Roads and rules, a new hierarchy
There’s a book, first issued in 1931, which most people have read, learned by heart and then casually dumped never to be referred to again. The Highway Code was first issued 91 years ago and often transformed since then, as it strives to keep up with changing volumes and forms of traffic; another new edition is being released, now with a novel approach. It is predicated upon a hierarchy of vulnerability and ‘places those road users most at risk in a collision at the top’.
Pedestrians are most susceptible to injury, then cyclists, horse riders and motorcyclists; powered vehicles are ranked from cars to heavy goods vehicles. All are enjoined to treat each other with respect and to behave responsibly.
So far so admirable, yet no one needs to be reminded that motorists are encased in metal while pedestrians have no protection. The real issue is the context. How is this hierarchy to work out in practice, will everyone know and obey, will some become assertive and lose out to the careless? And at what cost? And how is it to be enforced?
Three examples locally illustrate some of the issues.
Start with Comptons Lane. It’s an odd double-bended road through suburbia, crossing a major road – Harwood Road – and ending in a cul-de-sac. It is a prime route for school children. At the southern end near the school a plan is on hand to enhance road crossing for pedestrians and cyclists, with new raised crossings, laybys for buses, and dedicated cycle routes (see the website for consultation until June 6: https://yourvoice. westsussex.gov.uk/comptonslane-horsham). Comptons Lane is quite narrow here and advantage is taken of a service road and a grass verge to install highly visible routes for the vulnerable. How much it will cost is not stated but Department for Transport funding is anticipated.
Next, look at Comptons Lane further north. Here there is a cycle lane with a solid white line which excludes motor traffic. The line is faded, the road narrow and well used, so the daily floods of school children which fill the pavements are joined by cyclists avoiding cars and buses. Rule H2 of the latest Highway Code says that ‘only pedestrians may use the pavement’. So, the cyclists are legally obliged to trust to the vague cycle lane. This is being addressed, we are assured, but there is less space here for innovation and again cost is an open question.
Thirdly, consider further afield where the A 281 crosses the Downs Link disused railway line at Rudgwick. At the inquest into the death of a cyclist at this crossing the coroner recommended some safety measures be installed. West Sussex County Council rejected the idea of a bridge as being too expensive but proposed that a Pegasus crossing be installed. WSCC also say that since the fatal crash, new warning signs have been installed on the A281, wooden guard barriers erected on the Downs Link access ramps and vegetation cleared to improve visibility.
This is what the new Highway Code seems to demand, and as road users we await further developments.