Highway code

Post Reply
Geriatrix
Posts: 1855
Joined: 23 Oct 2007, 1:33pm
Location: Caterham

Highway code

Post by Geriatrix »

The following rules of the highway code state:

Rule 212

When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room. If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.

Rule 213

Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

Rule 162: (in part)
give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car

I commute daily between Waterloo station and Canary Wharf. This is a busy stretch of road and the above rules are ignored on a routine basis putting cyclist in danger. I believe that there needs to be action to change driver behaviour - but what action?

Now as I understand it the Highway Code is not law, simply recommended practice and therefore not enforceable. So if I used a helmet can to record a driver breaking any of the above rules and submitted the evidence to the police the response is likely to be “sorry, can’t do anything about it unless it causes an accident or injury”. I hope my understanding is wrong because this is like having a law that allows firearms and when you report being shot at, being told “sorry mate, can’t do anything about it until you are hit”.

Is there any value in collecting video evidence that can be presented to authorities either as part of a campaign or as a request for the police to take action?
Howard Peel

Re: Highway code

Post by Howard Peel »

Geriatrix wrote: Now as I understand it the Highway Code is not law, simply recommended practice and therefore not enforceable. So if I used a helmet can to record a driver breaking any of the above rules and submitted the evidence to the police the response is likely to be “sorry, can’t do anything about it unless it causes an accident or injury”. I hope my understanding is wrong because this is like having a law that allows firearms and when you report being shot at, being told “sorry mate, can’t do anything about it until you are hit”.

Is there any value in collecting video evidence that can be presented to authorities either as part of a campaign or as a request for the police to take action?

In my experience you will have a real job on your hands to persuade many police forces to take action even if you are hit and injured, and even if you have independent witnesses!

When I complained to my local police authority about such inaction an inspector came around and admitted that it was not the force's policy to prosecute drivers who injured cyclists unless the cyclist was effectively left in a coffin or a wheelchair. Sometime they may not prosecute even then. A short while ago a friend came to me for advice about the refusal of the police to bring any charges regarding another friend of his who had been hit by a trailer pulled by a 4x4 when the driver tried to overtake him on a narrow country lane. The driver admitted that he was totally at fault, the rider was left with very serious injuries from which he will probably never fully recover, including a shattered pelvis, and the driver was simply asked to go an a 'driver awareness' course lasting a couple of hours!!!

Unfortunately, such inaction is a national problem. If you don't mind getting depressed read: House of Commons Transport Committee's Report Traffic Law and its Enforcement (The Sixteenth Report of Session 2003–04). A few quotes:


Much of the evidence given to us was concerned with the law relating to those who caused death or injury on the roads. It would be an understatement to say there was concern about the way in which the law deals with such cases. All those who wrote to us on the subject, and they were many, were impassioned about what they saw as a tendency to downgrade road traffic crashes. We were told of a tendency to treat serious incidents as “nobody’s fault” or even to blame the victim; a belief it was not appropriate for motorists to take as much care when driving a motor vehicle as they would when undertaking other activities which might endanger the public; a justice system which frequently did not take into account the consequences of a crash; and a disregard for the victims and their families.

The relatively low proportion of serious cases which come to court would not cause concern if the quality of crash investigation and any subsequent legal proceedings was beyond question. There will always be some crashes which are genuine "accidents"; the important thing is that the public is confident that proper investigation takes place, and that legal proceedings are brought whenever appropriate. Victims and their relatives, and the organisations campaigning for victims, clearly have no such confidence. They appear to be right.

…our witnesses had no confidence that the police would properly investigate cases in which harm had been caused, particularly when vulnerable road users had been injured. We were given instances of cases in which it was alleged that the police had automatically assumed that a cyclist or pedestrian, rather than a driver, was at fault; in which evidence and witness statements were not promptly collected; and in which police could not be persuaded to take an interest even though, in some cases, serious injury had occurred



http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 05/105.pdf
mhara

Post by mhara »

And if you want to feel really ignored and endangered wait until the town / city you ride in starts widening more and more of its pavements to make into shared cycle/footpaths.

You can't (often) widen a pavement without narrowing a road.

So those of us who still choose to cycle on the road have an even narrower 'area' and are even more likely to be passed by instead of properly overtaken.

Making offroad cycling for cyclist safety (and I don't believe it is safer) is actually making on-road cycling far more unsafe.

But get this - in the 6 cycling demonstartion towns (which no doubt will be used as best practice examples) - the criterion for successfully meeting the target for big cycling increase with 'no increase in injuries to cyclists' is measured solely by how many accidents are reported to the police. :shock: :roll:

I think there's a huge failure to collect comprehensive, adequately disaggregated data on the outcomes of cycling promotion schemes. And how can anyone prove anything is right/wrong, useful/useless unless the whole picture is being captured?
Auchmill
Posts: 346
Joined: 17 Sep 2007, 3:01pm
Location: Selkirk

Post by Auchmill »

At the risk of repeating myself can I quote what I wrote a few days ago which seemed to have produced an underwhelming reaction?

I think we need to be more political (with a small "p") rather than less and draw up an agenda to reclaim the streets and roads for the benefit of non-motorised users, such as pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. We need to get vast numbers of drivers and heavy loads off the roads and onto their feet, bikes, public transport and railways, for all sorts of reasons: safety, the environment, carbon emissions, health, congestion etc. Attitudes have to be changed so that the car is no longer regarded as King of the road. Start with reducing the number of unnecessary vehicle journeys.

Here's some suggestions:

urban speed limit of 10 mph for all motorised vehicles;
single carriageway speed limit of 40 mph;
fit tachographs to all vehicles combined with roadside sensors and annual checks for speeding;
an escalating ban on vehicles with less than 1 passenger, rising to 3 passengers travelling into urban areas;
more car/van/lorry free areas for pedestrians and cyclists;
ban all building of retail parks out of town;
no encroachment on cycle lanes;
a legal presumption that the driver is culpable in any accident involving a pedestrian, cyclist or horse rider;
scrap "careless" driving with all incidents invlolving injury to others to be classed as "dangerous" driving;
all accidents involving death to be new offence of "vehicle manslaughter" similar to "corporate manslaughter".

Any more suggestions?
Geriatrix
Posts: 1855
Joined: 23 Oct 2007, 1:33pm
Location: Caterham

Post by Geriatrix »

Tempting people from their cars won't happen until there is an infrastructure that us useable and safe. The latest CTC magazine used Holland as an example of a country that is doing it right and listed Germany as following a similar path.

Germany is an interesting case because I doubt there is another country in the EU where the car enjoys a more elevated status. Germans love their cars! And if the info in Wikipedia is accurate, cycles were almost driven from the road up until the 90's so the growth in cycling is a recent phenomenon. The environment took centre stage in the 90's and money was pumped into developing a cycle infrastructure and creating cycle friendly laws. Since then cycling in Germany has not looked back and they achieved this with few changes to urban speed limits.

The laws in Germany offer the cyclist real protection. In any accident between cyclist and a car the car is assumed to be at fault. Cyclists can also cite drivers for dangerous driving - which can include encroaching closer than 1 metre from the cyclist. A driver that received enough citings will get points deducted from his/her licence. Legislation of this nature has a real impact on driver behaviour, but probably the biggest impact is the fact that a greater proportion of drivers are now also cyclists and therefore more sympathetic to cyclists needs.

Cars and bikes can coexist. If it can be done in a car centric country like Germany it can be done here, but law must be made to work and the infrastructure must be developed.
[/quote]
bikegeek
Posts: 149
Joined: 9 Nov 2007, 11:11am

Post by bikegeek »

Can't do any harm to report people using video 'evidence' If you have the time & resources to do so - certainly beats just phoning in or calling into the station house saying "you'll never believe what's just happened to me...."
The police are trialing helmet cams for beat bobbies and have used car cam footage for years now. I wouldn't hold my breath on getting prosecutions - unless you acually get injured, in which case it might be too late..
I can just see the counter argument now too. "He was too prepared for it, riding around with that camera, just trying to get someone to have an incident with him so he could get them into court / make a claim against them".
Also, whats the position about public filming? Would you have to have one of those yellow triangle 'Caution, CCTV' signs on your back?
Good luck but be careful. The 'law' always tries to bite back if you try to push it along.
"There's room for all of us on the road you know, you'll just have to take that bit of room behind me!"
Post Reply