"First, they came for the cyclists ..."#
Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:30:02 +0000
Not that I cycle much (any more), but if cyclists are forced off the roads it's not going to make life easier for us even crazier skaters ...
Dear Mr George Galloway MPI write with regard to the DSA's consultation on their proposed new draft of the Highway Code, and its likely impact on cyclists.
The new draft carries the advice to cyclists that they "should" use cycle facilities where provided. Although on the face of it this seems reasonable, in practice there are many occasions when (whether due to traffic conditions or to roads to which cycles facilities have been added without appropriate consideration of the actual needs of cyclists) it would be impractical, inappropriate or in some cases actively dangerous to use a provided facility. For example, it would be an extremely foolhardy (some would say suicidal) cyclist who would cycle up the inside of a "bendy bus" at a junction, yet many cycle lanes encourage exactly that behaviour.
I acknowledge that many cyclists will of course be aware of these dangers and will filter the Highway Code's advice through the benefit of their own experience. My concerns, however, are two-fold. First, that not all cyclists are that experienced, and these are exactly the people who may be led astray by well-meaning but bad advice from sources that they ought reasonably to be able to hold to a higher standard of reliablity. Second, the issue of contributory negligence: although the Code does not have the force of law, it is often held as the arbiter of responsible behaviour on our roads, and will be looked to as an authority in disputes between road users - thus the spectre of a cyclist being held to have contributed to his own plight when hit by a motor vehicle, because he "should have been on the cycle path". One remembers the recent case of the 9 year old boy who was permanently brain-damaged by a negligent driver. The driver's insurers subsequently claimed that the boy's parents bore liability for their son's severe injuries, as they had not made him wear a helmet. In a collision with a motor vehicle it is unlikely that a polystyrene helmet would help materially anyway!
I would like to echo the CTC's call for the following changes to the draft, which I reproduce below
- Remove all words which could give rise to unwarranted "contributory negligence" claims against cyclists;
- Include clearer advice to drivers on interacting safely with cyclists and other road users (for example, on leaving sufficient space 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
The current direction of the consultation draft seems to be to foster an "us and them" attitude and squeeze cyclists off the road. As we both know, the numbers of cyclists in London have increased dramatically in recent years, with concomitant benefits in lower pollution and congestion and better health - and these cyclists are largely amicably sharing the road system with all the other road users in our city. The proposed Highway Code changes would almost certainly be deletorious to this welcome trend.
I look forward to your response
Whether it'll make any difference is another question. He's possibly not the best advert ever for men wearing Lycra ...