The Driving Standards Agency has begun a public consultation on a revised draft of the Highway Code - it can be viewed at http://www.dsa.gov.uk/highwaycode
The major problem is a proposed new rule telling cyclists to use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities ... where they are provided (Rule 58). If confirmed, this would open the way for driver's insurance companies to seek to reduce the damages for any cyclists injured by their clients, on the basis that the cyclist's failure to use a nearby cycle facility (in accordance with the Highway Code) represented "contributory negligence"
The Driving Standards Agency has begun a public consultation on a revised draft of the Highway Code - it can be viewed at http://www.dsa.gov.uk/highwaycode
The major problem is a proposed new rule telling cyclists to use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities ... where they are provided (Rule 58). If confirmed, this would open the way for driver's insurance companies to seek to reduce the damages for any cyclists injured by their clients, on the basis that the cyclist's failure to use a nearby cycle facility (in accordance with the Highway Code) represented "contributory negligence"
-- Arthur
I have already raised my concerns with my MP, he has responded and said he agrees with me and will raise it with the minisiter concerned. The CTC urge concerned cyclists to contact their MPs and provide a template for such purposes.
The Driving Standards Agency has begun a public consultation on a revised draft of the Highway Code - it can be viewed at http://www.dsa.gov.uk/highwaycode
The major problem is a proposed new rule telling cyclists to use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities ... where they are provided (Rule 58). If confirmed, this would open the way for driver's insurance companies to seek to reduce the damages for any cyclists injured by their clients, on the basis that the cyclist's failure to use a nearby cycle facility (in accordance with the Highway Code) represented "contributory negligence"
Who is going to define the words 'should', 'nearby', and 'practicable'? In daylight I use a cycle route to and from work, because it is shorter and more pleasant. I work shifts, so sometimes my journey is at night. I use the road then, as the area the cycle route goes through has been the scene of a number of rapes, assaults and murders. The route does not run alongside the road, so is it 'nearby'? I do not consider the route safe to cycle alone at night, so is it 'practicable'? When I use the road, there is a cycle lane at one point which I do not use because it eventually turns left, when I need to go straight on. To get out of the lane at the junction is both difficult and dangerous. I have been shouted and hooted at by drivers for not using the cycle lane. Is it 'practicable' when it isn't going where I want to go? (even though part of it runs alongside my route.) If better definitions are not provided I can't see how this can be enforced. I could also rant about drivers who use cycle facilities - parking in cycle lanes (particularly dangerous when the cycle lane is actually a cycle contraflow...) and pulling up to ASLs - but I won't just now! Jo
The Driving Standards Agency has begun a public consultation on a revised draft of the Highway Code - it can be viewed at http://www.dsa.gov.uk/highwaycode
How did you miss that then? It's been well aired here recently in several threads.
Quoted message said:
The major problem is a proposed new rule telling cyclists to use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities ... where they are provided (Rule 58).
It's /not/ a new rule, it is the old rule #47 updated to include the new 'facilities' which didn't exist in 1999.
I could also rant about drivers who use cycle facilities - parking in cycle lanes (particularly dangerous when the cycle lane is actually a cycle contraflow...) and pulling up to ASLs - but I won't just now! Jo
And cycle lanes that are apparently shared-use for parking. What's the use of that ?
In the HC, there seems to be a conflict between the advice to use the cycle lane, use the cycle box, and avoid riding on the left of stationary traffic. How do you get to the cycle box without riding up the cycle lane ? A cycle lane that ends just short of the junction at least indicates to the cyclist that cars are likely to turn left across his path but the illustrated cycle box has a complete left-hand lane approaching it.
When I use the road, there is a cycle lane at one point which I do not use because it eventually turns left, when I need to go straight on. To get out of the lane at the junction is both difficult and dangerous. I have been shouted and hooted at by drivers for not using the cycle lane. Is it 'practicable' when it isn't going where I want to go? (even though part of it runs alongside my route.)
Unfortunately where cycle lanes are concerned the proposed rule 60 would instruct us to "Keep within the lane wherever possible." It's clearly possible for you to use the lane in your example. The proposed rule does not say "Keep within the lane except where to do so would be difficult or dangerous". Incidentally this is not new. The current rule 49 has the same ridiculous wording.
Quoted message said:
If better definitions are not provided I can't see how this can be enforced.
It can't be enforced because it's not a legal requirement. The problem is that after a crash failure to follow the rule could be regarded as contributory negligence. Also cyclists can be accurately accused of not following the Highway Code when they ride according to the standards set out in Cyclecraft. The revisions are clearly intended to undermine cyclists' rights to be regarded as legitimate road users.
Quoted message said:
I could also rant about drivers who use cycle facilities - parking in cycle lanes (particularly dangerous when the cycle lane is actually a cycle contraflow...) and pulling up to ASLs - but I won't just now!
Well of course this is illegal and could be enforced. But it isn't because cycle "facilities" are not regarded seriously by officialdom as anything other than a) a means to keep cyclists out of the way of real road users, or b) a disguised traffic calming measure.
The major problem is a proposed new rule telling cyclists to use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities ... where they are provided (Rule 58).
It's /not/ a new rule, it is the old rule #47 updated to include the new 'facilities' which didn't exist in 1999.
No it isn't. The current (not old) rule 47 simply states "Use cycle routes when practicable". It does not say "where provided" which appears to remove the cyclist's freedom to decide about practicabilty. If the facility is there you are expected to use it.
No it isn't. The current (not old) rule 47 simply states "Use cycle routes when practicable".
Indeed. My understanding is that it is this change in wording that is the crucial bit here.
I don't see the word _must_ in red in that new document so they would have to argue that it was more practicable to use the farcility than ride on the road in any negligence claim.
BTW not sure what the point of the CTC chap holding the warning sign is
No it isn't. The current (not old) rule 47 simply states "Use cycle routes when practicable".
Indeed. My understanding is that it is this change in wording that is the crucial bit here.
I don't see the word _must_ in red in that new document so they would have to argue that it was more practicable to use the farcility than ride on the road in any negligence claim.
Although the article cites other 'should' cases where claims of negligence were subsequently successfully challenged. I think the concern is that a court would have real difficulty not attributing contributory negligence as the cyclist would not have been in a collision if he'd been in a different place at the moment of impact.
The major problem is a proposed new rule telling cyclists to use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities ... where they are provided (Rule 58).
It's /not/ a new rule, it is the old rule #47 updated to include the new 'facilities' which didn't exist in 1999.
No it isn't. The current (not old) rule 47
Yes, ISC.
Quoted message said:
simply states "Use cycle routes when practicable". It does not say "where provided" which appears to remove the cyclist's freedom to decide about practicabilty.
Under what circumstances would cycle routes not be practicable if they /are/ provided?
Quoted message said:
If the facility is there you are expected to use it.
When would using an ASL, cycle box or toucan crossing (note: they don't mention cycle lane) not be practicable?
No it isn't. The current (not old) rule 47 simply states "Use cycle routes when practicable".
Indeed. My understanding is that it is this change in wording that is the crucial bit here.
I don't see the word _must_ in red in that new document so they would have to argue that it was more practicable to use the farcility than ride on the road in any negligence claim.
The proposed new wording is "Use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings /where they are provided/, as they can make your journeys safer."
"Practicable" applies only to cycle routes. For all other farcilities the rule, but not the legal requirement, is to use them where they exist.
Quoted message said:
BTW not sure what the point of the CTC chap holding the warning sign is
Although the article cites other 'should' cases where claims of negligence were subsequently successfully challenged. I think the concern is that a court would have real difficulty not attributing contributory negligence as the cyclist would not have been in a collision if he'd been in a different place at the moment of impact.
Even more of a concern is that insurance company lawyers will reduce damages - there are many more cases that are settled pre-trial than come to court, and this is where the bulk of the danger lies.
I think the concern is that a court would have real difficulty not attributing contributory negligence as the cyclist would not have been in a collision if he'd been in a different place at the moment of impact.
Exactly so, and unfortunately it probably wouldn't work the other way round: a cyclist who is struck when using a farcility would be unlikely to succeed if he argued that the Highway Code had a measure of responsibility for putting him there, whether it was the case or not.
-- Mark, UK "All progress is based upon a universal innate desire on the part of every organism to live beyond its income."
Under what circumstances would cycle routes not be practicable if they /are/ provided?
Judging by the cycle routes I'm familiar with, just about all circumstances.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
If the facility is there you are expected to use it.
When would using an ASL, cycle box or toucan crossing (note: they don't mention cycle lane) not be practicable?
How did you miss that then? It's been well aired here recently in several threads.
They don't mention cycle lane in that rule, but there is another rule to use the cycle lane wherever possible. Also the new rule uses the words "such as" and is therefore not limiting itself to the specific examples mentioned. "Such as" has a similar meaning to "including but not limited to".
> The major problem is a proposed new rule telling cyclists to > use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities ... where > they are provided (Rule 58). It's /not/ a new rule, it is the old rule #47 updated to include the new 'facilities' which didn't exist in 1999.
No it isn't. The current (not old) rule 47
Yes, ISC.
Quoted message said:
simply states "Use cycle routes when practicable". It does not say "where provided" which appears to remove the cyclist's freedom to decide about practicabilty.
Under what circumstances would cycle routes not be practicable if they /are/ provided?
Lane on the left hand side of a road. You want to turn right. If you must use the lane then you cannot position your self appropriately. Lane running round the outside of a roundabout. Cycle farcility requiring slowing to an almost crawl to navigate past trees, bollards and pedestrians and having to cede priority at every road crossing - turn a 10 minute on road ride into a half hour of rouad nightmare.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
If the facility is there you are expected to use it.
When would using an ASL, cycle box or toucan crossing (note: they don't mention cycle lane) not be practicable?
When it doesn't go where you want. WHere it puts you in an unsafe position re other traffic. Where your cycle cannot physically fit into such a ficility (but you don't know that till too late) where the cycle facility suddenly decides to veer off somewhere else other than where the road goes without warning. Where the cycle facility is not gritted or lit so badly that you are suddenly dazzled just where teh facility executes a sharp turn above a ditch (vis the new one along the arbroath road)
And that's just a few from my own experience.
Every motorist is also breaking that rule because they are not using the facility. After all, it doen't except people who would rather be taking their cars..
Although the article cites other 'should' cases where claims of negligence were subsequently successfully challenged. I think the concern is that a court would have real difficulty not attributing contributory negligence as the cyclist would not have been in a collision if he'd been in a different place at the moment of impact.
sounds like another half baked idea, how do they identify a road as being so dangerous that it requires a farcility alongside it? ; Interesting to see what would happen in a case where a cyclist was hit by a left turning car as he crossed a side road on a cycle path, Shirley the contributory negligence there would be using the cycle lane and placing yoursefl out of the driver's direct field of vision (no I'm not volunteering!) When will they realise that the only way farcilities will have any effect is when there is a complete separate cycling infrastructure like in the Netherlands?
"dkahn400" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
The proposed new wording is "Use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings /where they are provided/, as they can make your journeys safer."
"Cycle route" in the *legal* sense refers to a route that is recommended for cyclists which can be both on and off road. It may or may not have cycle lanes and cycle paths for whole or part of its course, but these are in no way related to the "route".
I work shifts, so sometimes my journey is at night. I use the road then, as the area the cycle route goes through has been the scene of a number of rapes, assaults and murders. The route does not run alongside the road, so is it 'nearby'? I do not consider the route safe to cycle alone at night, so is it 'practicable'?
It seems to me that this point is more likely to make an impression on TPTB than more abstruse arguments about road positioning.
-- Mark, UK "An obstinate man does not hold opinions, but they hold him."
I work shifts, so sometimes my journey is at night. I use the road then, as the area the cycle route goes through has been the scene of a number of rapes, assaults and murders. The route does not run alongside the road, so is it 'nearby'? I do not consider the route safe to cycle alone at night, so is it 'practicable'?
It seems to me that this point is more likely to make an impression on TPTB than more abstruse arguments about road positioning.
This only applies to cycle routes. Under the proposed rule changes all other facilities are to be used where provided, and cycle lanes additionally where possible.
