a highway code for cyclists

patchy

a thought that's occurred to me as part of the 'westminster bike police' thread: If the problem is cyclists not obeying the highway code, why don't we create a 'highway code for cyclists'?

What i have in mind is not the full highway code, more a pamphlet/16 page booklet which would be given to cyclists at point of sale, handed out or sent to homes where cycles are registered (ie under the police schemes), ideally with the backing of bodies like CTC, British Cycling, LCC and the police.

It could explain the law for those who maybe don't drive and/or don't think it applies to them on a bike (eg stopping at red lights), offer advice for areas of contention (iPods, riding on the pavement, wearing helmets) and offer tips on sensible riding (indicating properly, road positioning, etc). You could base some of this on publications like cyclecraft and/or the bikeability training courses for youngsters.

In my view, this would be a good thing - if only because it would show the cycling community as self-regulating. Thoughts? Would it work? Would you read it and.or take any notice?

roger_merriman

not a bad idea at all, would need to be concise. and targeted.

fair bit of work but doable.

spen666

patchy wrote:

a thought that's occurred to me as part of the 'westminster bike police' thread: If the problem is cyclists not obeying the highway code, why don't we create a 'highway code for cyclists'?

...

We don't have a highway code for car users or for lorries etc

We have ONE highway code for all road users

DonDaddyD

spen666 wrote:

patchy wrote:

a thought that's occurred to me as part of the 'westminster bike police' thread: If the problem is cyclists not obeying the highway code, why don't we create a 'highway code for cyclists'?

...

We don't have a highway code for car users or for lorries etc

We have ONE highway code for all road users

And it's important it stays that way. If you have a cyclist following their highway code and a car following his with no idea what the cyclist is about to do as he has no concpet of the their highway code you open yourself to even more confusion on the road.

What would be more beneficial is a proper section in the current highway code titled cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

patchy

spen666 wrote:

patchy wrote:

a thought that's occurred to me as part of the 'westminster bike police' thread: If the problem is cyclists not obeying the highway code, why don't we create a 'highway code for cyclists'?

...

We don't have a highway code for car users or for lorries etc

We have ONE highway code for all road users

true - and i'm not suggesting that this should replace the highway code - hence the quote marks. what i'm suggesting is more of a 'best practice guide', which would condense the key points from the FULL highway code, along with some other useful info. Not only might it clarify the 'contentious' points, it might also help novice cyclists get over the idea that cycling is dangerous/

In fact, perhaps similar documents for cars or lorry users might not be a bad idea either.

or is the full highway code no longer fit for purpose? should it be completely rewritten and updated?

spen666

patchy wrote:

...
In my view, this would be a good thing - if only because it would show the cycling community as self-regulating. Thoughts? Would it work? Would you read it and.or take any notice?

In my view it would be a bad thing

As cyclists we are covered by the same highway code as every other road user.

To then seperate off cyclists wuith a different highway code gives out the message that cyclists are not part of the traffic like other road users.

I would oppose such a move which IMHO would marginalise road cyclists even more and harm out position on the road as traffic

spen666

patchy wrote:

...

or is the full highway code no longer fit for purpose? should it be completely rewritten and updated?

You mean like it was last year

iain_j

spen666 wrote:

patchy wrote:

a thought that's occurred to me as part of the 'westminster bike police' thread: If the problem is cyclists not obeying the highway code, why don't we create a 'highway code for cyclists'?

...

We don't have a highway code for car users or for lorries etc

We have ONE highway code for all road users

+1

The highway code as it as applies to everything on the highway (the clue is in the name). If we had a separate one for cyclists I could see it only reinforcing the idea that bikes have a different set of rights and rules to everything else on the road - part of the reason I don't like segregated cycle lanes. Segregating cyclists from all other traffic isn't going to solve the "us and them" between cyclists and motorists.

Still, I think it's no bad idea for some easily accessible guide for safe cycling as opposed to a rule book.

spen666

iain_j wrote:

Still, I think it's no bad idea for some easily accessible guide for safe cycling as opposed to a rule book.

Could we get say a chap called FRANKLIN to write it and we could call it "Cyclecraft"

I think if I understand the op correctly and its not a highway code but a book like you suggest that we already have it

patchy

spen666 wrote:

patchy wrote:

...

or is the full highway code no longer fit for purpose? should it be completely rewritten and updated?

You mean like it was last year

was it? well, THAT was well publicised, wasn't it!

to be clear. i am NOT advocating replacing the highway code with a cyclist's code. what i am suggesting is a supplementary document, which refers to the main code. Yes, cyclists who also drive are going to have a passing familiarity with the Highway Code. You have to in order to pass your test.

However, i reckon that there's also a substantial proportion of non-driving cyclists (and some who do drive - what about people who've learnt to drive abroad?) who don't have that familiarity, and are unlikely to pick up a copy. Might a short document summarising some key points about safety and the law be useful?

That document could always say up front ' you really should read the highway code, you know, but if you don't you need to know THIS and THIS and THIS.

patchy

spen666 wrote:

iain_j wrote:

Still, I think it's no bad idea for some easily accessible guide for safe cycling as opposed to a rule book.

Could we get say a chap called FRANKLIN to write it and we could call it "Cyclecraft"

I think if I understand the op correctly and its not a highway code but a book like you suggest that we already have it

true, but how many casual cyclists will buy and read a copy of cyclecraft? I'm talking about something even shorter, as a free handout.

edited for clarity - keen cyclists will read a copy of cyclecraft, casual ones IMO won't.

jetsstar1

This is an interesting idea and I think time would be well spent promoting the highway code as a code not just for road users.

For example, I cycle on a shared path. On a number of occasions I have almost run over free dogs. When I politely explain to owners that the highway code says you should keep your dog on a short lead on shared paths they always rebuke that the highway code only applies to roads.

So I believe the highway code should be promoted as a guide to all road and FOOTPATH users.

suzyb

Actually I think this could be a good idea.

You have to pass a theory test now as part of your driving test. Which means you need to learn the highway code. But anyone can get on a bike and start riding. And if it's someone who hasn't ridden since they were a child they may not know it is illegal to jump red lights or ride on the pavement.

Handing out a leaflet that details some of the more important points and highlights the fact a cyclist is a road user to whom the highway code applies instead of pedestrian on wheels may help.

spen666

patchy wrote:

....true, but how many casual cyclists will buy and read a copy of cyclecraft? I'm talking about something even shorter, as a free handout.

edited for clarity - keen cyclists will read a copy of cyclecraft, casual ones IMO won't.

What essential safety advice in cyclecraft do you omit? If you omit the advice and a cyclist is injured as a result of following the guide omitting the safety advice, then you have created a potential liability against the state.

iain_j

spen666 wrote:

iain_j wrote:

Still, I think it's no bad idea for some easily accessible guide for safe cycling as opposed to a rule book.

Could we get say a chap called FRANKLIN to write it and we could call it "Cyclecraft"

Hey there's an idea :idea:

Even I as a keen experienced cyclist would be more inclined to pick up and read a pamphlet-style guide to safe cycling as opposed to a 249-page £8 book like Cyclecraft, valuable as it may be.

I like the idea of an extract from the Highway Code, then it would appear less of "these are our rules". I know the Highway Code applies to all highway users, but to be honest how many non-motorists read it. In fact, how many motorists read it beyond swotting up for their driving test :roll:

Clever Pun

I can see what the OP is getting at... this idea should be more targeted at cyclists who can't drive to give them an idea of how to behave as without having done at least a theory test you could assume very little knowledge of road use

iain_j

-null- wrote:

Actually I think this could be a good idea.

You have to pass a theory test now as part of your driving test. Which means you need to learn the highway code. But anyone can get on a bike and start riding. And if it's someone who hasn't ridden since they were a child they may not know it is illegal to jump red lights or ride on the pavement.

Handing out a leaflet that details some of the more important points and highlights the fact a cyclist is a road user to whom the highway code applies instead of pedestrian on wheels may help.

That's part of the beauty of cycling.

Do schools still do cycling proficiency tests? I remember doing one way back, it was all about, well, how to ride a bike, how to turn the pedals and steer, how not to fall off, etc. I don't recall anything about safe riding, like riding on the pavement, bumping on and off the kerb, red lights, etc.

I know a lot of this would be beyond the little kid who wants to ride his/her bike round the park, but there'd be no harm in doing a "next level" of proficiency a few years on.

MonkeyMonster

iain_j wrote:

I like the idea of an extract from the Highway Code, then it would appear less of "these are our rules". I know the Highway Code applies to all highway users, but to be honest how many non-motorists read it. In fact, how many motorists read it beyond swotting up for their driving test :roll:

+1

I read Patchy's comment as exactly this and then was slightly dumbfounded by people thinking the idea was to write a new one.

If you don't drive but do cycle - a cycle based extract with what you *should* know I suspect would go down well. Wouldn't be as fat as the full one and more people I suspect might actually read it.

and if it was small enough you could always use it to give to motorists when they tell you get on the pavement and off the road.

deptfordmarmoset

A very short but reasonably clear outline: http://www.cycletraining.co.uk/resources/tips.pdf

I don't see anything there that undermines the Highway Code.

patchy

spen666 wrote:

patchy wrote:

....true, but how many casual cyclists will buy and read a copy of cyclecraft? I'm talking about something even shorter, as a free handout.

edited for clarity - keen cyclists will read a copy of cyclecraft, casual ones IMO won't.

What essential safety advice in cyclecraft do you omit? If you omit the advice and a cyclist is injured as a result of following the guide omitting the safety advice, then you have created a potential liability against the state.

maybe the bit about using a pump to hit dogs with?

cjw

DonDaddyD wrote:

What would be more beneficial is a proper section in the current highway code titled cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

What... you mean like it is at the moment; Section 59 - 82, Rules for cyclists

and Section 1 - 35. Rules for pedestrians.

DonDaddyD

cjw wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

What would be more beneficial is a proper section in the current highway code titled cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

What... you mean like it is at the moment; Section 59 - 82, Rules for cyclists

and Section 1 - 35. Rules for pedestrians.

You know I should really read it....

roger_merriman

MonkeyMonster wrote:

iain_j wrote:

I like the idea of an extract from the Highway Code, then it would appear less of "these are our rules". I know the Highway Code applies to all highway users, but to be honest how many non-motorists read it. In fact, how many motorists read it beyond swotting up for their driving test :roll:

+1

I read Patchy's comment as exactly this and then was slightly dumbfounded by people thinking the idea was to write a new one.

If you don't drive but do cycle - a cycle based extract with what you *should* know I suspect would go down well. Wouldn't be as fat as the full one and more people I suspect might actually read it.

and if it was small enough you could always use it to give to motorists when they tell you get on the pavement and off the road.

that was what I was thinking and probably worth targeting it for urban riders ie london and other cycling towns.

cjw

DonDaddyD wrote:

cjw wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

What would be more beneficial is a proper section in the current highway code titled cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

What... you mean like it is at the moment; Section 59 - 82, Rules for cyclists

and Section 1 - 35. Rules for pedestrians.

You know I should really read it....

patchy

DonDaddyD wrote:

cjw wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

What would be more beneficial is a proper section in the current highway code titled cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

What... you mean like it is at the moment; Section 59 - 82, Rules for cyclists

and Section 1 - 35. Rules for pedestrians.

You know I should really read it....

ditto.

y'know, there more i think about it, the laws that are there are effective - i guess it's an awareness/behavioural issue (from BOTH sides). people either don't know or choose to ignore the rules - the more you improve awareness, the less people can rely on that defence. the other one is generally dodgy ground

Wallace1492

I think this is a great idea. A quick guide to cycling and the highway code, highlighting safety issues, what is the law and what is not. Highlighting potential dangerous situations and how to avoid them.

It would obviously refer further reading to other sources - Highway Code, Cyclecraft etc. But for a beginer would have invaluable information.

I really see no down side.

I have cyclecraft but find it quite hard to read at times as it often is the bleedin obvious. So a pamphlet bite sized version would be good.

As to being sued if you follow the advise, hell if I follow the highway code and get knocked down, can I sue the writers? Doubt it.

fairweatherbiker

Its a slow morning here, email is down so I thought I'd check up on the highway code - as I passed my test before there was a written exam (I think I got 2 questions from the driving examiner)
I shouldn't be surprised really but its all online - heres the cyclist section

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/Cyclists/index.htm

This should be the starting point for the proposed pamplet/booklet to give out with all new cycle purchases etc.
If anyone disagrees with it, or thinks its not detailed enough then we should debate/propose changes.

patchy

Wallace1492 wrote:

As to being sued if you follow the advise, hell if I follow the highway code and get knocked down, can I sue the writers? Doubt it.

Admittedly, common sense would tell us that being better informed can never be a bad thing. However, the UK legal system(s) and common sense have very little in common, in my experience.

Actually, while Spen666 are obviously of differing views on this, litigation is a good point. Some numpty would try and sue *whoever* for following the guidance and getting hurt. However, the risk of this can be reduced in careful drafting of the text (like telling people to use their judgement and to get off and walk if they don't feel safe); plus, i'd argue that the likely benefits of better educated cyclists and motorists would outweigh the risk of itigation.

fairweatherbiker

OK reading the highway code, my first surprise.

From the Introduction:
"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."

AND (59)
"Clothing. You should wear
a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened "

So this means the highway code says wear a helmet. you can't be prosecuted for not wearing one, but in court not following the highway code will be used as a factor against you.

roger_merriman

fairweatherbiker wrote:

OK reading the highway code, my first surprise.

From the Introduction:
"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."

AND (59)
"Clothing. You should wear
a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened "

So this means the highway code says wear a helmet. you can't be prosecuted for not wearing one, but in court not following the highway code will be used as a factor against you.

it's more you should wear a proper cycle helmet rather you should wear a helmet.

fairweatherbiker

From Regulation 60:
It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85).

I'm guessing my rear light counts as a rear red reflector, but all 4 amber pedal reflectors on my Trek (less than 1 year old) have fallen off, however, my Coventry Eagle (Manufactured 1982) still has 4 pedal reflectors.

I'm on the Trek today. Does this mean I have to walk home?