What hope is there for cyclists?

[Shut Up Legs]

Too many cyclists on here expect perfect driving from those all around them... Never gonna happen no matter how much training you give them... The only hope is riding defensivly to how people drive, not how their suppose to drive according to the highway code.... How many average driving people do you think read the highway code on a regular basis? Ride expecting everyone to be a nutter and do the craziest thing at any moment then you dont get angry when they do it.

Cycling is riskier than driving, but if you want a life without risk then stay at home and take up knitting. Everyones gota go one day, one way or another.

I can relate to that; more cyclists than motorists read the highway code over here in Australia, too. This is simply because cyclists are still a definite minority and their slightest infraction is pounced upon by irate motorists demanding punishment of the "lycra louts", so the cyclists become experts on the highway code partially in self-defense. Because they're so informed on the highway code, they naturally notice when motorists break it.

I also think there should be more focus on sharing the road with cyclists in drivers license examinations and road tests. The problem is that (in Victoria, Australia, at least), the rules that either specifically apply to bicycles or just mention bicycles number perhaps 30 to 40 out of a total of 400 rules, so what hope have we that drivers tests will allocate more than 7-10% to these rules?

 

[dondare]

The Highway Code is a very dangerous mix of The Law and the opinions of the Driving Standards Authority, which are sometimes neither legal requirement nor best practice.
Cyclecraft isn't The Law either, but the opinions and advice in it are better than some of that in the HC.
It is unfortunate that some police officers, the DPP and some magistrates might regard failure to comply with the HC as evidence of careless or inconsiderate cycling.
Both the HC and Cyclecraft are published by HM Stationery Office which gives Cyclecraft at least a bit of authority.

 

[Crankarm]

Whether the HC is law or not is a red herring. The point about Cyclecraft isn't that it's the law,

Ha! Well it isn't, sorry to disappoint you.

it's that it suggests useful ways to behave to increase your safety. You said yourself, Crankarm, a lot of it is common sense.

As I say I read part of it all the way through.

Would you rubbish a cookery book because it isn't the law? Or a carpentry manual? They are just the same - aids to doing something well.

Uhhhh ??????????? ............. Cookery, carpentry ....... you've lost me. What on earth have the rules of the road got to do with these frivalous subjects? Ok carpentry isn't frivalous, but it's totally irrelevant to the instant topic, unless you are contemplating building your own gallows with which to hang your argument ?

 

[summerdays]

Arch's point is that you don't need something to be the law to tell you how to do something, to guide you.

Another way to think about possibly is that Cyclecraft is equivalent to driving lessons - yes there are cycle training courses but cyclists don't have to take them to go out on the road. Until I read cycle craft I couldn't understand why I was getting left hooked at junctions - or rather how to prevent it from happening. The advantage of Cyclecraft over those driving lessons is that I go back and re-read it every now and again - how many go back and take additional driving lessons.

 

[Crankarm]

Arch's point is that you don't need something to be the law to tell you how to do something, to guide you.

Another way to think about possibly is that Cyclecraft is equivalent to driving lessons - yes there are cycle training courses but cyclists don't have to take them to go out on the road. Until I read cycle craft I couldn't understand why I was getting left hooked at junctions - or rather how to prevent it from happening. The advantage of Cyclecraft over those driving lessons is that I go back and re-read it every now and again - how many go back and take additional driving lessons.

SD, but the point is that the HC is law whether the rules it states are mandatory or advisory and Cyclecraft happens to be a book with ideas on how to cycle safely which is not law. It really is as simple as this.

 

[BentMikey]

Crankarm, really, when are you going to get it? The highway code is just that - a code, not an act of law. That's why it refers to various dated acts.

 

[PBancroft]

SD, but the point is that the HC is law whether the rules it states are mandatory or advisory and Cyclecraft happens to be a book with ideas on how to cycle safely which is not law. It really is as simple as this.

Um, the Highway Code isn't law. Many of its rules are legal requirements (which is different), and of course it is worth bearing in mind that even those that aren't may be used in court to determine liability. The Highway Code itself says as much.

In comparison Cyclecraft is not law either. However it includes sections on the aforementioned Highway Code and how important it is. It is the foundation of Bikeability, and is recommended by RoSPA.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Crankarm]

BM & K. It is so. So get used to it. If it wasn't law even more road users would disregard it .

So what it is the national speed limit on motorways and non-motorways?

What is the sign that indicates no entry to a road?

When can you park on a double red/double yellow line/single yellow line?

When can vehicles cross a double white line?

So if one were to follow your contention that the HC is not law, then the above would be unenforceable .

 

[BentMikey]

Explain why all the MUSTs have references to law like the Road traffic act then. It's because the highway code isn't the law, it's a book of advice, some of which has MUST and is enshrined in actual law outside of the highway code.

For your first example:

Speed limits

124

You MUST NOT exceed the maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle (see the table above). The presence of street lights generally means that there is a 30 mph (48 km/h) speed limit unless otherwise specified.
[Law RTRA sects 81, 86, 89 & sch 6]

It's not the highway code that mandates this, it's the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, sections as quoted.

Are you really this thick, or are you simply on a windup?

 

[PBancroft]

BM & K. It is so. So get used to it. If it wasn't law even more road users would disregard it .

So what it is the national speed limit on motorways and non-motorways?

What is the sign that indicates no entry to a road?

When can you park on a double red/double yellow line/single yellow line?

When can vehicles cross a double white line?

So if one were to follow your contention that the HC is not law, then the above would be unenforceable .

As I said above, many of its rules are legal requirements, some are not. Those that are not may be used in court to determine liability. This is different to saying something is law. You list things which may or may not be legal requirements. A couple of other rules in the Highway Code are:-

Help other road users to see you. Wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions.

This relates to pedestrians. Sound advice though it may be, it is not a legal requirement.

Do not park in passing places.

Again, very sensible advice for motorists, but it isn't a law. You might get done for obstructing traffic if you happen to also be doing so, but that's different.

There are loads of these. In fact, the HC quite clearly states which of its rules are legal requirements, and which aren't. That doesn't mean its useless or irrelevant (far from it) but its worth bearing in mind before writing off anything else for not being law.

 

[marinyork]

Again, very sensible advice for motorists, but it isn't a law. You might get done for obstructing traffic if you happen to also be doing so, but that's different.

In fact, the HC quite clearly states which of its rules are legal requirements, and which aren't.

This is a poor example because the 'do not' is actually the second highest in the hierarchy. A better example would be something just said at all without a do/do not and should/should not attached at all.

 

[summerdays]

SD, but the point is that the HC is law whether the rules it states are mandatory or advisory and Cyclecraft happens to be a book with ideas on how to cycle safely which is not law. It really is as simple as this.

Disagree - it references the individual acts of parliament as the others have said. Good job too given some of the advice it has had in the past with regard to cycling.

 

[PBancroft]

This is a poor example because the 'do not' is actually the second highest in the hierarchy. A better example would be something just said at all without a do/do not and should/should not attached at all.

True, I just picked something at random to make the point. This is an advisory rule which will not in itself cause someone to be prosecuted - it is not a legal requirement.

 

[Crankarm]

Explain why all the MUSTs have references to law like the Road traffic act then. It's because the highway code isn't the law, it's a book of advice, some of which has MUST and is enshrined in actual law outside of the highway code.

For your first example:

[/B]


It's not the highway code that mandates this, it's the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, sections as quoted.

Are you really this thick, or are you simply on a windup?

You obviously know you have a poor case to argue when you resort to nasty petty personal sniping .

 

[marinyork]

True, I just picked something at random to make the point. This is an advisory rule which will not in itself cause someone to be prosecuted - it is not a legal requirement.

Not directly prosecuted, no, there's a small possibility of them being prosecuted for something else, especially if things kick off. If some accident happens they might be in big trouble for breaking one. I tend to take some of the DO NOTs pretty seriously, some of them are very likely to get people injured or killed, that's why they are down as do nots because they are deemed pretty important.

Anyway I don't think any of us are daft enough to say the HC and cyclecraft are unvaluable. All too often on this forum we have people saying words to the effect that only the MUSTs in the highway code matter.