HH update on Highway Code changes

[Meredith]

https://www.horseandhound.co.uk/new...Grz7QyEjx7ikgAX9fzWQ9KbL07Qk8SZOucb5mWjKE6SVY

 

[windand rain]

Will there be prosecutions of people not abiding by the new rules or will they be advisory and only apply if a cop car is not in a hurry to go elsewhere

 

[Keith_Beef]

https://www.horseandhound.co.uk/new...Grz7QyEjx7ikgAX9fzWQ9KbL07Qk8SZOucb5mWjKE6SVY

I'm not really surprised, but disappointed when I read statements like these.

“The proposed rule 163 states: ‘Cyclists may pass slower-moving traffic on their right or left’.

Eh? Let's get rid of the first plural.
"A Cyclists may pass slower-moving traffic on their right or left".
It's still unclear: is the word "their" a "singular their" to avoid using "his or her"? Or is the word "traffic" being used as a plural, like the common usage of saying things like "the police were called to the scene", or "England haven't won the cup since 1966"?

Is rule 163 applicable to single lane roads, or to multiple lane roads, too?

“It has never been suggested that horses are slower-moving traffic, but the BHS will be asking for the following wording to be put in the Highway Code: ‘Cyclists should NEVER pass horses on the nearside or to their left’. This will avoid any confusion or debate, and this view is supported by British Cycling, British Triathlon and Cycling UK.”

Oh, dear... yet again the dreaded words "should" and "should not"... How does the BHS expect that to "avoid any confusion or debate"?

 

[Errin Paddywack]

The trouble is that cyclists could interpret that to mean any sort of traffic, horse included, if it is going slower than you. Unless it states categorically you MUST NOT pass horses on the left they will interpret it to suit themselves.

 

[Keith_Beef]

The trouble is that cyclists could interpret that to mean any sort of traffic, horse included, if it is going slower than you. Unless it states categorically you MUST NOT pass horses on the left they will interpret it to suit themselves.

I agree... perhaps the wording should separate out motorised traffic from non-motorised traffic and (if the powers that be really want that) the HC could then state that cyclists are allowed to pass slow-moving motorised traffic by either the left-hand side or the right-hand side.

Even better might be to use the terms that exist elsewhere in the Highway Code, where there is reference to "the road-user" rather than "the motorist, horse rider, cyclist or pedestrian", so that there would be several classes of "road-user":

• the road user in command of a motorised vehicle, regardless of the kind of motor (e.g. electric, petrol, diesel, lpg, compressed air or other non-combustible gas, etc)
• the road user in command of a human-powered vehicle (e.g. bicycle, tricycle, quadricycle, etc)
• the road user in command of an animal (e.g. horse, donkey, lama, ox, ostrich), regardless of whether the animal is being ridden, is being led, or is pulling a vehicle such as a gig or cart
• the road user on foot (i.e. pedestrian, including a pedestrian leading a small domestic animal such as a dog, cat, polecat or ferret)

Maritime rules of priority separate powered vessels from non-powered (i.e. wind or paddle) craft.