Newsflash: Gavrilo Princip arrested

And, once again, I fail to receive a reply to a letter to my local MP, Mark Hendrick.

Saturday 21 April 2007

Dear Mark Hendrick,
It has been with great concern that I have read in the cycling press of the March 2007 draft changes to the Highway Code . These would effectively oblige cyclists to use facilities which are, in many cases, dangerous and substandard.

The current code (revised 2004) says
“Use cycle routes when practicable. They can make your journey safer.”
The February 2006 draft says
“Use cycle routes when practicable, and cycle facilities such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings where they are provided, as they can make your journey safer.”
The March 2007 draft says
“Use cycle routes and cycle facilities such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings wherever possible, as they can make your journey safer.”

Overall, many studies in many countries show the risk of serious injury and death to cyclists using cycle paths exceeds the risk of using adjacent roads, primarily because of unsighted conflicts with motorists at junctions between cycle paths and roads.

There is a particular problem with advanced stop line cycle boxes with an entry lane on the left, especially where there are railings or barriers on the pavement edge. A very high proportion of urban cycle fatalities involve long vehicles turning left at such junctions.

Another particular area of problem is cycle lanes on roads adjacent to parked cars, where a motorist opening a door will open it into the cycle lane (’the door zone’). Collisions with opening car doors are one of the most significant causes of serious injury to cyclists.

The wording in the current Highway Code makes it clear that cyclists may use facilities, or not, at their own discretion. This is also the law. The wording of the revised draft says that cyclists should use facilities ‘wherever possible’, implying that they have no such
discretion. It may be ‘possible’ to use a facility which it is either extremely unsafe or extremely inconvenient to use.

The draft changes relevant to roundabouts are perhaps more dangerous as they suggest that cyclists should ride always in the left-hand lane, a practice which would put some of the road’s more vulnerable users in direct conflict with fast-moving vehicles trying to leave roundabouts.

The Government intends to see a reduction in carbon emissions, partly through a reduction in motorised traffic. By making utility cycling (by which I mean, cycling for non-leisure purposes, i.e. to work, to the supermarket, etc.) more dangerous and less practical, the draft Highway Code would have the opposite effect.

The Road Traffic Act says of the Highway Code:
“A failure on the part of a person to observe any provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person to criminal proceedings of any kind, but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.”

It is essential that these changes to the Highway Code be opposed as a cyclist injured in a collision on the road when an alternative facility was available— no matter how dangerous or inconvenient— would find it extremely difficult to obtain compensation if the current draft were to become the ruling code.

May I therefore suggest that the section regarding the use of cycle facilities be replaced with the following wording:
“You may use cycle routes and cycle facilities such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings if they will make your journey safer or more convenient.
“You should avoid using a left hand entry lane to a cycle box if there is a long vehicle waiting to turn left.”

The cycling-specific section regarding the use of roundabouts should be removed altogether.

The section regarding the use of high-visibility clothing and helmets should be replaced with the following wording:
“You should wear 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 will help other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
“Reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) will help other road users see you in the dark.”

Yours sincerely,

Luke Bosman

Possibly related:

• Bingo
• The Sunday Times goes on the war(cycle)path
• Early days…