Changes to The Highway Code: improving safety for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders

Your details  
Q1. Your (used for contact details only):
name? Steve Dawe
email? stevedawe@gn.apc.org

Q2. Are you responding:
on behalf of an organisation?

Organisation details  
Q3. What is the name of your organisation?
Cowley Area Transport Group

Hierarchy of road users  
Q5. Do you agree with the introduction of new Rule H1?
Yes

Hierarchy of users wording  
Q7. Is the proposed wording easy to understand?
Yes

Clarification of right of way and stronger priorities for pedestrians  
Q9. Do you agree with the introduction of new Rule H2?
Yes

Stronger priorities for pedestrians wording  
Q11. Is the proposed wording easy to understand?
Yes

Cyclists priorities and right of way  
Q13. Do you agree with the introduction of new Rule H3?
Yes

Cyclists priorities and right of way wording  
Q15. Is the proposed wording easy to understand?
Yes

Rules for pedestrians  
Q17. Do you agree with the proposed change to give way to pedestrians waiting at a:
 YesNoDon't know?
junction?X  
zebra crossing?X  

Q18. Is the proposed wording easy to understand?
Yes

Rules about animals  
Q21. Do you agree to the proposed change to Rule 52?
Yes

Rules for animals wording  
Q23. Is the proposed wording easy to understand?
Yes

Rules for cyclists  
Q25. Do you agree with the proposed change to rule 63?
Yes

Rule 63 for cyclists wording: shared spaces  
Q27. Is the proposed wording easy to understand?
Yes

Rules for cyclists  
Q29. Do you agree with the proposed change to Rule 72 to ride:
 YesNoDon't know?
in the centre of your lane on quiet roads?X  
in the centre of your lane in slower moving traffic?X  
in the centre of your lane when approaching junctions?X  
at least 0.5 metres away from the kerb on busy roads?X  

Q30. Is the proposed wording easy to understand?
Yes

Rules for cyclists  
Q32. Do you agree with the proposed change to Rule 73 at junctions with:
 YesNoDon't know?
special cyclist facilities?X  
no separate cyclist facilities?X  

Q33. Is the proposed wording easy to understand?
Yes

Rules for cyclists  
Q35. Do you agree with the proposed change to Rule 76?
Yes

Rule 76 for cyclists wording: going straight ahead  
Q37. Is the proposed wording easy to understand?
Yes

General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders  
Q41. Is the proposed wording in Rule:
 YesNoDon't know?
123 easy to understand?X  
124 easy to understand?X  

General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders  
Q42. Do you agree with the proposed changes to Rule 140 on giving way to cyclists using a cycle:
 YesNoDon't know?
lane?X  
track?X  

Q43. Is the proposed wording easy to understand?
Yes

Using the road  
Q46. Do you agree that cyclists may pass slower moving traffic on their right or left as detailed in Rule 163?
Yes

Using the road  
Q48. Do you agree with the proposed speed limits detailed at Rule 163 for overtaking:
 YesNoDon't know?
motorcyclists?X  
cyclists?X  
horse riders?X  
horse drawn vehicles?X  

Q49. Do you agree with the proposed passing distances detailed at Rule 163 for overtaking:
 YesNoDon't know?
motorcyclists?X  
cyclists?X  
horse riders?X  
horse drawn vehicles?X  

Q50. Is the proposed wording easy to understand?
Yes

Using the road  
Q52. Do you agree with the proposed changes to Rule 186 that:
 YesNoDon't know?
you do not overtake cyclists within their lane?X  
you allow cyclists to move across your path?X  
cyclists may stay in the left lane when continuing across or around the roundabout?X  
horse riders may stay in the left lane when continuing across or around the roundabout?X  
horse drawn vehicles may stay in the left lane when continuing across or around the roundabout?X  

Q53. Is the proposed wording easy to understand?
Yes

Using the road  
Q55. Do you agree with the proposed change to Rule 195 to give way to pedestrians and cyclists waiting to cross at a parallel crossing?
Yes

Using the road Rule 195 wording: zebra and parallel crossings  
Q57. Is the proposed wording easy to understand?
Yes

Road users requiring extra care  
Q60. Do you agree with the proposed changes to Rule 213?
Yes

Rule 213 road users requiring extra care: cycling on narrow roads  
Q62. Is the proposed wording easy to understand?
Yes

Waiting and parking  
Q65. Do you agree with the proposed change to Rule 239?
Yes

Rule 239 waiting and parking: Dutch reach  
Q67. Is the proposed wording easy to understand?
Yes