a highway code for cyclists

patchy

So with cyclecraft, the advice doled out by people like cycletraining, the highway code's actually quite useful website, and presumably CTC's and BC's websites, this material's all there already! there's no shortage of advice.

it just needs putting together into a guide and to be distributed. Imagine if Halfords, Tesco and Asda gave away a guide to safe cycling with every BSO they sold...

alfablue

fairweatherbiker wrote:

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?

Unfortunately your red rear light doesn't count as a rear reflector. You need a separate BS approved one, or a light with an integrated reflector which is BS approved. Very, very few lights are available that meet this spec (Cateye AU100 is the only one I know of).

fairweatherbiker

I like this one.

But I can see its impractical in most towns

suzyb

iain_j wrote:

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.

I also did a cycling proficiency which was mainly to teach us how to ride safely on the road, how to indicate your intent whilst keeping control of the bike. Was fun waiting around for your turn in the pouring rain, although good practise for cycling this past november

And the school were still doing the test, at least up to a few years ago as I saw some of the kids heading there with their bikes.

fairweatherbiker

alfablue wrote:

fairweatherbiker wrote:

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?

Unfortunately your red rear light doesn't count as a rear reflector. You need a separate BS approved one, or a light with an integrated reflector which is BS approved. Very, very few lights are available that meet this spec (Cateye AU100 is the only one I know of).

So shouldn't the bike have come with a reflector, or the dealer have supplied the reflector with the bike?

deptfordmarmoset

-null- wrote:

iain_j wrote:

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.

I also did a cycling proficiency which was mainly to teach us how to ride safely on the road, how to indicate your intent whilst keeping control of the bike. Was fun waiting around for your turn in the pouring rain, although good practise for cycling this past november

And the school were still doing the test, at least up to a few years ago as I saw some of the kids heading there with their bikes.

The current training scheme is bikeability and is a 3-stage course. They're attempting to roll it out to as many primary schools as they can - though there are some schools where the headteacher will not sanction children cycling to school.

http://www.bikeability.org.uk/

Wallace1492

fairweatherbiker wrote:

alfablue wrote:

fairweatherbiker wrote:

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?

Unfortunately your red rear light doesn't count as a rear reflector. You need a separate BS approved one, or a light with an integrated reflector which is BS approved. Very, very few lights are available that meet this spec (Cateye AU100 is the only one I know of).

So shouldn't the bike have come with a reflector, or the dealer have supplied the reflector with the bike?

Bike should have come with front and rear reflector and a bell.

spen666

roger merriman wrote:

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.

I would suggest a seperate extract would still be a bad idea.

This will encourage cyclists to only rad that bit and ignore the code that affects of ther road users. Creating cyclists who only think of themselves and not the other road users. This is why we have so many issues on the road. ie road users ( not just cyclists() thinking only of themselves


The highway code is about all road users and the bits not speciffically aimed at cyclists are still a valued part of the knowledge of a cyclist
that was what I was thinking and probably worth targeting it for urban riders ie london and other cycling towns.

suzyb

Wallace1492 wrote:

fairweatherbiker wrote:

alfablue wrote:

fairweatherbiker wrote:

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?

Unfortunately your red rear light doesn't count as a rear reflector. You need a separate BS approved one, or a light with an integrated reflector which is BS approved. Very, very few lights are available that meet this spec (Cateye AU100 is the only one I know of).

So shouldn't the bike have come with a reflector, or the dealer have supplied the reflector with the bike?

Bike should have come with front and rear reflector and a bell.

Yeah, when I got my bike I noticed it had a bell and the guy in the shop told me they were required by law to fit that and the two reflectors.

gtvlusso

fairweatherbiker wrote:

I like this one.

But I can see its impractical in most towns

An Audi driver would never give that much space anyway!

Ride attentively and using common sense.....I don't think I have ever read the Highway Code in 20 years of driving cars, riding motorbikes and cycling :-(

spen666

patchy wrote:

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.

The careful drafting of the text would result in either a publication like the Highway Code OR a publication like cyclecraft.

alfablue

Yep, Construction and use regs here:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/vehicle ... andsal4557

Lighting regs here:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/vehicle ... edalbi4556

There are exceptions to the construction and use regs, such as if it is a competition bike.

Wallace1492

spen666 wrote:

patchy wrote:

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.

The careful drafting of the text would result in either a publication like the Highway Code OR a publication like cyclecraft.

I disagree, I think a pamphlet could be produced that covers the basics, and points the reader in the direction of Highway code and other publications for further details. Both the Highway Code and/or Cyclecraft are unlikely to be read and fully understood by a novice/beginer.

Eau Rouge

spen666 wrote:

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

+1, exactly.

fairweatherbiker wrote:

OK reading the highway code, my first surprise.

It (no helmet) has already been used in court to reduce the liability of guilty drivers and thus reduce the compensation payouts. You have to question how the prosecution barristers/solicitors lost that argument though.

alfablue wrote:

such as if it is a competition bike

By competition you mean SCR right? Is it still SCR if there aren't actually any other bikes on my route?

Wallace1492 wrote:

Both the Highway Code and/or Cyclecraft are unlikely to be read and fully understood by a novice/beginer.

Should they (car or cyclist) venture out without reading them? We could actually be talking about life or death choices, if you want to be melodramatic about it

spen666

Wallace1492 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

patchy wrote:

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.

The careful drafting of the text would result in either a publication like the Highway Code OR a publication like cyclecraft.

I disagree, I think a pamphlet could be produced that covers the basics, and points the reader in the direction of Highway code and other publications for further details. Both the Highway Code and/or Cyclecraft are unlikely to be read and fully understood by a novice/beginer.

You try and produce one then.
Post it on here and wait 10 seconds before someone manages to point out safety advice you have missed.

If it is to be a safety guide, it needs to be complete. A partial guide will lull readers into a false sense of security

spen666

Eau Rouge wrote:

...

fairweatherbiker wrote:

OK reading the highway code, my first surprise.

It (no helmet) has already been used in court to reduce the liability of guilty drivers and thus reduce the compensation payouts. You have to question how the prosecution barristers/solicitors lost that argument though.
...

This post makes no sense whatsoever.

You start by talking about the helmet issue being used to reduce liability - that is a civil law matter ie compensation


Then you talk about howw the prosecution lost the argument. There is no prosecutor in a civil case, only in a criminal case.

Thus you appear to be asking how someone not involved in a case lost an argument they were not involved in.


Civil law deals generally with compensation issues . If you lose a civil law claim you do not get punished

Criminal law deals with guilt and results in convictions or acquittals and opunishment if convicted

Wallace1492

spen666 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

patchy wrote:

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.

The careful drafting of the text would result in either a publication like the Highway Code OR a publication like cyclecraft.

I disagree, I think a pamphlet could be produced that covers the basics, and points the reader in the direction of Highway code and other publications for further details. Both the Highway Code and/or Cyclecraft are unlikely to be read and fully understood by a novice/beginer.

You try and produce one then.
Post it on here and wait 10 seconds before someone manages to point out safety advice you have missed.

If it is to be a safety guide, it needs to be complete. A partial guide will lull readers into a false sense of security

I don't think we are talking about a "safety guide", more general information, starting with cycle specific extracts from the Highway Code, like legal requirements. Incorporating some other information would be beneficial, as some information is better than none. Most people will not have read cyclecraft or the highway code. (Contentious!! - or is it)

I am sure something could be knocked up with general concensus.

What then do you suggest? That no-one should get on a bike unless they have read Highway Code and Cyclecraft cover to cover? That is a non starter.

spen666

Wallace1492 wrote:

....

What then do you suggest? That no-one should get on a bike unless they have read Highway Code and Cyclecraft cover to cover? That is a non starter.

I don't recall that I have made any such suggestion

I don't recall that I have even suggested anyone should read either publication.

This is a situation where by fixing a problem ( that may or may not exist) you are actually making the thing worse.

All the information relating to safety that people need is there and available. Why re write the tested publications in a "light" format that will reduce the knowledge of cyclists and miss out valuable experience.

What about as a safety initiative that a copy of say cyclecraft is offered with every bike sold, the book being free to the customer.

How to fund this? Use the IPT tax on motor vehicles/? Reduce the VAT on bicycle sales- well actually keep it the same but use a small % of it to pay the costs

sarajoy

I've just been through this thread and finding everything I was going to bring up already has been.

So we now know:

* The Highway Code does indeed have a specific cycling section.
* Cycling Proficiency in schools is still happening.
* There is already a "next level" thing available as 'Bikeability' Level 3:

Level 3 is where you can move up to busy roads and advanced road features. It's like driving or motorbike lessons and once you have done it you should be able to bike most places safely, certainly after some practice. Normally you will do this once you have started secondary school.

* Some of us disagree with parts of the highway code, anyway.

Ho hum...

Wallace1492

spen666 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

....

What then do you suggest? That no-one should get on a bike unless they have read Highway Code and Cyclecraft cover to cover? That is a non starter.

I don't recall that I have made any such suggestion

I don't recall that I have even suggested anyone should read either publication.

This is a situation where by fixing a problem ( that may or may not exist) you are actually making the thing worse.

All the information relating to safety that people need is there and available. Why re write the tested publications in a "light" format that will reduce the knowledge of cyclists and miss out valuable experience.

What about as a safety initiative that a copy of say cyclecraft is offered with every bike sold, the book being free to the customer.

How to fund this? Use the IPT tax on motor vehicles/? Reduce the VAT on bicycle sales- well actually keep it the same but use a small % of it to pay the costs

I was not suggesting that you had made that suggestion, hence the question mark. I was merely suggesting it as a possible suggestion.

However, think that Cyclecraft with every new bike sounds great. How about a Highway Code too? Just so cyclists are aware of the rules for other road users.

I just know from my own experience that a lot of what I have learned has been by trial and error, and that anything pointing a novice commuting cyclist in the right direction should be encouraged. Thankfully none of my errors were in anyway serious, but there seems to be an issue with left turning HGV's, so anything to try and prevent accidents is good in my book.

iain_j

Wallace1492 wrote:

I don't think we are talking about a "safety guide", more general information, starting with cycle specific extracts from the Highway Code, like legal requirements. Incorporating some other information would be beneficial, as some information is better than none. Most people will not have read cyclecraft or the highway code. (Contentious!! - or is it)

+1 exactly

Most urban cyclists do so because it's quick, cheap way to get from A to B, rather than because they're into cycling. I used to be one of them. They don't spend a lot on their bike (ie. BSO's), they don't spend a lot on accessories/maintenance (cheap lock, rusty chain), probably don't spend anything on cyclewear (no helmet, ride in the same stuff they walk around in). So I can't see them spending £8 on Cyclecraft, or even £2 on the Highway Code, as valuable as they may be.

Now, a pamphlet given away with the bike, or freely accessible in the shops they may have gotten their BSO from, clearly won't cover everything but they've got more chance of being read. And if this little bit of information is absorbed, that's better than not knowing it all having not bought Cyclecraft.

iain_j

Giving cyclecraft / highway code free with a bike purchase? Great idea.

But I still think, going back to my days as "someone who rode a bike" rather than a "cyclist", if I was handed a 250-page book on how to cycle, I'd probably take it but not pay much attention to it - I know how to ride a bike, I've got plenty of other stuff to be doing when I'm not riding it, sitting and reading this book doesn't sound much like fun.

Highway Code I probably would read, because it's smaller and easier to skim through.

Lazy? Yes. But lots of people are.

Eau Rouge

spen666 wrote:

This post makes no sense whatsoever.

It did in my head. You are of course right that it would be a civil case, so yeah, "Prosecution" is clearly not the right word.
In a civil case there are still officers of the court doing the actual arguing though, right?
There have been cases where those arguing for the driver have claimed that as the cyclist was not wearing a helmet at the time, they are partly liable for their injuries. The won that argument and the compensation paid was reduced. I was wondering at how the cyclist's representatives in court could manage to lose that argument.

alfablue

Eau Rouge wrote:

There have been cases where those arguing for the driver have claimed that as the cyclist was not wearing a helmet at the time, they are partly liable for their injuries. The won that argument and the compensation paid was reduced.

I don't this has happened (yet).

There was some uproar when a High Court judge suggested that had the cyclist's injuries been avoidable or reduced by virtue of wearing a helmet, the cyclist may carry some fault. As the helmet was immaterial to the case the compensation was not reduced. See here.

spen666

Eau Rouge wrote:

spen666 wrote:

This post makes no sense whatsoever.

It did in my head. You are of course right that it would be a civil case, so yeah, "Prosecution" is clearly not the right word.
In a civil case there are still officers of the court doing the actual arguing though, right?

only in the sense that all lawyers are officers of the court

A civilclaim is between individual a and individual B- the state are not involved, so I'm not clear what you mean by officer of the court.

In a criminal case its the queen against you..

In a civil case its cyclist/motorist orwhatever against you

There have been cases where those arguing for the driver have claimed that as the cyclist was not wearing a helmet at the time, they are partly liable for their injuries. The won that argument and the compensation paid was reduced. I was wondering at how the cyclist's representatives in court could manage to lose that argument.

I think you are wrong there.

Myunderstanding is that in civil claims that has always been rejected. ( There was an opinion expressed in a recent case to the contrary, but it was opinion, not part of the reasons for the judgement)

However there was a criminal case where afer conviction, at the sentencing stagfe, a reduced sentence was passed as victim was not wearing a helmet.

Eau Rouge

As Alfablue has shown, I've clearly got the details of the incident confused. It was the judges opinion I was thinking of.

Briefly, I'd imagined a civil case where the cyclist not wearing a helmet had been taken into account and made the cyclist someway liable when they otherwise would not have been.
If that were to happen, who would be making the actual arguments to the judge? It isn't the actual cyclist and the actual driver involved is it? I had assumed there would be a representative of some sort doing the actual talking, and therefore was wondering how the cyclists people could lose the argument. Clearly , since this hasn't happened, they didn't lose it.

OldSkoolKona

A brief summary of what is in the Highway Code and Cyclecraft?

http://www.lcc.org.uk/documents/Cyclesense.pdf
http://www.lcc.org.uk/documents/Getting%20started.pdf

http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/s ... endocument

There is a lot out there, just not that many people are aware where to look, or even read what they know is available (e.g. the Highway Code :roll: )

spen666

Eau Rouge wrote:

As Alfablue has shown, I've clearly got the details of the incident confused. It was the judges opinion I was thinking of.

Briefly, I'd imagined a civil case where the cyclist not wearing a helmet had been taken into account and made the cyclist someway liable when they otherwise would not have been.
If that were to happen, who would be making the actual arguments to the judge? It isn't the actual cyclist and the actual driver involved is it? I had assumed there would be a representative of some sort doing the actual talking, and therefore was wondering how the cyclists people could lose the argument. Clearly , since this hasn't happened, they didn't lose it.

The way case was reported, your mistake is easily understood.

It could be the parties in the case, more likely their legal representatives if any..

How could they lose? well in every case there are winners and losers.....

nwallace

I don't see the problem with the Highway code being made available in reduced for for specific road users, start with the sections applicable to Walkers and provide it to the Ramblers Association...

unCivilServant

Something missing from this discussion: much cycling--particularly by beginners--isn't done on the highway. Any advice should cover ALL areas where the novice is likely to ride (or want to): bridleways/other rights of way, parks, etc..

I was out running in the country a couple of months back and got chatting to a bloke who was thinking of "taking his son out for a ride on the footpaths", obviously ignorant of what's allowed on which RoW. I've also occasionally been running/walking on bridleways and had cyclists totally failing to give way. Some of this is probably due to ignorance rather than wilfulness.

Rather than try to reprise all the applicable rules, recommendations etc., it's probably better to put up a few principles and then signpost people where to find out more. Whether Cyclecraft or similar private publication could be referenced surely depends on who was doing the guidance, ie it would be fine for Halfords or similar but not a public sector organisation.

I'd start from an assumption of very low levels of knowledge, because a) people ARE often frighteningly ignorant about apparently basic stuff (certainly round my way, not helped by the number of people coming from cultures with different laws/traffic conditions) and b) cycling in particular is seen as a 'just do it' activity (after all, even young children can ride bikes). Start with "Congratulations on buying this bike...cycling is great and you'll get the most out of it if you bear in mind that you'll have responsibilities to yourself and others". Then point to the existence of road laws and the Highway Code, and how to get hold of the latter; and a few words on non-highway situations. On the question of how to address wider 'cyclecraft' [note lowercase] safety issues, it could refer to asking your LBS shop about books, local council whether it runs/knows of training sessions etc.. Giving people information about how to find stuff out can be as useful as trying to lay out all the 'stuff' for them.