Councillor pictured celebrating after popular bike lane is ripped up; HIGNFY shares Highway Code news with a cyclists dig; LEJOG record; Liam Gallagher celebrates GB's morning glory; G needs a break; Carapaz's gold Pinarello + more on the live blog

Wasnt that more to do with the controversy of selection back in 2016 ?

When Kye's brother Tre should have been picked,but wasnt, I didnt think there had been any public complaints on selection this time, but I dont follow BMX that closely.

Nope, someone mentioned on here that Quillain Isidore had been overlooked as he went to the test event and seemed to indicate it was a mistake or down to "who you know". I remember asking then why it was a mistake as Kye always seems to do better in the recent full year rankings.

Fair enough, I only remember the 2016 selection controversy and wondered if it was someone using that. But not knowing anything about any of the riders or selections they went through, I cant shed any light on it.

But you certainly cant argue with the end results.

It was me and I said the pick for the UK's second male BMX rider should've gone to Quillan Isidore. He's the second rated UK male BMX rider after Kye. Politics were in play. 

But all my BMX mates here in South London are going nuts. Kye and Beth are great ambassadors for the sport. The Whyte and Shriever familes have done a hell of a lot over many years getting Kye and Beth where they are today. BC may be getting the praise now, but it was the familes that put in the hard work over the years.

Everyone on the BMX by the looks of my feed. Both represent the South Region, but SW and Midlands celebrating too. Not following East, North or Scotland, but no doubt they will be. Hope to see them at the Brits at the end of the month

I'm thinking about doing the Brits. I've qualified on the 20 and 24 and I'm not sure whether to do one or the other or both. You?

What a fantastic result for them both, tell them a bunch of overweight MAMILS send their congratulations and best wishes for the future!

Just seen Claire Balding interview Bethany and mention the praise from Liam Gallagher. Bethany did very well in not saying "who?"

Have only read the media's take on it so far.

Looks like interesting stuff on priority too.

Have you seen a link to the actual document anywhere? Haven't managed to find it.

LOng time since I looked at it. This is the link to the consultation docs.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-t...

According to the DfT press release, the final document isn't due to be published until the autumn, but you can see the proposals they were consulting on at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-t...

I'm particularly keen to see what they've done with Rule 66 (~never ride more than two abreast), as I wasn't convinced by the proposed suggestions in the consultation.

Theres a government response to that consultation now, which goes into lots of detail about the responses theyve got, my impression is they havent written the new rules yet, it cites rule 66 specifically will take account of feedback and road safety experts and stakeholders will help finalise the wording. So I guess watch this space, as it commits presenting to parliament in September after the summer recess, which is only a month away.

Theres also an updated gear change document,light on details but some interesting snippets like it says theyve paused infilling of rail structures by Highways England...
Http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gear-change-one-year-on-review

Plus theres some updated statutory guidance to the traffic management act, around cycle scheme implementation & consultations.

Good spot - don't think the government response was there when I posted the link earlier. Fingers crossed re: revising Rule 66. Cycling UK initially supported the proposed changes to that rule, but apparently changed their view after people (including me) wrote to them flagging that the proposals might be read as putting the onus on cyclists to single out whenever a motorist might want to overtake.  

Rich_cb wrote:

Have you seen a link to the actual document anywhere? Haven't managed to find it.

Nope.  Tried googling and only managed to find something about changes to the HC in relation to motorways and other high-speed roads (which isn't really relevant for this conversation).

The BBC has also covered this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58021450

Quote:

The new code will also offer guidance and safe distances and speeds for passing cyclists as well as ensuring that riders have priority at junctions when travelling straight ahead.

I like the explicit mention of cyclist priority at junctions although I thought that traffic travelling straight ahead already has priority at junctions (mainly cyclists that get left-hooked though).
 

hawkinspeter wrote:

The BBC has also covered this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58021450

Quote:

The new code will also offer guidance and safe distances and speeds for passing cyclists as well as ensuring that riders have priority at junctions when travelling straight ahead.

I like the explicit mention of cyclist priority at junctions although I thought that traffic travelling straight ahead already has priority at junctions (mainly cyclists that get left-hooked though).
 

also pedestrians, expected to stop and wait while toad of toad hall comes from behind them and cuts across their path, with a clear view of the pedestrian at all times, but not one second consideration of slowing down to arrive at the junction after the pedestrian has crossed.

[/quote]

also pedestrians, expected to stop and wait while toad of toad hall comes from behind them and cuts across their path, with a clear view of the pedestrian at all times, but not one second consideration of slowing down to arrive at the junction after the pedestrian has crossed.

[/quote]

The consultation said this:

"introduce a responsibility for drivers and riders to give way to pedestrians waiting to cross a side road or junction, or waiting to cross at a zebra crossing"

It's a brave pedestrian that steps into a side road knowing that they have priority. It's a bit like that Jeremy Vine post withe the ped scurrying out of the way of the taxi even though they had right of way. The change is, I believe, that at the moment the ped has right of way if they've started to cross. The new rules will be that they have right of way if they are waiting to cross.

IanMK wrote:

"introduce a responsibility for drivers and riders to give way to pedestrians waiting to cross a side road or junction, or waiting to cross at a zebra crossing"

how is this an introduction, when rule 170 states

170
Take extra care at junctions. You should
 

watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see. Be aware that they may not have seen or heard you if you are approaching from behind
watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way

The new rule means drivers have to give priority to pedestrians waiting to cross, whereas the existing one only requires them to give priority to pedestrians who are already crossing.

wycombewheeler wrote:

IanMK wrote:

"introduce a responsibility for drivers and riders to give way to pedestrians waiting to cross a side road or junction, or waiting to cross at a zebra crossing"

how is this an introduction, when rule 170 states

170
Take extra care at junctions. You should
 

watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see. Be aware that they may not have seen or heard you if you are approaching from behind
watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way

The new proposal is "Rule 170 on junctions to advise drivers and riders give way to pedestrians waiting to cross and to remain behind cyclists and motorcyclists at junctions even if they are waiting to turn and are positioned close to the kerb" so the priority is the peds carrying on in a straight line over cars turning. However, I won't be stepping across any junctions in front of drivers with the full confidence that we all are following the same HC.

hawkinspeter wrote:

The BBC has also covered this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58021450

Quote:

The new code will also offer guidance and safe distances and speeds for passing cyclists as well as ensuring that riders have priority at junctions when travelling straight ahead.

I like the explicit mention of cyclist priority at junctions although I thought that traffic travelling straight ahead already has priority at junctions (mainly cyclists that get left-hooked though).

First comment BTL on the BBC:

But who's going to tell Ronnie Pickering that the rules have changed?

Who?

My concern with this kind of change, irrespective of its rights and wrongs, is how effective it will be and the timescale.  The vast majority of drivers out there will not have read a version of the HC in the last 20/30/40/50 years so any new changes will take a similar timescale to roll through unless the Gov tackles the thorny question "How do HC updates get taken on board by the people actually driving"?  I would vote for some regulation that forces an HC refresher/online exam at least every 10 years, but I have yet to hear any senior politician mention similar.  So just words, in a doc, with widescale ignorance amongst the masses.

I agree that education is going to be tricky (and I will be cautious about exercising any new priorities on day one of the new code) but it doesn't necessarily rely on people reading the entire HWC. I imagine this being in the national media today marks the start of a media campaign, with features on public service broadcasters, ads on buses, bus stops etc.  

There is a petition on this very subject:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/588492

I think there has been a weak response to the pettion that referred to this:

https://www.think.gov.uk/

IanMK wrote:

There is a petition on this very subject:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/588492

I think there has been a week response to the pettion that referred to this:

https://www.think.gov.uk/

I hate their response that they don't think a specific safety campaign is necessary - that's the whole point of the petition in that we do think it's needed.

Surely that's how most of these petitions go though - government either agrees or disagrees with the premise. E.g.

Petition: I think cyclists need to be licensed and registered and wear a tabard

Government: We don't think cyclists need to be licensed, registered and tabarded 

There's usually some kind of reasoning attached but in this instance there's just a bit of hand-waving at the revised Highway Code which really doesn't address the issue at all.

With the tabards, I'd guess (haven't seen the petition or response myself) that they could point at the potential costs and benefits and state why they think it's not worth pursuing.

Fair point, but personally I didn't think "we're introducing a revised highway code which prioritises cyclists and will advertise it with a behaviorual campaign" was a bad response (though it looks from the page like that was their second go at responding after the Petitions Committee asked them to have another crack at answering the question). 

To be fair, the tabard petitions generally don't even warrant a response as they don't get the requisite 10,000 signatures.