INCONSIDERATE CYCLISTS BEWARE: THE ACTUAL NEW HIGHWAY CODE

You will have heard. There's a new highway code and there are some reports of cyclists behaving as though they now have total command over our highways. Let's get the legal record straight. What the code now says is this. 

Rule 72

Road positioning. When riding on the roads, there are two basic road positions you should adopt, depending on the situation.

1) Ride in the centre of your lane, to make yourself as clearly visible as possible, in the following situations

• on quiet roads or streets – if a faster vehicle comes up behind you, move to the left to enable them to overtake, if you can do so safely
• in slower-moving traffic - when the traffic around you starts to flow more freely, move over to the left if you can do so safely so that faster vehicles behind you can overtake
• at the approach to junctions or road narrowings where it would be unsafe for drivers to overtake you

2) When riding on busy roads, with vehicles moving faster than you, allow them to overtake where it is safe to do so whilst keeping at least 0.5 metres away, and further where it is safer, from the kerb edge. Remember that traffic on most dual carriageways moves quickly. Take extra care crossing slip roads.

The message is clear. Do not make a nuisance of yourself.

And the code also says this.

Rule 66

You should

• avoid any actions that could reduce your control of your cycle
• be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups. You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so
• not ride close behind another vehicle in case it stops suddenly
• not carry anything which will affect your balance or may get tangled up with your wheels or chain
• be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians, and horse riders (see Rule H1). Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by calling out or ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted.

Failure to observe the Highway Code is not of itself an offence. But if there is a prosecution for a motoring offence or a civil claim for compensation after a road accident, the court will take into account that the Code was flouted in deciding whether the offence has been committed or the road user sued has been negligent. 

Let's take the example of a cyclist who stubbornly insists on riding in the centre of their lane on a long quiet and narrow road and so prevents a motorist behind - whether or not an emergency vehicle on call- from overtaking. The cyclist could not be prosecuted 'for failing to move over in contravention of the Highway Code'. But they could be prosecuted under section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for 'cycling on a road without reasonable consideration for other road users' which is an offence. And if an accident ensued and there was a civil claim, the failure to move over could be reckoned by the court in deciding whether that contributed to the accident so as to render the cyclist liable to pay out compensation to the victim. 

I have previously looked at how the civil courts deal with allegations of negligence against cyclists. See

https://www.breakinglaw.co.uk/search/label/negligence%20by%20cyclists

And yes, cyclists are required by law to comply with some speed limits and stop at red at traffic lights!

Happy motoring - and cycling.

Cyclists (and Motorists) At Fault

Cyclists as well as motorists are under a duty to take reasonable care on the roads (and to stop at red traffic lights!) which is pretty trite law. And it a duty that has recently been brought home in three civil claims by cyclists who had suffered serious injuries in road accidents. In one case, the cyclist lost the claim entirely: in the other two, the cyclist was held to have substantially contributed to the accident which means that their compensation will be reduced by the proportion of their own negligence. 

Case I* On the B5414, a single carriageway with one lane in each direction, at 8am on a dull day in January, the claimant was cycling alongside his friend: the claimant was on the outside. Just before reaching a puddle, the claimant veered to his offside onto the other lane as the defendant was driving his car on it in the opposite direction at a speed which was appropriate for the circumstances and road conditions. There was a collision between the claimant's cycle and the defendant's car. The trial judge decided that the claimant had had no good reason for moving to his offside. His friend had avoided the puddle without doing so. The defendant had been confronted at the last moment by the veering claimant. The argument that the defendant should have seen the claimant in time and either stopped or steered to his left was rejected. The claimant's appeal against the dismissal of his claim has been dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

Case 2** The claimant was riding her cycle and the defendant, ahead of her, was driving his articulated HGV along Whitby Road, Ellesmere Port. They were both going in the same direction. Having driven over a railway bridge, the defendant stopped at traffic lights at the junction of Whitby Road with a road to his left into which he had intended to turn. He was signalling left but straddling two lanes. When the lights turned to green, he started to make that turn. At the same time, the claimant passed along the nearside of his vehicle and across its front. There was a collision. At the civil trial, the claimant was held to have been 30% to blame for the accident and the defendant 70%. The defendant's challenge to that decision has been thrown out by the Court of Appeal. In relation to the claimant, she should have realised the defendant was straddling two lanes and she could not have safely assumed he was going to go straight ahead or turn right. She had cycled down the brow of a hill on the railway bridge at some speed and had failed to heed the advice in rule 73 of the Highway Code ("Pay particular attention to long vehicles which need a lot of room to manoeuvre at corners. Be aware that drivers may not see you.....Do not be tempted to ride in the space between them and the kerb."

Case 3***
Just before 7.30 am on a Sunday, the claimant was taking part in a cycling time trial on the westbound carriageway of the A27. The defendant in his van was travelling on the eastbound carriageway and went to turn right at a designated gap in the dual carriageway. He thought he was safe to  make the turn. He was wrong. The claimant was coming along and he would be crossing the claimant's path. The claimant collided with the van's rear as it crossed and the collision caused him catastrophic and life changing spinal injuries. At his speed, it would have taken the defendant approximately four seconds to have moved across the carriageway. The claimant had been cycling at between 20 and 25mph. He would have been approximately 40 metres away when the van first started to move across the junction which would have given him ample opportunity to apply his brakes and avoid the collision if he had been keeping reasonable observation of the road. The claimant may have swerved within lane 1 but that action was too little, too late. The claimant, for one reason or another, had had not been keeping a sufficient lookout. Because of that, a High Court judge has ruled that he was 20% to blame.

* Elson v Stilgoe [2017] EWCA Civ 193
** McGeer v McIntosh [2017] EWCA Civ 79
*** Rickson v Bhakar [2017] 264 (QB)