The Highway Code is not a great comparison because its unique significance as evidence is written in law:
A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable 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 M11Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the M12Transport 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.
Vorpal wrote:The fact that DfT have adopted Cyclecraft as their official guide to safe cycling in the UK makes that book a legal reference about how cyclists should behave.
I do not think it does make it a legal reference, but the National Standards for Cycle Training are still valuable evidence as an agreed official curriculum for teaching cyclists. They provide good evidence of what is considered to be correct cycling. The greatest risk of prosecution for a cyclist in the primary position is a charge of inconsiderate cycling. It would be hard to convict somebody of this if evidence is presented that they were riding as instructed by the National Standards. As the textbook for National Standards training, the advice in Cyclecraft is useful for providing greater detail on subjects covered by the National Standards.
Adam S wrote:The Highway Code is not a great comparison because its unique significance as evidence is written in law:
A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable 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 M11Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the M12Transport 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.
Vorpal wrote:The fact that DfT have adopted Cyclecraft as their official guide to safe cycling in the UK makes that book a legal reference about how cyclists should behave.
I do not think it does make it a legal reference, but the National Standards for Cycle Training are still valuable evidence as an agreed official curriculum for teaching cyclists. They provide good evidence of what is considered to be correct cycling. The greatest risk of prosecution for a cyclist in the primary position is a charge of inconsiderate cycling. It would be hard to convict somebody of this if evidence is presented that they were riding as instructed by the National Standards. As the textbook for National Standards training, the advice in Cyclecraft is useful for providing greater detail on subjects covered by the National Standards.
It's like many such documents that are around in the British Standards system. I, in one of my many roles-as an electrician, have to abide by the 17th Edition IET Wiring Regulations : BS7671. These are a non-statutory standard but are used as the standard by which any electrical installation should be installed. If I were to complete some work, and there was any kind of fault that led to an incident, the first thing that would be looked at is that the installation was completed in accordance with those regulations. This is exactly what Cyclecraft and The Highway Code are. They set a standard by which you should be working to - the legal argument is then for the court to decide, based on those standards and the observance, or not, of those same standards.
Adam S wrote:Yes. Though I would again caution against implying an equivalence with the Highway Code because the Highway Code's status in highway law is unique.
That's fair enough. Though I did say
Cyclecraft is similar in a way to the Highway Code
and then go on to explain in what way. I did not state an equivalence, though I should have referred to the HC's status in law, which would have clarified what I said.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Sorry, I was referring to Adam's comment: "This is exactly what Cyclecraft and The Highway Code are"
One further point: I do not think it is safe to assume that being the recommended reading makes Cyclecraft conclusive. Unlike the National Standards, it remains - despite the publisher - the work of one individual and contains some of Franklin's own idiosyncratic opinions. Using it to provide an explanation of something like primary positioning contained within the National Standard would seem reasonable but we can't take the wording as gospel.
stork wrote:Although it does say that you should keep to the left (rule 160). This simply means that the default driving/riding position is in the left, or leftmost lane, not that you should ride in the leftmost or any other particular part of that lane.
Motorists don't accept that, and they don't have to accept it because the HC doesn't actually make it clear one way or the other. The argument could be settled if someone could persuade the DfT to put some reference to Primary & Secondary Positions in the Highway Code, but it probably won't make any more difference to motorists resentment than it does insisting that road tax is actually VED.
“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche
More RIGHT's as motorized vehicles HAVE to be LICENCED to use the Highways & byways. Whereas cyclists, pedestrians and Horses/horse drawn vehicles have the legal right to use them. No licencing or testing required, although in some instances certain pedestrians would benefit from a little more intensive training. Apart from the usual M-ways etc, which need to be signposted showing the restrictions at every access point.
