Highway code - Cylists must use cyclepaths

Mark McNeill said:

Response to Jo:

Quoted message said:

I work shifts, so sometimes my journey is at night. I
use the road then, as the area the cycle route goes through has been the
scene of a number of rapes, assaults and murders. The route does not run
alongside the road, so is it 'nearby'? I do not consider the route safe
to cycle alone at night, so is it 'practicable'?

It seems to me that this point is more likely to make an impression on
TPTB than more abstruse arguments about road positioning.

I'm not so sure.

Cyclist's lawyer: Motorist owes my client ££££ for knocking him off his
bike.

Motorist's lawyer: OK, but less X% negligence for not using the cycle route.

CL: But there have been muggings/assaults/murders/rapes down there, so
my client judged it safer to ride on the road.

ML: If you can prove you /would/ have been mugged/assaulted/raped that
night, then fine. But our figures show a 44% reduction in crime and
395% more police on the street and 1243% reduction in, etc, etc. So
we're still knocking off X%.

Arthur Clune twisted the electrons to say:

Quoted message said:

I haven't seen this mentioned here yet:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303

If you take a particularly strict interpretation, doesn't rule 63 imply
that you either have to perform trackstands when stationary (or get a
trike!)? <grins>
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

MartinM said:

Simon Bennett said:

Although the article cites other 'should' cases where claims of
negligence were subsequently successfully challenged. I think the
concern is that a court would have real difficulty not attributing
contributory negligence as the cyclist would not have been in a
collision if he'd been in a different place at the moment of impact.

sounds like another half baked idea, how do they identify a road as
being so dangerous that it requires a farcility alongside it?

They don't I imagine they just consider a)whether there's sufficient
space[1] and b)is there any paint left in the tin.

Quoted message said:

Interesting to see what would happen in a case where a cyclist was hit
by a left turning car as he crossed a side road on a cycle path,
Shirley the contributory negligence there would be using the cycle
lane and placing yoursefl out of the driver's direct field of vision
(no I'm not volunteering!)

It's a lose-lose situation.

Quoted message said:

When will they realise that the only way farcilities will have any
effect is when there is a complete separate cycling infrastructure
like in the Netherlands?

I think they've realised it's too late. Or simply don't care.

[1] or not, who cares?

MartinM said:

Simon Bennett said:

Although the article cites other 'should' cases where claims of negligence
were subsequently successfully challenged. I think the concern is that a
court would have real difficulty not attributing contributory negligence as
the cyclist would not have been in a collision if he'd been in a different
place at the moment of impact.

sounds like another half baked idea, how do they identify a road as
being so dangerous that it requires a farcility alongside it? ;

They don't. When bike lanes approach a busy junction or roundabout,
where the vulnerable road user needs most assistence, the lane or
track just stops.

Quoted message said:

Interesting to see what would happen in a case where a cyclist was hit
by a left turning car as he crossed a side road on a cycle path,

Often the cyclist is mean't to give way, that is the lane or path ends
at the side road like a pavement does. So in your example the cyclist
would be in the wrong for not giving way to the motorist.

What about contributory negligence for the motorists who parked in the
cycle lane thus preventing the cyclist from using it ?

David Martin said:

Matt B said:

dkahn400 said:

Matt B wrote:
> Arthur Clune wrote:
>> The major problem is a proposed new rule telling cyclists to
>> use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities ... where
>> they are provided (Rule 58).
> It's /not/ a new rule, it is the old rule #47 updated to include the new
> 'facilities' which didn't exist in 1999.
No it isn't. The current (not old) rule 47

Yes, ISC.

Quoted message said:

simply states "Use cycle
routes when practicable". It does not say "where provided" which
appears to remove the cyclist's freedom to decide about practicabilty.

Under what circumstances would cycle routes not be practicable if they
/are/ provided?

Lane on the left hand side of a road. You want to turn right. If you
must use the lane then you cannot position your self appropriately.
Lane running round the outside of a roundabout.
Cycle farcility requiring slowing to an almost crawl to navigate past
trees, bollards and pedestrians and having to cede priority at every
road crossing - turn a 10 minute on road ride into a half hour of rouad
nightmare.

All good stuff :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the facility is there you are expected to use it.

When would using an ASL, cycle box or toucan crossing (note: they don't
mention cycle lane) not be practicable?

When it doesn't go where you want. WHere it puts you in an unsafe
position re other traffic. Where your cycle cannot physically fit into
such a ficility (but you don't know that till too late) where the cycle
facility suddenly decides to veer off somewhere else other than where
the road goes without warning. Where the cycle facility is not gritted
or lit so badly that you are suddenly dazzled just where teh facility
executes a sharp turn above a ditch (vis the new one along the arbroath
road)

So, I wonder if /anyone/ honestly believes that the proposed amendment
to rule 47 (as new rule 58) would mean we 'should' use the 'facilities'
in any of your aforementioned scenarios, or that not using it in such
circumstances would leave us open to legitimate criticism.

Quoted message said:

And that's just a few from my own experience.

Every motorist is also breaking that rule because they are not using
the facility. After all, it doen't except people who would rather be
taking their cars..

LOL, except that it comes in the "Rules for cyclists" section under the
"When cycling" sub-heading.

--
Matt B

Quoted message said:

The
CTC urge concerned cyclists to contact their MPs and provide a template
for such purposes.

It's probably worth pointing out that MPs will probably pay more
attention to snail mail, and less attention to form letters.

Info and form letter available here:

<http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303>

As a keen cyclist, I am very concerned about the new draft of the revised
Highway Code, now out for consultation.

The new rule telling cyclists that they ?should? use cycle facilities
where provided, and the existing rule saying that we ?should? wear
helmets, may at first look like perfectly sensible advice. However,
cyclists often have good reasons for not using cycle facilities ? many
are very poorly designed and some are positively dangerous. The same
goes for the pros and cons of helmet-wearing ? there is strong evidence
and opinions on both sides of the debate (see www.cyclehelmets.org for
more information).

The advice will therefore have little benefit for cyclists safety, but
could be very damaging in other ways. One only has to think of the 9
year old boy who was permanently brain-damaged by a negligent driver.
The driver?s insurers promptly claimed that the boy?s parents bore
liability for their son?s severe injuries, as they hadn?t made him wear a
helmet. Nobody should have to suffer the anguish which they and several
other cyclists or their families have gone though, simply because of that
one word "should". If anything, the legal consequences of the rule about
cycle facilities are even more insidious, as it will be far harder to
argue against similar ?contributory negligence? claims.

Please will you therefore press ministers to make the following changes
to the Code:
* Remove all words which could give rise to unwarranted ?contributory
negligence? claims against cyclists;
* Include clearer advice to drivers on safe interactions with cyclists
(e.g. on how much space to leave when overtaking a cyclist);
* Ensure that its advice to cyclists (particularly that on negotiating
roundabouts) is in line with the Government-backed National Standard for
cycle training and;
* A recommendation that anyone wishing to improve their confidence and
safety should undertake cycle training to the National Standard

I look forward to your response.

Response to Richard:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It seems to me that this point is more likely to make an impression on
TPTB than more abstruse arguments about road positioning.

I'm not so sure.

Cyclist's lawyer: Motorist owes my client ££££ for knocking him off his
bike.

Motorist's lawyer: OK, but less X% negligence for not using the cycle route.

etc.

Yes indeed, but this doesn't address my point. No argument based on the
various dangers of cycle facilities is certain to succeed, but I would
guess that the Driving Standards Agency, or for that matter a magistrate
(and neither the DSA nor magistrates can be assumed to have much
knowledge of safe cycling), would have more sympathy for the risk of
physical attack than for a counter-intuitive argument that a cyclist is
intrinsically safer riding nearer the middle of the road (and therefore
in the way of cars) than in the gutter.

--
Mark, UK
"Our opinions do not really blossom into fruition until we have
expressed them to someone else."

Arthur Clune said:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303

I just read it properly - it's utter scare-mongering balderdash! What
court is going to say that you contributed to an 'accident' because you
/could/, or even /should/ have been somewhere else at the time of the
collision!

It's like saying that being knocked down in the road outside work at
9:01 is your own fault because you're normally inside at your desk by
9:00, or that a bus driver was responsible for being collided with
because he was running late. No motorist is going to be able to claim
it wasn't his fault he hit you because you should have been in the cycle
facility, out of his way! ... or does someone have evidence to the
contrary?

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Arthur Clune said:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303

I just read it properly - it's utter scare-mongering balderdash!
because he was running late. No motorist is going to be able to claim
it wasn't his fault he hit you because you should have been in the cycle
facility, out of his way! ... or does someone have evidence to the
contrary?

Yes.

Next.

tt

Matt B said:

Arthur Clune said:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303

I just read it properly - it's utter scare-mongering balderdash! What
court is going to say that you contributed to an 'accident' because you
/could/, or even /should/ have been somewhere else at the time of the
collision!

It's like saying that being knocked down in the road outside work at
9:01 is your own fault because you're normally inside at your desk by
9:00, or that a bus driver was responsible for being collided with
because he was running late. No motorist is going to be able to claim
it wasn't his fault he hit you because you should have been in the cycle
facility, out of his way! ... or does someone have evidence to the
contrary?

--
Matt B

Fnck it, I just dedleted my reponse to you, you ain't worth it.

triddletree said:

Matt B said:

Arthur Clune said:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303

I just read it properly - it's utter scare-mongering balderdash!
because he was running late. No motorist is going to be able to claim
it wasn't his fault he hit you because you should have been in the cycle
facility, out of his way! ... or does someone have evidence to the
contrary?

Yes.

Next.

tt

Its not about who is to blame its about compensation. Like say women
who flirt are asking to be raped - contributory negligence.

triddletree said:

Matt B said:

Arthur Clune said:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303

I just read it properly - it's utter scare-mongering balderdash!
because he was running late. No motorist is going to be able to claim
it wasn't his fault he hit you because you should have been in the
cycle facility, out of his way! ... or does someone have evidence to
the contrary?

Yes.

Where?

--
Matt B

MSeries said:

Matt B said:

Arthur Clune said:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303

I just read it properly - it's utter scare-mongering balderdash! What
court is going to say that you contributed to an 'accident' because you
/could/, or even /should/ have been somewhere else at the time of the
collision!

It's like saying that being knocked down in the road outside work at
9:01 is your own fault because you're normally inside at your desk by
9:00, or that a bus driver was responsible for being collided with
because he was running late. No motorist is going to be able to claim
it wasn't his fault he hit you because you should have been in the cycle
facility, out of his way! ... or does someone have evidence to the
contrary?

Fnck it, I just dedleted my reponse to you, you ain't worth it.

Don't just think of me, think of all our fellow cyclists - what were you
going to say - or wasn't /it/ worth saying?

BTW, do you work for L'Oréal ;-)

--
Matt B

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

The
CTC urge concerned cyclists to contact their MPs and provide a template
for such purposes.

It's probably worth pointing out that MPs will probably pay more
attention to snail mail, and less attention to form letters.

Perhaps, I have recieved a snail mail response though, can't see how he
would deal with it any differently had I penned a letter. I emailed him
through his website not using the CTC site.

Matt B said:

triddletree said:

Matt B said:

Arthur Clune wrote:

> http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303

I just read it properly - it's utter scare-mongering balderdash!
because he was running late. No motorist is going to be able to
claim it wasn't his fault he hit you because you should have been in
the cycle facility, out of his way! ... or does someone have
evidence to the contrary?

Yes.

Where?

Here.

tt

triddletree said:

Matt B said:

triddletree said:

Matt B wrote:

> Arthur Clune wrote:
>
>> http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303
>
>
>
> I just read it properly - it's utter scare-mongering balderdash!
> because he was running late. No motorist is going to be able to
> claim it wasn't his fault he hit you because you should have been in
> the cycle facility, out of his way! ... or does someone have
> evidence to the contrary?

Yes.

Where?

Here.

Where here? Can you be more helpful please. Do you know of a specific
case where failure to obey a 'should' led to reduced compensation on the
grounds that "one was asking for it" by being in the way?

--
Matt B

MSeries said:

triddletree said:

Matt B said:

Arthur Clune wrote:

> http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303

I just read it properly - it's utter scare-mongering balderdash!
because he was running late. No motorist is going to be able to claim
it wasn't his fault he hit you because you should have been in the cycle
facility, out of his way! ... or does someone have evidence to the
contrary?

Yes.

Next.

Its not about who is to blame its about compensation.

If one has a good reason ( i.e. not just bloody mindedness ;-) ) for
/not/ being in the 'facility' then how can that be construed as
contributory to any collision? I'm not sure that even disobeying a
'must' could be construed as therefore deserving to be hit.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> I just read it properly - it's utter scare-mongering balderdash!
>> because he was running late. No motorist is going to be able to
>> claim it wasn't his fault he hit you because you should have been
>> in the cycle facility, out of his way! ... or does someone have
>> evidence to the contrary?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Yes.

Where?

Here.

Where here? Can you be more helpful please. Do you know of a specific
case where failure to obey a 'should' led to reduced compensation on the
grounds that "one was asking for it" by being in the way?

There are many cases where a motorist has "claimed it wasn't his fault"
because a cyclist should have been in a cycling facility.
That is what you asked.

The claims I am aware of were all thrown out.
I can refer you to the specific solicitors office if I didn't know you
were simply an ill-informed troll.

The proposed changes in the Code may lead to such claims becoming more
commonplace.

You are not a cyclist are you.

tt

triddletree said:

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

>>> I just read it properly - it's utter scare-mongering balderdash!
>>> because he was running late. No motorist is going to be able to
>>> claim it wasn't his fault he hit you because you should have been
>>> in the cycle facility, out of his way! ... or does someone have
>>> evidence to the contrary?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Yes.
>
> Where?

Here.

Where here? Can you be more helpful please. Do you know of a
specific case where failure to obey a 'should' led to reduced
compensation on the grounds that "one was asking for it" by being in
the way?

There are many cases where a motorist has "claimed it wasn't his fault"
because a cyclist should have been in a cycling facility.
That is what you asked.

The claims I am aware of were all thrown out.

Ah, so there's /no/ problem then.

Quoted message said:

I can refer you to the specific solicitors office if I didn't know you
were simply an ill-informed troll.

What /specific/ "solicitors office"? What makes you so sure that I am a
troll - I ask awkward questions?

Quoted message said:

The proposed changes in the Code may lead to such claims becoming more
commonplace.

And therefore being thrown out more often? Why do you think that might
be the case?

Quoted message said:

You are not a cyclist are you.

I know some here use very localised (to cycling) and perverse
definitions of common English words to /prove/ others' assertions are
incorrect - what is your definition of "cyclist"?

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

I ask awkward questions?

"Inane questions" would be a more accurate description. Others may
just think of you as an annoying little runt. I, however, enjoy the
little gems you come up with from time to time, and think that every
group should have its mascot troll.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)