I haven't seen any mention of motorcycles in any of this (unless I missed it). MAG has campaigned to have motorcyclists classed as Vulnerable Road Users, in the same way pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders are. The DfT finally agreed. I haven't seen the revised Highway Code so don't know if we've been fitted into this hierarchical system. I don't agree with it, but as it appears to be going ahead, we should get a mention. I listened to an item on Radio 2 this week, about people's views on horses (and their riders) using public highways. I was pretty appalled at stories of vehicles colliding with horses and otherwise ignoring their presence. I always slow down and give horses on the road a wide berth, especially if I'm on the bike. So I can understand why these changes have been introduced. I'm not quite as sympathetic when it comes to cyclists, although I appreciate they are especially vulnerable and we need to be vigilant. But they do seem to be given unfair priority over the rest of us road-users. For example, the proliferation of cycle lanes on unsuitable stretches of road doesn't seem to have been thought through. Where a road is wide enough, then sure, put in a cycle lane. But on already narrow and congested roads, especially in our towns and cities, then don't be so bloody stupid. All it does is squash the same number of vehicles into a smaller space, making accidents more likely and motorcyclists, now correctly classed as Vulnerable Road Users are made even more vulnerable. I am not convinced that these cycle lanes will encourage many regular-users of other vehicles to take to (unpowered) two-wheels. If you don't have to travel far or don't mind taking six times as long to get anywhere and don't have to transport much stuff and are happy to turn up soaking wet, then a bicycle could be the way to go but most of the cycle lanes that I'm kept out of are often pretty empty. On the other hand, if they allow motorcycles to use them...
They have introduced a hierarchy which puts pedestrians at most risk followed by cyclists, horses, motorcycle, cars, vans and finally lorries. Each has a duty of care to those lower in the pecking order. the other main change is that any road user must give way to pedestrians waiting to cross a side road as described in the video. So that obviously applies to motorcyclists.
Someone said that the Highway Code amendments were dreamed up by an 8 year old who'd been given a bicycle for Christmas.
Rear end shunts are going to increase with vehicles stopping suddenly for pedestrians crossing at junctions.
I thought we already had to give way to pedestrians when turning into a side road. When I was learning to ride the instructor said the single row 'give way' line across the junction (that you cross as you enter a side road) means give way to pedestrians and showed us the part of the highway code. I took him by his word and have given way to pedestrians there ever since, but mate of mine who is a car driving instructor clarified it was just if the pedestrians were already in the road. So I have been giving way to people waiting to cross already, interestingly I haven't had a problem with cars getting close behind, most of the d1cks are usually along side overtaking me as I slow down for the junction anyway. Not saying being rear ended won't happen, just not sure it is a massive issue. The bigger issue in my mind are the disorganised d1cks who think their time is too valuable to be courteous to others and the only rules that apply are the ones that save them a few minutes (I am the first to admit that I have been this d1ck on occasion when running late).
I do note that the key word in this new code is “Should” not “Must”. Though I’m not clear where you stand legally if you took the “Didn’t” option.
The way I understood it is that the 'Must' phrase is back up by a law. So you are breaking the law if you ignore it. The 'should' option is advice that if you ignore it you could be done for things like driving without due care and attention, or something like that. However I'm hopeful that if I'm wrong someone will correct me.... before it matters....
I’m not sure it clarifies it but I found this definition of “Should” Should means an expected course of action or policy that is to be followed unless inappropriate for a particular circumstance. I suspect what happens legally if you ignore a “Should” depends heavily on what happens if you do.
Another thing that seems quite bizarre is that whist the new code comes into force on the 29th Jan, you can’t buy a copy of the new code until April 15th. https://www.safedrivingforlife.info/shop/official-dvsa-highway-code/
Hopefully this new law will come into effect soon, it will send a clear message to irresponsible cyclists who ride dangerously that actions have consequences. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...d-become-law/ar-AATfaNc?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531
