Iconic Films
2 for 1 tickets to Singin' In The Rain, this coming Monday. Book now
Navigation - link to other main sections from here
Danger lane: are new rules making cycling riskier?
Changes to the Highway Code have aroused cyclists’ safety fears, reports Joseph Dunn
Britain’s cyclists are on the warpath. Fed up with being hooted, bumped and abused by motorists, they are campaigning against changes to the one document that has previously offered them protection: the Highway Code.
Under the proposed alterations laid before parliament the new Highway Code will require cyclists to stick to cycle paths and lanes rather than using the road. Cycling groups warn that many cycle lanes increase the risks they face, and being forced to use them would take away their members’ right to use their initiative and react to changing road conditions.
The debate centres on amendments to the wording of the new document, due to be published this summer. In the version drafted in 1999 cyclists are required to use cycle routes “where practicable”; in the latest version they are required to use them “wherever possible”.
The change appears minor, but to cyclists it is the latest in a series of measures to corral them off the main roads and further evidence that the government’s cycle policy is flawed. “If the new document goes through unamended it will be the single most anticycling thing that this government has done since it’s been in power,” says Roger Geffen, campaigns manager for the Cyclists’ Touring Club (CTC), the national cycling organisation. “It will be a catastrophe.”
As well as increasing the risks for cyclists, the CTC fears the changes could have legal implications. Although for the most part the Highway Code is regarded as a set of recommendations rather than law, judges and courts do take it into account. Geffen claims the new wording might lead to criminal prosecution of cyclists caught not using lanes, as well as affecting civil court actions where motorists could claim contributory negligence and thereby avoid paying damages if a cyclist wasn’t using a lane.
The Department for Transport (DfT) has already seen off one challenge to the new code that saw 11,000 cyclists petition their MPs last year. It maintains the changes have been made in the “interests of clarity” and they do not affect the substance of the code’s advice. “The Highway Code has advised cyclists to use cycle facilities like cycle tracks since 1946,” a spokesman said last week.
The row has been thrown into sharper focus by the unintended publication 12 days ago of a document produced by Transport for London (TfL) that suggested cyclists who obeyed the rules of the road were more likely to be killed or injured than those who did not. It said women were more likely to be involved in an accident because they were less aggressive cyclists than men and more likely to stick to the rules.
TfL last week distanced itself from some of the findings, saying that the document was meant for internal use only and that some of the statements made within it were unsubstantiated. It added that the author of the report had since left TfL.
But the sense that the government is somehow getting its safety policy on cyclists wrong will not go away. According to the DfT’s latest full-year figures, in 2005 cycling was the only mode of transport with an increase in deaths, up 10% to 148 from 134 in 2004, while the number of cyclists seriously injured rose by 2% to 2,212. It was the second year running in which cycling deaths rose: in 2003 there were 114 fatalities.
The upward trend is set to continue. According to the DfT’s recently published provisional estimates of road casualties, in the year from October 2005 to September 2006 2,490 cyclists were killed or seriously injured compared with 2,298 for the same period in 2004-5, an 8% rise.
In London 21 cyclists were killed in 2005 – a 163% increase over 2004 – and 351 were seriously injured, up 6% over the previous year.
While some of the increase can be explained by the boom in the number of cyclists – the capital has seen an 83% rise in cycling since 2000 – critics claim it is evidence of a muddled approach to cycle safety that is set to get worse.
John Franklin, the author of Cyclecraft, a training manual endorsed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, claims that many cycle trainers are confused by contradictory instructions on what to teach cyclists and highlights the problem of lorries turning left, which kill a disproportionate number every year. (More than half of all cycle deaths in London last year involved a goods vehicle.)
“This has been a major problem for some years but nothing seems to be done about it,” he says. “In fact the proposed changes to the Highway Code will make the situation worse. One of the golden rules of cycling is never to go up the inside of lorries. The new code effectively tells you to do this. It is another instance where cycle lanes actually introduce hazards of the road.”
Cycle lanes are not the only places where the official advice contradicts everyday experience. Another area of contention is the use of advanced stop lines in front of traffic lights. These are meant to create a reserved zone for cyclists ahead of traffic, enabling a quick getaway.
However, cyclists who remain too close to tall vehicles such as HGVs can remain outside the driver’s line of vision, increasing the chance of being caught under his wheels when the lights change. Many cyclists claim this is one reason they jump red lights. An unpublished report by the government’s Transport Research Laboratory last year found ASLs increased the chances of cyclists jumping red lights by 4%.
Franklin also points out that rules controlling cyclists’ safety are in the hands of the Driving Standards Agency (which publishes the Highway Code) and the DfT. “As far as I know there is no one at the DfT’s road safety section who has any experience of cycling,” he says. “Until there is a proper discussion about what works and what doesn’t, the problem of cyclists dying on the roads will only get worse.”
If the government want us to use cyclist lanes then maybe the quality and the maintenance ought to be tackled first and then maybe us cyclist would use the designated lane without fear of overgrown hedges , cars parked on the lanes, trees, bollards and poeple walking in the lanes.
Karen, London,
Mike would benefit from reading http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/0506CTCBMApositionpapercritiqueBrf.doc in which the CTC unpick the BMA's arguments.
In particular it should be noted that the BMA did minimal research on the subject of helmet wearing.
However, the issue of helmets is a distraction: it is vital that cyclists should be allowed to use properly constructed facilities such as roads.
Luke Bosman, Preston, UK
I have written to Nick Palmer MPin 2006 to give him my opinion about cycling lanes as they are currently formatted. The change to the Highway Code in my opinion is a backward step while motorists have right of way at junctions, for instance. I also suggested other ways of marking out cycling lanes, many of my suggestions go against the current Highway Code. I have been cycling since the 1950' when cycling was better encouraged.
Bob Rideout, Beeston, Notts, England
Frank of Winchester should check the link below which gives statistics (2000 to 2003) on pavement deaths and injuries (near bottom of document).
Whilst not condoning the practice of riding on the pavement ,the governments own figures show for instance in 2003, 3,453 pedestrians were injured by motor vehicles on pavements and verges, compared with just 72 injured by cyclists!
Source:
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/cm050316/text/50316w01.htm#column_254
Andrew Clark, Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria
It is a shame that this vital campaign argues against requirements to wear helmets and suitable clothing.
Allowing an insurance company to claim contributory negligence if a cyclist dares to ride on the road, as allowed by law, if there happens to be a pavement with a cycle painted on it nearby is clearly a disaster. Under many road conditions these would be very much less safe, and given its legal position in civil damages, the highway code should state that facilities should be only used when they increase safety
So I have signed the petition:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/
Claiming that there is 'no evidence that promotion of cycle helmets has benefit' (as the CTC does) is simply wrong, and smacks of vested interest. Would we trust a smokers group to advise whether a smoking ban contributes to ill health?
Health providers and researchers should be trusted on this, and they have done the research....
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/cyclehelmetslegis
Mike Deakin, Cambridge,
I am pleased to see that, since this article and my previous comment were written, the CTC has chosen to update the front page of its website.
Yes, I did miss the CTC's large campaign. They must have been campaigning very quietly throughout April when there was much discussion on this matter on the newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.
Luke Bosman, Preston, uk
Believe me Frank, up here you can inform the council over, and over and over (and over) about problems in cycle provision (faded lines on cycle lanes, so that they become non-lanes; highly unsuitable riding surfaces on cycle routes; grit, glass and other debris perpetually uncleared; cars parked illegally on cycle routes); My experience is that absolutely nothing will happen to rectify the problems; so it is often sensible and safer to ignore the official route/lane and join the traffic, as we are (still) allowed to do.
Mike Speed, Liverpool, Merseyside
Many people may feel that it is not unreasonable for cyclists to be forced to use facilities build for them. Such people are unaware just how dire many of the facilities are in this country. For anyone one in any doubt about this, I strongly recommend a visit to the following site:-
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month
Whereas not all facilities are as bad as these, the general standard of cycle provision in this country is so low that a very high proportion of them are literally worse than useless.
It is also worth noting that most of these facilities are shared-use with pedestrians. Forcing all cyclists, regardless of how fast they ride, onto them is going to be dangerous for pedestrians.
Ian Miller, Cambridge,
>> The CTC noticeably makes no mention of this issue on its site.
Ermmm ... which CTC are you referring to precisely? The CTC that I belong to not only has this as a headline on its home page but also a substantial article at http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4568
I agree that the "Concurrent Technologies Corporation" and "Cambridge Tutors College" don't mention it!
Peter Harris, Alcester, UK
Local authorities have spent thousands of pound installing facilities for cyclists. It is about time cyclists were made to use them. If the cycle tracks aren't maintained do the cyclists complain to the local council to get the problem rectified?
The police could do much more to protect pedestrians from cyclists who ride on pavements (illegal since 1835) and through red lights at pedestrian crossings. In 2005 cyclists were reported by the DfT to have collided with 219 pedetrians; killing 2 and seriously injurying 52. Only 3 cyclists were seriously injured in such collisions.
Frank, Winchester,
Good afternoon!
There are cyclists and there are cyclists (unlike other road users).
Motorists get angry and resentful when they see cyclists flout the Law - and Police take no action.
I am motorist, cyclist & pedestrian - I get fed up when cyclists flout the law ( cycle on footpaths, ignore red lights, overtake on inside, and more).
So-called cycle lanes may be both practical and usable for shoppers and others (on robust cycles), but such lanes are all too often poorly maintained, rarely swept and a danger to cyclists on lighweight machines.
The proposed changes fail to differentiate between the different types of cyclist. The shopper or cyclist on the ATM ( so-called "mountain bike ) moving at at 8 mph/10 mph is not the same as
the enthusiast moving at 18mph/22mph/26mph.
The cycles are not the same. The tyres are not the same.
The proposed amendment is the result of ill-informed and under-informed thinking - it is misplaced and I petition against i
Peter D. Gallagher, Lymington, UK
I agree the wording change in the highway code is a very bad move. Some cycle lanes are too narrow, some are full of glass, some are badly positioned. Most dump you just when you need them most ie at junctions. It should not be changed in this way. Cyclists need much more encouragement not discouragment. And we need road engineers that think about their needs rather than motorists.
Liz Young, Chester, England
70% of all respondents to the Highway Code Consultation were cyclists, giving a measure of the level of concern at both the current road culture and the effect of these proposed changes.
This is a huge vote of no confidence given the depressed level of cycling in this country.
This is not a new issue. The DfT says says that "The Highway Code has advised cyclists to use cycle facilities like cycle tracks since 1946” , but this is what Sir Colin Buchanan, author of the 1963 Buchanan report (and architect of "predict and provide" policy) said on the subject in his 1958 book "Mixed Blessings: The Motor in Britain" :
"The meagre efforts to separate cyclists from motor traffic have failed, tracks are inadequate, the problem of treating them at junctions and intersections is completely unsolved, and the attitude of cyclists themselves to these admittedly unsatisfactory tracks has not been as helpful as it might have been."
Nothing has changed but traffic has risen ten fold since
Alasdair Massie, Baldock, UK
Luke Bosman seems to have missed the large campaign by the Cyclist's Touring Club over both the draft UK legislation and the initiating EU legislation. This involved a professional lobbyist and must have been very big as the three politicians their system directed me two (from different parties) returned me messages with substantially the same wording.
James Paynter, London, UK
Your piece missed one other detail which should consign the entire document back for a thorough review and rewrite. The advice in the Highway code on cycling and roundabouts suggest that cyclists ride around the periphery at the edge, this directly contradicts the advice in the DfT's own manual on cycling, and cycle training standards, which advise that the safest way to ride around a roundabout on the carriageway is to behave as a vehicle and where appropriate ride in the lanes as they are defined.
Riding on the extreme outer edge puts cyclists in the greatest danger from motor vehicles peeling off at speed to exit or entering the roundabout through high speed junctions. In many ways the safest place to ride is actullay to get as close to the central island until you need to move out for your exit.
The other figures also show how the DfT ignored the responses to their consultation - the majority being related to the cycling issues, and the overload of the e-mail postbox.
dave holladay, Glasgow,
"TfL last week distanced itself from some of the findings, saying that the document was meant for internal use only and that some of the statements made within it were unsubstantiated. It added that the author of the report had since left TfL"
Using the 'Yes Minister' translator, TfL employee research reveals anti-Government policy findings, employee re-assigned or removed and study is discredited.
ed, near London,
While cycling I try to position myself on the road as I would when driving my car,always in the middle of a motorist's field of vision. So far no-one has deliberately run me down.
K. Clements, Chingford, London
The DSA consult on a new draft Highway Code last year that says “Use cycle routes when practicable”.
Thousands of cyclist comment on the Consultation to complain and in their response to this the DSA accepts (on their web site) that the words are unfortunate and should have reflected the position that cyclist are not forced to use cycle routes. They say they will use new text to recognise this.
The next draft says “Use cycle routes …wherever possible”.
DSA incompetence or conspiracy? Hmmm.
Jon, St Albans,
Please sign the petition against these changes
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/
Jc, West Midlands,
I spent years cycling around London as a student, running red lights and never using cycle paths - simply because it seemed less likely to cause an early demise.
Theo, Somerset, UK
The CTC noticeably makes no mention of this issue on its site. An act of omission which uncomfortably suggests that 'the UK's national cyclists organisation' is no longer interested in safeguarding the rights of its members.
I contacted my MP, Mark Hendrick (Lab, Preston), about this issue over two weeks ago. Sadly, I have received no reply. I am consequently very pleased to see the Times taking a stance.
Luke Bosman, Preston, UK