going to be fewer cyclists in the countryside than in the city, both by number and density, so there's still that disparity that renders it moot, although I do agree with you in that a greater expectancy of a cyclist is safer.
To the second, it's those nervous and inexperienced riders that the training is specifically for. It's those nervous riders that keep to the left at roundabouts when heading straight over on a second exit 'to get out of the way' and get caught up with cars exiting across them. Yes, the new highway code has catered for that and put the onus on the car driver to predict the cyclist. But some prior confidence and training to dominate the lane could prevent the incident even occurring in the first place. How many cyclists do we see creeping up the inside of lorries at stop lights only to get caught out by the traffic moving off before they've cleared? Sadly, off the top of my head, it's often women that get killed in that scenario from the news reports I remember hearing. Again, prior training to show exactly what a lorry driver can see and why doing that is so deadly could prevent a life being lost. Yes, the highway code now puts the onus and, arguably, blame on the lorry driver in that situation... but that doesn't save that life. Training does.
As for the third point, every positive for not having training you mention there can be applied to CBT riding motorcyclists. Again, if the main reason for not having training is so that a more favourable mode of transport than cars can be more accessible for more people then they should scrap the CBT for motorcycles as well then.
There are plenty of ways to encourage and allow people to enjoy the benefits of cycling without necessitating road use. I myself have done tens of thousands of miles mountain biking, BMX track riding and Velodrome riding, as well as countless miles riding my road bikes on dedicated paths (I used to live in Cardiff so the Taff Trail was a particular favourite). We can still encourage people to cycle, and more dedicated places to do so is part of the answer. All I'm suggesting is that, for safety's sake, a level of training is preferable should a casual cyclist wish to become a 'road user' which can only increase their safety, confidence and, subsequently, their enjoyment.
A very good video Ashley indeed. I hope the rules do get given out properly and we all do our best for road safety. The speeds you mentioned about slowing down is actually something I'm good at I think I usually slow down when I see a pedestrian far up a road maybe crossing and when I see cyclists I other situations. I'm heading out on my bike again so when these changes become law Saturday I hope it goes ok for me and everyone. Your video is so helpful
Daily Mail comments have been in uproar RE these changes. A lot of anger towards cyclists. Seems mostly irrational. I cycle purely for pleasure, not to commute or even stay fit just to get out into the countryside.
I cycle just to annoy drivers (joking).
‘Anger’ and ‘irrational’ are two requirements to being a Daily Mail reader.
The Mail and it’s contemporaries have handled this appallingly. Not only have they triggered the drivers with very little brain, this fake outrage provides a stage for the militant cyclists. I have a foot in all camps, pedestrian, cyclist, driver, motorcyclist and in my experience the nonsense seen in the Mail’s comments section just doesn’t exist. I find people are by and large pleasant, accommodating, respectful and considerate on the roads but how long will it last when the most read English language website on Earth is intent on creating tribal conflict for clicks?
Most uproar is about things that aren't even new, just clarified.
A bit like this headline from the Daily Express,
"Cyclists kill or maim two pedestrians every week, according to statistics"
Though the article did mention that the statistics did not include who was to blame, it was clearly slanted against cyclists.
Ashley, the table of proposed changes already says "(a door's width or 1 metre)" in Rule 67. You may have been commenting on an older copy.
Always look out for cyclists & give them plenty of room etc whilst I'm driving, however, here in London, SOME cyclists are a danger to themselves with how they ride. They think nothing of jumping red lights/zebra crossings (at high speeds) also whilst pedestrians are crossing. They don't slow/look when coming from a side road (even seen them shoot through give ways into other cyclists as they were not looking). I have no issue with the onus being on the vehicle as they can injure/kill easily......BUT, 100% responsibility should not be on the vehicle's, cyclists need to be more responsible also (saying this as I am also a cyclist)
Some cyclists are youths who don't care about anything, except perhaps their own ego's
Not suprising surely. Some cyclists do the same in the Netherlands, also especially in bigger cities like Amsterdam/Rotterdam. This is equally true for car drivers though. And just like motorists they get fined when for example going through red. Not all the time, but again, that's also true for motorists.
@@Being_Jeff the youth's in London are now mostly on electric scooters & are much more dangerous to themselves than cyclists, but that's another rant altogether 😂
@@woutervanr seen them go through lights in front of police & they didn't bat an eyelid
@@Goat-wh1qw and yet, TfL data over 10 years proves that not only do just as many car drivers do that, there are far more serious consequences - 71% of all people hit and killed or seriously injured by a road user jumping a red light were hit by cars, just 4% by bikes. Cars are the danger, cars speed, jump lights, don't look - and add on drink driving, mobile phone use, doing makeup/hair etc etc. Deal with the serious issue first
I'm in agreement with these new advisories and I think most people were doing a lot of this already, but I did notice that the cyclist in the accident clip was sitting in a potential blind spot for the driver. I think most drivers check their blind spots when they're changing lanes on the motorway but much less so when on A roads, especially a left manoeuvre.
We are one step closer to adopting the Netherlands dutch way of road thinking and priority now and I love it.
Of course you would. If your a Cyclists. You getting more and more priority yet pay for nothing while everyone who owns a car pays for everything.
@@michaelandreou4996 rightly so
@@michaelandreou4996 most cyclists own and drive a car so they do pay.
@@michaelandreou4996 Everyone pays for the upkeep of roads, not just motorists. Many cyclists and pedestrians are motorists as well
@@michaelandreou4996 I drive a car and I would like more protection from thoughtless dangerous drivers when I cycle on the road. What about those drivers who do not pay a "road fund licence" for example those that drive electric cars?
In the absence of a cycle lane, I suspect motorists wishing to turn left will pull close into the kerb well in advance of the junction to ensure any cyclists behind them will not be able to come alongside and therefore to put themselves in danger. In my opinion this would be the safe and appropriate thing to do for all concerned.
Glad to see we're moving more towards the Dutch & Danish road safety rules. 👍
We're not even at the start of that journey. To give you an idea. The Dutch have spent 25% of their entire road transport budget on bike infrastructure since the mid 1970's. UK less than 1% in that time. Of course they get that back in health spending, lower pollution & congestion levels, fewer collisions etc. Their bike lanes have paid for themselves many times over,.
If we are, then please tell me the Dutch have more reasonable (faster) speed limits, but also much stricter driving tests?
@@seemslegit6203 motorway speeds are slower than the UK’s during the day..64 mph, but raised to 80 after 7pm. But the best thing about driving in the Netherlands is drivers don’t have to mix with cyclists anywhere but quiet residential streets..Cyclists are fined for not using cycle lanes, however they are of such high quality cyclists are fine with that.
I’m not sure about a comparison between driving tests, but enforcement for all users is much stricter in the Netherlands. & punishment more severe.
The Dutch don't have 70 million people and 40 million cars.
Dumb comment.
@@sw1000xg They have similar car ownership rates & population density to England.
What happens at a Junction when there is a pedestrian/ traffic island 25-30 feet away from the intersection. Which in my case would mean I have already turned left and the whole of my motorcycle is on the road I've turned into, and I've yet to encounter a pedestrian, waiting or wanting to cross.
This is a situation locally, at a particularly busy T junction, some pedestrians will use the traffic island, others who cant be bothered to walk up to the crossing point will cross at the roads widest point (fluted junction). In the latter case one will give priority to pedestrians under the new rules, but what about at the traffic island further away?
Interesting to see the UK changing these rules to a situation where they're very much like the ones we have where I live, which is the Netherlands. I'm honestly surprised that these rules are only coming in now rather than decades ago... Who would even dare get on a bike if any motor vehicle is allowed to cut you off at a junction? Same thing for the last video, about pedestrians gaining right-of-way over traffic turning in at the junction. So everyone in the UK has had to look over their shoulder at every junction on the off chance someone's about to come careening from behind and cut in front / run you over? Horrifying.
GB not UK.
Yes its called "STOP, LOOK and LISTEN" something we Brits were taught for years and something I have drummed into my kids.I can't believe even if you have had our new rules for years that you just step into the road and hope any driver behind you has seen you. You may have priority, you may have right of way, but as pedestrian vs a car you are going to lose.
A pedestrian on foot can perform an emergency stop in a fraction of a second. A driver slamming the brakes of a multi tonne vehicle will take much longer. Look, I get it. pedestrians squishy, cars badbad. Drivers really should take care around pedestrian traffic. Absolutely! But as a pedestrian, are you really going to take that chance? Because if I, as a driver, have a momentary lapse in attention, and run you over, worst thing can happen to me is I lose my license and get some jail time. Worst thing that can happen to you is you are dead. Or at the very least severely injured.
No, I think EVERYONE should take care and consider other road users. Everyone! Yes, there is an embarrassingly large number of idiot drivers, who either never heard of the Highway Code, or get their license and then conveniently ignore it. But tell me: how many pedestrians and cyclists picked up the book and read the relevant rules that apply to them? Because I never heard of "theory test for cyclists" being mandatory. Or mandatory insurance on push bikes. Cars and large vehicles should absolutely do everything to keep squishy bags on legs safe. But forcing drivers to be the only ones responsible for any kind of accident, even when they are clearly not at fault, is beyond ridiculous.
@@CelestisForgeUK 83% of cyclists in the UK hold a driving licence. so have done a test.
What a great common sense video. Thank you Ashley
Just when you think Covid "Plan B" was easing, we have so socially distance vehicles from other road users now too... What a great start to the year!
One specific question:
A shared use cycle path crosses a side-road near me. There are no markings on the road to indicate the presence of the cycle path across the junction, but neither are there "cyclists dismount" signs. Going by H3 and Rule 184 I think cars (and motorcycles etc) entering or leaving the side-road should give way to cyclists on the cycle path crossing the side-road (or waiting to cross). Is this correct?
I feel likes this is more of plaster over a gaping wound than proper solution. The truth is the UK road system needs major reform and rebuilding for the modern road usage. It needs proper space for the cyclist and pedestrian, it needs bigger space for the car and other road vehicles. It needs more parking spaces as well. changing a few rules and suggestion in the high way code will not work most people or break the rules or drive like mad max endangering everyone will not follow them anyway. There bad drivers, riders and pedestrians all groups have bad eggs.
Proper enforcement by police is needed and maybe a re-look in how people are taught to begin with for all road use. I have seen dangerous drivers, cyclists who are clearly not watching where they are or most scary of all wearing all black with no helmet or lighting in pitch darkness in the road. Everyone needs to step up really.
I agree with you totally; however, the obvious issue here is funding/money. I shudder to think how much it would cost to upgrade the road network sufficiently and it would, presumably, take a very long time. I'm far from an expert though so maybe it is feasible.
@@MartinParnham Well our government normally wastes billions on stupid projects each year. The failed track and trace App for example cost us near £37 billion to develop. It never worked and so a waste.
I'm sure some overpaid useless managers in over bloated departments in ministries can be thrown out to save money. Maybe cut the over sized MP wages to and expensive.
This is a long term smart investment in the future of the UK Long term, and it will create jobs and in the long run more money and pay it's self back. More than the H2 money pit train ever will.
Look they always find money when they magically need or want, so I sure they will find it for this project to. It could even be done in stages.
Job job Ashley! It's nice to hear from a sensible person.
The rules are fair enough. But.....
Cyclists should be mandated to be visible - the amount who don't even have lights in the gloomy mornings is amazing.
All good advice as usual as an ADI myself been teaching these new rules or awhile now, the only problem I foresee is drivers who have been driving for awhile may not reread the Highway Code updates. Hopefully new drivers can educate others and maybe help there parents out with the new rules too. What do you think Ashley……
In my opinion the new rules relating to cyclists will do little for safety but lots for the egos of the male dominated cycling lobby. If they really were thinking about safety then they would be advocating defensive riding. I have just recently passed my motorcycling tests and now have my full licence, that experience has taught me to be more defensive, to try and anticipate the actions of others by putting myself in the safest position possible in the circumstances. These amendments do not do anything like that.
On giving way to cyclists going straight on, how can it be safe that the entity with poorest visibility or opportunity to see the cyclist must give way when it's obvious that the cyclist has the best view and opportunity to anticipate the cars actions?
This whole thing plays into the cycling, car hating lobby and their selfish agenda and i fear will make them even more angry and righteous but not any safer.
The giving space when passing parked cars is at least part of defensive cycling.
For the most part cyclists already have to ride defensively. With up to 75% of car/cycle accidents being the fault of the motorist, they have to. As you say, your motorbike riding experience has shown you the value of anticipation and riding defensively. Cyclists will have gained similar experience.
"cycling car hating lobby" The overwhelming majority of cyclists are also drivers. If this lobby exists how can I join in order to amend their motives from the inside?
"Selfish agenda" I cannot find a copy of this agenda. Do you have one you could share?
Moving to the UK from South Africa soon. Going to have to get dash cams front and back. One question. Can motorcycles also overtake on the left now?
It’s a real shame they have to highlight and even legislate common sense..
😀😂😁😄😅😃😂😁😀😅😄😃
You raise an excellent point about publicity and one that I would echo until I'm hoarse. The most I've heard about these changes is frankly from your videos and people (usually) moaning about them on Twitter. The official channels though? Not a peep. Thanks to you I know all about them but if I were to go and ask my wife, mother, even my brother who's a police officer, how much they know about them, I'll bet money they all answer "what changes?"
I think it's about time that cyclists should have a registration number on their bikes so THEY can be held responsible for their actions, too. I see so many cyclists riding on the road, then the path and not stopping at a red traffic light or zebra crossings. not having lights, but there is just no way of stopping them nore prosecuting for breaking the law! So, giving the cyclists who have this type of mind set more power on our roads is quite frankly ludicrous and dangerous too!
@@stokes8626 same place as on a 🏍
@@stokes8626 Eh that is a solvable problem if it was something that was actually needed which I don't think it is. Wouldn't be that hard to engineer a mount to attach the plates to the vertical struts under the seat and handlebar (Or onto the front/rear baggage rack if fitted). More to the point is I fail to see the need for this and especially not one sufficient for hitting cyclists with if I am not mistaken something like a thousand pounds or so to have a bicycle certified and registered as a motor vehicle and that is without the cost of the plates themselves. A bicycle is not a motor vehicle and doesn't need to be subjective to certification and registrations requirements designed for motor vehicles that due to the complexity of the latter have fees that are higher than the cost of the entire bicycle.
Agreed I've seen cyclists cause damage and even hit people and just carry on. Just last week one came flying along the middle of two lanes of stationery traffic and took off someones wing mirror and kept on going.
@@seraphina985 Who said anything about certify a cycle as a motor vehicle (which is impossible because it doesn't have a motor) and imposing large charges?
@@thomasnichol5127 Then it would be impossible for it to get a registration number then those are the rules. All registered vehicles need to be certified and meet a bunch of other standards before they can be registered.
Great video thank you.
Where I live there are many narrow single width lanes with often many pedestrians. Should I wait behind a pedestrian while they walk the lane or, like now squeeze slowly passed when they have stood still, having indicated they are aware of me. The legal distance isnt possible.