Do we have to use the Cycle path

[Dan B]

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that insurance companies try it on as a means to reduce compensation, but the only even vaguely relevant court case I know of is Daniel Cadden's: http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4774

 

[Origamist]

Surely you just use the maximum speed, safer, less glass, gritted, no barriers etc arguements as to why - since there isn't anything in the Highway code that says you have to use it (coming from someone who does like some paths). And there was the legal case which showed that you didn't have to use it. Has there ever been any cases when it has been successfully argued that they should have lower compensation as a result of not using the cycle infrastructure.

I believe you're referring to the Cadden case (inconsiderate cycling) - that was a criminal matter. I'm talking about civil cases, sd.

Look at:

http://www.ffw.com/publications/all/articles/cycle-lanes.aspx
An example from case law

Witness the case of Dann v. Brackman where the Claimant (D) cycled along the nearside of a major route in Southampton, close to the dividing line with a slip road. The Defendant driver (B), drove at 40mph along the slip road into the back of the Claimant’s bicycle.
It was found that D had ignored two signs guiding him onto a cycle path which would have avoided crossing the slip road. Counsel advised that a Judge would have found if D knew, or ought to have known, that he was exposing himself to the risk of being hit by a vehicle merging from the slip road, whose driver was wrongly, but perhaps understandably, concentrating on traffic behind D.

D’s case was settled out of Court with a 20% reduction in damages for contributory negligence. The Court subsequently approved this award. This latter step was necessary due to D having sustained brain damage and his resulting inability to manage his own affairs.

Remember, what the HC states (my bolds):

63

Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

You can see how a court could intepret this guidance - although of course it would depend on the specifics of the road and cycling infrastructure.

 

[BSRU]

That surprises me. I use Swindons cycle routes daily and generally find the surfaces to be in better condition than the roads!

My only regular short experience is the shared path along Wootton Basset Rd, from Penzance Drive up to West Lea Drive, uneven due to utilities not repairing the damage they have done, several large raised manhole covers, missing drain covers, lots of tree debris and broken glass very common after the weekend.

As a general rule I accept that riding on cycle paths can make my journey a little longer and slower, but they're often much more scenic and peaceful compared to the alternatives.

I feel safer on the roads.

 

[Mad at urage]

As others have said, you are not legally obliged to use cycle provision. However, if you were unfortunately involved in a collision and were not using adjacent cycling facilities, in civil courts it is likely that you would have to justify why you chose to avoid the cycling infrastructure as it would be an obvious contributory negligence angle.

Well, for a start you can quote in court the hand-book to UK's official cycle training scheme, which (amongst other things*) says "cycle paths are almost never safer for cyclists although they can sometimes be found to be more convenient"#






*Cyclecraft. Chapter 13 IIRC is the one on cycle paths and is extremely amusing as it avoids saying "All cycle paths are crap, don't use them" but spends the whole chapter quietly listing reasons why they are seriously bad news . Worth buying the book for that chapter alone IMO . Certainly worth buying if the (IMHO unlikely) event of being accused of contributory negligence for avoiding a poorly designed cycle facility.

#This is a paraphrase of the second sentence in said chapter (which is there highlighted) - paraphrased because I haven't got the book beside me.

 

[summerdays]

I believe you're referring to the Cadden case (inconsiderate cycling) - that was a criminal matter. I'm talking about civil cases, sd.

........................

You can see how a court could intepret this guidance - although of course it would depends on the specifics of the road and cycling infrastructure.

Thanks for the clarification ... yes it was the Cadden case I was referring to. Now you have given me some points to ponder on ... especially the keep within the lane ... whereas normally for a cycle lane I'm much closer to being on the line or outside it.

 

[summerdays]

*Cyclecraft. Chapter 13

#This is a paraphrase of the second sentence in said chapter (which is there highlighted) - paraphrased because I haven't got the book beside me.

Chapter 13 in the newer version, Chapter 10 in my older one ... (I have both versions beside me ... - because I was looking up something this week).

 

[jonesy]

It is depressing, IMHO the widespread use of pavement 'cycle paths' has been one of the most detrimental developments in cycling over the last 10 years. My non use of a pavement that people wrongly think is a cycle path has been by far and away the main cause of conflict with drivers on my current commute.

 

[Origamist]

Well, for a start you can quote in court the hand-book to UK's official cycle training scheme, which (amongst other things*) says "cycle paths are almost never safer for cyclists although they can sometimes be found to be more convenient"#






*Cyclecraft. Chapter 13 IIRC is the one on cycle paths and is extremely amusing as it avoids saying "All cycle paths are crap, don't use them" but spends the whole chapter quietly listing reasons why they are seriously bad news . Worth buying the book for that chapter alone IMO . Certainly worth buying if the (IMHO unlikely) event of being accused of contributory negligence for avoiding a poorly designed cycle facility.
#This is a paraphrase of the second sentence in said chapter (which is there highlighted) - paraphrased because I haven't got the book beside me.

LOL - why do you think John Franklin's services are regularly called upon as an expert witness on cycling matters? Insurance companies will always look for ways to try to lower settlements by suggesting the non-use of facilities equates to contributory negligence! You might be surprised to learn that whilst Cyclecraft is highly regarded by cyclists, the judiciary are rather harder to convince where matters of cycling best practice are concerned.

 

[Norm]

You can have various bypasses/fly-unders like the ones on the York ring road (they aren't all like this and some of the bog standard path ones are more dangerous). Costly though. Various other systems you could have.

There's even a fly-under tunnel for a very large roundabout I regularly use, it's such a faff using it though - adding about a fifth of a mile that I don't bother. Another roundabout I'm campaigning on they've considered what cyclists will do on some sides of the roundabout but not on difficult ones.

None of which are an improvement on using the road, IMO. Especially the flyover/under which add an extra 10m of climbing for no good reason.

...whilst Cyclecraft is highly regarded by most cyclists, the judiciary are rather harder to convince, where matters of cycling best practice are concerned.

You just missed a word out there, Origamist.

 

[Origamist]

You just missed a word out there, Origamist.

....off, Norm.







Damn, done it again.

 

[vorsprung]

I normally hate cycle paths

There is a shared use facility on the route I commute home and since having a head on collision on it with a woman on a MTB with defective brakes I stick to the (safer) road

However, at the weekend I was trying out the new route for an audax I organise. It was using the cycle paths on the A4171 ring road in North Bristol. They are really good. Clean, good surfacing, wide enough to avoid the rare pedestrians and other bikes and minimal problems with giving way to major roads

 

[marinyork]

None of which are an improvement on using the road, IMO. Especially the flyover/under which add an extra 10m of climbing for no good reason.

It depends. At particular times ring roads can be heavily traffic dominant in one direction, I don't think it's therefore a bad idea having a bypass tangentially to that. Such road set ups where you have peak flow constantly going in one direction and the cyclist is trying to go in another direction (with no traffic lights) scares the living daylights out of some people. We used to have road fly-unders built in the 60s, but they've been busy taking all of them out at great cost to make bigger and nastier roundabouts. You're still allowed to use the roundabout. I'm campaigning for more joined up facilities on a major roundabout, I shall still nearly always use the road (except when turning right where I might take the short route round).

 

[marinyork]

You just missed a word out there, Origamist.

All men are greeks.

 

[Norm]

....off, Norm.







Damn, done it again.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

+1

In a word, no.

Welcome to the forum.