What hope is there for cyclists?

[Rhythm Thief]

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



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



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 ?

"Frivalous"?

 

[PBancroft]

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.

Indeed, the rules do all matter. I'm just attempting (badly) to make the point that I think it is disingenuous to suggest that Cycle Craft doesn't matter because it "isn't law" and that the HC is law when the two are not mutually exclusive, do not contradict each other, and both cover legal requirements as well as fairly robust advice on safety.

 

[marinyork]

He just doesn't like cyclecraft, I think we did it about a year and a half ago but can't remember what on earth the reason was. Crankarm likes one of them, which is good enough for me, I think people could go a lot more wrong than that. He might just be in a bad mood, I always get like that on bank holidays because the roads are not especially pleasant to be on on the bike. A lot of the cyclists I've met in person haven't heard of cyclecraft, think it'd probably be quite good for them as they don't really like reading the HC, it depends what way you see the world really.

 

[dondare]

The Highway Code tells me that:-

59
Clothing. You should wear

•a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
•appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
•light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
•reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark


I do not follow this advce. I am not, however, breaking The Law.

 

[dondare]

61
Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

This is confusing, misleading, and not legally enforcable.

 

[marinyork]

I do not follow this advce. I am not, however, breaking The Law.

As I've already pointed out numerous times the highway code is a hierarchical system, coming out with yeah, but, no, but, yeah, but, no, but, yeah, but, no, but it isn't a law misses the whole point.

 

[Arch]

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

That's what I meant, it (Cyclecraft) isn't the law, and the point is that that isn't the issue. The issue is that it's a useful way to learn how to make yourself safer.

Anyway, what do you care? You gave up.

 

[Davidc]

Although the HC has content which isn't law, failure to obey the non-law parts can be used to determine liability if there's an accident or incident, and can also be used as evidence if you're done for an offence such as lack of respect for other road users or due care and attention.

Cyclecraft is an official publication so presumably could also be quoted in legal action?

 

[BentMikey]

Cyclecraft is an official publication so presumably could also be quoted in legal action?

Well, it is published by the govt. stationery office and endorsed by RoSPA.

 

[BentMikey]

Ah, but more importantly, are you going to be the first to side with Crankarm that the highway code is THE LAW?

 

[GrasB]

Hmm..I'd still be inclined to go directly to the RTA act TBH.

It's the bits that aren't explanations of the law where the HWC (I prefer to use HWC rather than HC btw) may be used in court from what I understand.

 

[GrasB]

Everything that isn't a "MUST" or "MUST NOT" is recommendation rather than law, though they may used to define liability via being 'best practice'.

 

[GrasB]

I'm sure there are, I'm not saying it's the definitive guide to everything but it seems to be regarded as a document of best practice.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

I can appreciate that this is used as a place to vent ones anger and that it will appear worse than normal if you take this as the norm.

But I have had many close-calls in the past 18 months that more than outnumber anything I can remember in 18 years of driving. And of course I'm much more prone to bruising and bleeding whilst sitting on 2 wheels rather than encased within 4.

I still think things could easily be improved with a little education at the right time

not read past page 1 so apols if repeating someone else.

If you've had this many close calls in 18 months, what makes you think its everyone elses fault?

I'd be considering a hard critical look at my own riding or possibly a bikeability course if you're regularly having near misses. Else that or refining what I consider to be bad driving by others.

Or if you are beyond reproach and everyone else is an idiot them maybe yoyu should lop the foot off a rabbit and polish the St Christopher a bit harder.

near 20 years, god knows how many thousand road miles and I can count the genuinely frightening incidents on my fingers.

 

[Norm]

That's what I meant, it (Cyclecraft) isn't the law, and the point is that that isn't the issue. The issue is that it's a useful way to learn how to make yourself safer.

Most everyone on the road will have read the HC / HWC at some point.

Even if they have forgotten much of it, people may remember that it says cyclists must ride on the left, should use cycle lanes unless it is unsafe and should wear helmets.

One of my issues with Cyclecraft is that not even all cyclists have read it and comply with it. Following the lessons in Cyclecraft on a bike will make you do stuff which our fellow road users don't understand, so they will misinterpret it.

Approaching a pinch point, a car driver may have no intention of overtaking but, if the cyclists moves into the middle of the road, that driver sees a cyclists doing something he doesn't expect and doesn't understand. He has to interpret the action without the benefit of Cyclecraft and there's a chance that interpretation will lead the driver to the conclusion that he's just been blocked for no reason.

Everything that isn't a "MUST" or "MUST NOT" is recommendation rather than law, though they may used to define liability via being 'best practice'.

The liability thing concerns me considerably. It says that cyclists should wear helmets and bikers should wear white helmets and hi-viz clothing, are we doing ourselves out of a payout by not doing so?

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.

No, but it's recommendations are not even agreed upon by all cyclists. I doubt if many car / bus / taxi / lorry drivers who don't cycle understand what its adherents are doing much of the time.