CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Remove rule 56 Highway Code

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Remove rule 56 Highway Code http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Remove rule 56 Highway Code en Sun, 31 May 2026 12:44:47 +0000 minus six on "Remove rule 56 Highway Code" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19545#post-304344 Fri, 05 Apr 2019 23:30:19 +0000 minus six 304344@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ big dogs on NEPN straining to bite my face while their minders struggle to cope with their phone conversations Eat your heart out on a plastic tray You don't do what you want Then you'll fade away You won't find me working Nine to five It's too much fun a being alive I'm using my feet for my human machine You won't find me living for the screen Are you lonely all your needs catered You got your brains dehydrated Problem, problem Problem, the problem is YOU Ed1 on "Remove rule 56 Highway Code" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19545#post-304336 Fri, 05 Apr 2019 18:27:33 +0000 Ed1 304336@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ rule 206 is not a "must" so just a recommendation. Like rule 59 you should wear a helmet etc. or rule 79 do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing. This may be impractical (although important to consider possible loss of priority with a zebra) It is unlike rule 64 "must not" cycle on the pavement that is a must not, so it may be an offence not to follow this rule. However with the tram tracks and poor designs of roundabouts. I don’t think would be to sensible to follow this rule to the letter. amir on "Remove rule 56 Highway Code" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19545#post-304335 Fri, 05 Apr 2019 18:07:54 +0000 amir 304335@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ @ejstubbs that's true ejstubbs on "Remove rule 56 Highway Code" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19545#post-304333 Fri, 05 Apr 2019 17:26:32 +0000 ejstubbs 304333@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ @amir: my point is that this rule is not at all well known and is unlikely to be publicised. This is somewhat different from the rules of driving, such as speed limits, red lights etc. Ah, like the rule of driving which says: "give way to pedestrians who are already crossing the road into which you are turning". (Part of Highway Code Rule 206.) It certainly appears to be not at all well known... acsimpson on "Remove rule 56 Highway Code" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19545#post-304327 Fri, 05 Apr 2019 14:59:54 +0000 acsimpson 304327@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ If I see a dog and owner on opposite sides of the path then I will generally slow to walking pace. I find it best to stay on the side of the path which the owner is on as they will understand that they need to move more than the dog. If you stay on the side where the dog is then I generally find the owners call to their dog which only adds to it's unpredictability. Of course staying on the side the owner is on means you have to be prepared to stop should the owner decline to stop browsing their phone when hailed. More troublesome is when I am riding with youngsters who haven't yet learnt that dogs are unpredictable and some have owners who think it's appropriate for a child sized dog to approach a child uninvited. Ed1 on "Remove rule 56 Highway Code" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19545#post-304318 Fri, 05 Apr 2019 13:40:18 +0000 Ed1 304318@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ As far as I understand which may not be that far, Rule 56 is not a you must, so its not compulsory just a recommendation. It may be used to support contributory negligence or may be used to support another offence if disaster struck. It could be used to build a picture of thoughtlessness in similar way as ignoring a cycle dismount sign may do, but not following the recommendation is not a specific offence nor enough to support one on its own. unhurt on "Remove rule 56 Highway Code" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19545#post-304312 Fri, 05 Apr 2019 13:24:31 +0000 unhurt 304312@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Can't say I object to off the lead dogs on e.g. the Roseburn Path. It's fine 90% of the time, and when it isn't it's usually the owner not the dog that's the issue (I mean, technically it's always the owner, but you know what I mean - the person who thinks that you didn't slow down enough / ring your bell enough / rang your bell too much even though you've braked to walking pace and their small dog is three whole metres away & at no risk of ending up with a tyre mark over it). If I'm sharing the space I expect to be sharing it with unpredictable pups and erratic children and runners with headphones in etc etc etc. Though I've had the odd close encounter with cats (and squirrels) that haven't read the green cross code... crowriver on "Remove rule 56 Highway Code" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19545#post-304308 Fri, 05 Apr 2019 12:40:41 +0000 crowriver 304308@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ To be fair to dog owners (and lord knows I'm saying this through gritted teeth), many are pretty responsible when a cyclist approaches. If the owner has their back to me, I usually find a wee ring of the bell helps. Of course there are folk who stubbornly block the way (or are maybe a bit deaf), but that's not exclusive to dog owners I must say. The main hazards are dogs off the lead running around excitedly and unpredictably (which they shouldn't be on a public path), or on those stretchy long leads foraging on the opposite side of the path to their owner. Again, a ring of the bell can often help in these cases (though not always). I may just be getting a bit more chilled and tolerant of these situations as I get older, or maybe just resigned to the fact they're inevitable and thus not worth getting worked up about... neddie on "Remove rule 56 Highway Code" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19545#post-304301 Fri, 05 Apr 2019 11:12:48 +0000 neddie 304301@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ I propose the following rules for the neddie Highway Code: 1. Motor vehicles must only be driven on motorways and trunk roads. 2. Motor vehicles must only be parked on private land. 3. That's it. amir on "Remove rule 56 Highway Code" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19545#post-304300 Fri, 05 Apr 2019 10:58:37 +0000 amir 304300@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Ah - my point is that this rule is not at all well known and is unlikely to be publicised. This is somewhat different from the rules of driving, such as speed limits, red lights etc. I suspect that dogs prefer the open spaces over hard surfaced paths but their owners don't. I'd say that dog walking is a remarkable success for SUSTRANS. Murun Buchstansangur on "Remove rule 56 Highway Code" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19545#post-304299 Fri, 05 Apr 2019 10:23:29 +0000 Murun Buchstansangur 304299@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Non-adherence to what is a sensible and fair rule to most non-dog owners is a poor reason for removal - with especially in mind the long list of things that most drivists are not keen on sticking to . Near most places, there are good places for dogs to be off leads - linear travel routes are not amongst them. ejstubbs on "Remove rule 56 Highway Code" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19545#post-304297 Fri, 05 Apr 2019 10:18:44 +0000 ejstubbs 304297@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ @amir: I propose its abolishment on the grounds that it just causes people like me, who like rules followed, lots of stress On that basis we might as well get rid of the Highway Code altogether. [I do sympathise with your unfortunate encounters with some dog, er..."owners", by the way.] amir on "Remove rule 56 Highway Code" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19545#post-304289 Fri, 05 Apr 2019 09:29:06 +0000 amir 304289@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Rule 56 states: "Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders." <a href="https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/rules-about-animals-other-animals.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/rules-about-animals-other-animals.html</a> In principle, this is a good rule. And it may or may not be useful in <a href="https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2015/06/cycling-accidents-involving-animals-what-is-the-law/">civil disputes</a>. However, in practice it is widely ignored and TBH, I expect that most have never heard of it. On inadvisably stopping to politely advise dog walkers of the rule, I have received replies that "It's a path, it doesn't apply" and "My dog likes to roam free". I haven't yet had a better defence such as "it's the dog that taking me for a walk", which may also be nearer the truth. Anyway, given the lack of knowledge of this rule, I propose its abolishment on the grounds that it just causes people like me, who like rules followed, lots of stress. It's bad enough on the roads - nice to get away from the stress by going off-road.