- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Superdrug lorry driver in super-closer pass.JPG“Unfair and unjust” – Haulage trade body RHA slams Highway Code changes aimed at protecting vulnerable road users
UK haulage industry trade body the RHA claims that forthcoming changes announced last week to the Highway Code are “unfair and unsafe, and could put vulnerable road users at risk.” The assertion was made in a blog post published yesterday, the same day a cyclist was killed in a crash involving a lorry in central London.
The new version of the Highway Code, to be published in the autumn, will set out a hierarchy of road users under which those with potential to cause the most danger to others will be deemed to have greater responsibility to those who are more vulnerable than them.
Drivers of large vehicles such as lorries or buses will therefore be held more accountable for the safety of car occupants, for example, who will likewise be viewed as having more responsible for those further down the scale, such as cyclists, followed by pedestrians.
The changes, finalised following a consultation to which stakeholders including the RHA responded, also see cyclists given priority at junctions when travelling straight on, and provide clarification of safe overtaking distances.
They were supported by road safety campaigners, with the RAC’s head of roads policy, Nicholas Lyes, saying: “These proposals should make cycling and walking safer, and this is to be welcomed.
“A concerted effort must now be made to communicate the changes to drivers because as we know, many do not read the Highway Code for long periods after passing their test.”
However, the RHA maintains that the revisions to the Highway Code are “unfair and unsafe, and could put vulnerable road users at risk.”
It expresses particular misgivings over the hierarchy of road users – a common concept on the continent that campaigners have long fought to have introduced in the UK, but described as “inherently unjust” by RHA chief executive Richard Burnett.
“As far as we can see, there is little, if any, justification for these changes,” he insisted.
“The hierarchy of risk created by the operation of cars, vans, coaches, buses and lorries is already reflected in the additional ongoing training undertaken by lorry and coach drivers.”
The RHA said it also objects to giving cyclists priority at junctions when travelling straight ahead, highlighting concerns that it may put riders in the blind spot of left-turning drivers, and calling for the change to be scrapped.
Tom Cotton, the RHA’s head of policy and infrastructure for England and Wales, commented: “The proposal to give cyclists a special rule that gives them a right of way to pass a turning vehicle is dangerous, it simply defies logic to promote a manoeuvre that puts cyclist in the dangerous and vulnerable position on the road.”
By unfortunate coincidence, the blog post was published on the same day that a woman was killed in a collision involving a lorry while cycling through the junction of Theobalds Road and Southampton Row in central London.
> Yet another cyclist killed on London’s Holborn gyratory – the seventh since 2008
As we highlighted in our report yesterday, she is the seventh cyclist to have been killed on the Holborn gyratory system since 2008, with lorries involved in six of those fatal crashes and a coach in the remaining one.
In a statement, London Cycling Campaign (LCC) said: “While it is too soon to speculate on specifics, we note the junction where this happened is part of the Holborn ‘gyratory’ system of one way streets and junctions that has claimed the lives of five people walking and cycling in eight years.
“LCC protested here after Dr Peter Fisher’s death in 2018 also while cycling in a lorry collision. It is horrifying that three years later, nothing has changed.
“Camden Council and Transport for London must urgently make changes to this junction,” it added. “More years of inaction will mean more lives lost.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Daclu Trelub 1 hour 50 min ago
A bit like underarm, surely?
- hand0j1n 3 hours 5 min ago
Hopefully the new device is a big success, but wahoo do have a lot work to do in terms of convincing that their quality control has improved. ...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 55 min ago
Agree that the moaning comes from a place of priveledge and ultimately "if only there weren't so many other people driving"....
- Simon E 3 hours 40 min ago
Have added some clarification....
- Simon E 3 hours 50 min ago
I was tempted to try Galibier gloves but opted for Endura Freezing Point from LBS last year. Not cheap (£60, I think). I'd prefer a shorter cuff...
- Simon E 4 hours 27 min ago
I can't wait that long! Here's a series that any good vlogger / 'grammer would surely recognise....
- Simon E 4 hours 36 min ago
At 2.30pm on Saturday a small hatchback car "came to rest on its side in a precarious position" near the hamlet of Ratlinghope on the west side of...
- IanMK 5 hours 13 min ago
I do wonder if Highway Planners and Councils understand all the implications of putting in traffic calming measures. They certainly take no...
- Oldfatgit 5 hours 33 min ago
How long before some waste of DNA complains about them on the footpath ... or for Grimsby [and the other shit-tips] to ban them ...
- mattw 6 hours 21 min ago
I've only just spotted this....
Add new comment
37 comments
As a cycling lorry driver, the RHA do not represent me.
They are the trade body for the lorry operators, and are they really going to endorse anything that might increase operators costs?
As a cycling lorry driver, I'd be interested to see what you think about this DVLA consultation: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/changes-to-hgv-and-bus-drivi...
"the RHA maintains that the revisions to the Highway Code are “unfair and unsafe, and could put vulnerable road users at risk"
Please hand in your licence, as you are not fit to drive on the roads, or be in charge of a large vehicle. You are being asked to drive carefully and not turn into the path of cyclists in a cycle lane without looking. This is the basics from driving: Use your mirrors, and don't change lanes without looking and having a clear and safe path to do so. Ridiculous.
Re: your bit in bold, in fact the proposal doesn't just apply to cycle lanes. Proposed Rule H3 says:
You should not cut across cyclists going ahead when turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether cyclists are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them
So that includes people filtering too right? I was led to believe drivers were already instructed/advised to look in their mirrors and indicate before turning.
What are you? Some sort of 'war on the motorist' communist type??
"As far as we can see, there is little if any justification for these changes"
Am I the only one to feel revulsion and rage at the representative of the proportionally biggest killers of cyclists on the road dismissing their deaths quite so casually? Count the bodies Richard Burnett.
No, you are not.
It's a callous response from an uncaring body that has repeatedly shown itself to be more concerned about commerce than the safety of third parties.
https://road.cc/content/news/holborn-lorry-crash-victim-named-dr-marta-k...
Richard Burnett, Tom Cotton and the other arseholes at the RHA should try cycling in a city centre instead of gobbing off about the Highway Code. Or better still, send a female family member out on a bike.
Unfortunately I think the debate is so polarised that both cyclists and hauliers will think this tragedy clearly supports their cause - cyclists will see it as evidence of the need for the new hierarchy of road users and clarification of priorities; hauliers will see it as support for their argument that cyclists should not be encouraged (as they see it) to ride up the inside of large vehicles.
What we want to know is where is the close passing legislation for the b*****d police to keep on ignoring!
The time for the RHA to raise concerns was during the consultation. Either they did and the concerns were not deemed legitimate, or they didn't, but the consultation has now finished.
I'm not sure I agree with that as a principle. In my job, I respond to government consultations. If my organisation disagrees with what comes out after the consultation, we will say that. (Not that I'm agreeing with the RHA, I just don't agree that once you've responded to a consultation, you have to accept without criticism what comes out of it)
Or they did, and the concerns were deemed legitimate. We'll have to wait to see the final wording, but the Government's response to the consultation suggests their concerns will feed in to the final draft. E.g.:
BTW, I'm not suggesting I support the RHA's stance - I'm just bracing for a watering down of the HWC proposals in the final version.
If you follow the link to the RHAs piece on this, they include on their page at the bottom a link to the letter they sent that formed their feedback to the consultation.
It might not illuminate things anymore as to their specific concerns any more than the one line quotes but you can at least read what their submission was.
And maybe wonder why they commented a proposed changes was likely to lead to confusion as it was unclear what the change meant, and then stated yes the wording of the proposed change was totally clear.
Thanks for that. It's actually not a bad response overall - I was expecting them to disagree with all pro-cyclist changes for the sake of it. Though it irritated me that they chose not to use the response form provided by government, then complained that made it hard to respond to.
Unfair and unjust is how I'd describe the situation whereby people can be killed due to poor vehicle design and sub-standard driving. Instead of stating "may put riders in the blind spot of left-turning drivers", I'd consider it more worthwhile examining why some vehicles have such insurmountable blind spots.
They're not blind spots though, with all the mirrors correctly adjusted, I can see completely down both sides of my trailer, and directly in front. I'm aware of where the line of sight would end and so focus on the mirror that would show anything come into view as I'm performing a manoeuvre so I'm not surprised. Just an excuse for lazy drivers who can't be bothered to set the mirrors up properly or worse, not look properly.
Exactly!
(username checks out too)
Not having a category C/C+E licence, my experience is limited to the traditional set-up of an artic at a demo: sit in the driver's seat with the rig at a slight turn angle, and look in the mirrors; notice how you can't see me when I walk round.
But I remained puzzled: look, if I give my head a little wobble, I can suddenly see into the 'blind spots' through the mirrors. In other words, there are no blind spots, just spots I didn't look.
HOWEVER, trucks (notably Mercedes) are emerging without mirrors, and using cameras and hi-def screens in lieu of a mirror. Except for Access on YouTube showed one of these recently.
Very snazzy!
However, he experienced some issues: not least, when he is manoeuvring, he noticed that, as you move around with a traditional mirror, you achieve a change in view. With the screens, there is no adjustment in the angle of incidence, so any gap in coverage remains a gap.
Perhaps the RHA should focus on preventing the introduction of bugs resulting from unnecessary technology.
Exactly. Good drivers would be aware the limits of the area the mirror covers, and adjust their head / position accordingly. If I'm turning left, I'm constantly scanning the front mirror and screen, and the left mirrors and left window throughout the manoeuvre. I've never been caught unawares by anything so far, touch wood 😁.
Another thing, when sat at lights, I don't sit there daydreaming or checking my phone, I'm constantly checking my mirrors and windows so that I'm fully aware if anything has come close to me for when the lights change.
Those Mercedes cameras do look interesting, we don't use Mercedes so I can't comment on how they perform, however, I was talking to a recovery guy about them, and he said they're all well and good, but if they ever do develop a fault or become damaged for whatever reason at the roadside, it's not a simple case of a recovery van coming and fitting a new mirror to the side, which is possible in case of breakdowns. Only a Mercedes dealer can do that, and only a Mercedes dealer can interact with the electronics side of it too. So, for the sake of a fault to the camera / screen, the lorry would need to be towed to a Mercedes dealer instead of an instant roadside repair.
I actually sell this stuff for a living. The arms on a mirror long enough to see all the way on a lorry would have to be huge. I think the largest i've seen currently is near 2 feet wide on a Sprinter or Transit pickup. When you're dealing with large vehicles like lorries there's blind spots in front of the vehicle, at the back, the front sides...It's almost a wonder they're allowed on the roads.
That right there is the issue. If a vehicle is going to be using the same space as other cars, cyclists, scooters, pedestrians etc. then it should be either made safe to do so or accompanied by an escort (e.g. when abnormal loads such as turbine blades are transported). I believe the newer designs are equipped with cameras to get round the long mirror issue, but it's just ridiculous to assert that others should have to accomodate dangerous designs (not accusing you of doing so).
It's a tricky issue as we get cheaper prices if supermarkets can restock using huge lorries, but at some point we have to realise that it's not acceptable to have forseeable road deaths. One solution would be to use larger lorries to unload to regional distribution centres that then use e.g. transit vans to restock shops.
Give them a tax break for transporting the load by train, larger tax break for percentage of journey by train (more environmentally friendly too), with the intention of taxing lorries off all roads but motorways. They absolutely shouldn't be travelling down minor or residential roads, as they so often are.
And yet, Somehow, it seems to be those well-trained lorry drivers who kill more than their fair share of vulnerable road users...
Yet where I live, I've always found HGV drivers to be the most considerate when I'm commuting,
some car drivers on the other hand are not so good.
Probably because they feel safer - when it was made compulsory for motorists to wear seat belts they killed 40% more cyclists.
Motorists felt safer so they took more risks.
The government at the time said the big increase in cyclists killed was ok because there was a net saving of lives.
I find the whole acceptance of "blind spots" bizarre, and worse still that it be for others to be aware of them and compensate for them.
But some are inflicted on us by construction and use regs i.e. A pillars.
Pages