Campaign for all Cyclists to Follow the Highway Code

Ladies and Gentlemen,

95% of cyclists on the road do not meet or adhere to the Highway Code regulations (please see here: https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82) that govern operating bicycles on the public highway.  THE LCC SHOULD PLEASE CAMPAIGN TO GET ALL CYCLISTS TO FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE ROAD THAT EVERY OTHER ROAD USER MUST OBEY, AND THEN THERE WILL BE FAR FEWER PROBLEMS.  BRITAINS ROADS ARE A CONGESTED AND DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENT, AND NOT A PLAYGROUND.  THE RULES PUT IN PLACE BY THE GOVERNMENT VIA THE HIGHWAY CODE REFLECT THIS FACT.  THEY ARE THERE FOR THE SAFETY OF ALL ROAD USERS, AND ARE STATED FOR THAT EXACT PURPOSE.

It is a pleasure to see cyclists that do adhere to the Highway Code, and I show them all the due courtesy and consideration as other road users; other road users who, I point out, have to pay great amounts of money in insurance, taxes and duties, as well as pass a minimum driving proficiency test in order to use the public highway.  Please take a moment to review the Highway Code rules via the above hyperlink, and ask yourself if you meet or adhere to them.  They are they to protect YOU.  If you do not adhere to them, and are - God forbid - involved in an incident, the blame may well rest with you for not adhering to the Law.

A licensing and insurance system should be put into place for cyclists, for the benefit of all road users, and as other road users have to bear.  And, before you all start on some diatribe about Freedom and Human Rights, the British Government had an annual 'Bicycle Ownership and Operation' license in ALL of its colonies, and it still exists today in some of them.  If this abhorrent tax on poor people was acceptable to the British then, it can also be here in Britain itself, especially where the population can easily afford it.

 

Thank-you

This post was edited by HS111 at 09:07pm 24 Sep 2013.

Replies

It's nice to know that having to take a test to gain a licence, pay for insurance and pay VED and fuel duty eliminate vehicle accidents and deaths of other road users. What motoring organisations have you contacted to ask them to campaign for the same thing?

This post was edited by marco panettone at 09:19am 17 Sep 2013.

We do campaign for cyclists to adhere to the highway code and to respect other road users. I would ask drivers the same question as you have of cyclists do they all follow the highway code, the simple answer is no.

Many of us have 3rd party insurance for ourselves already, especially all members of LCC and CTC.

I am afriad you are mistaken about affordability. The reason why many people take up cycling or do not have a bike or car is they simply cannot afford it. Cycling is an affordable to get around especially for those who cannot afford a car.

I am glad you have taken the time to read the highway code so I am sure you know how to correctly handle interactions with cyclists and pedestrians and you are at least one driver who follows them (I assume you follow them).

@HS111... When you say: "It is a pleasure to see cyclists that do adhere to the Highway Code, and I show them all the due courtesy and consideration as other road users"... Does this mean you disregard the safety of vulnerable cyclists and risk killing them just because you might think they don't adhere to rules?

A while ago I had a driver yell at me for not using the cycle path (despite that at 20mph, it would have been illegal for me to have done so). But they adopted an anti-social attitude and put me in harm’s way by violating rule 163 of the Highway Code... All while exhibiting their sentiments that I was the rule violator.

I know not all drivers are like this, but it does make you wonder how some people think!

Also @HS111, you say "95% of cyclists on the road do not meet or adhere to the Highway Code"; have you explored the roads of the United Kingdom and proved this for yourself, or is it just a figure you grabbed from thin air?

oh a troll, that's nice

  • By Dave H at 12:39am 19 Sep 2013

Hmmm obviously a troll given there is no validation for the 95% claim. I'd love to know if there is, as most of the cyclists I see and those I know observe the Highway Code botgh when cycling and driving a motor vehicle - perhaps it is worth pointing out the percentage wise there is a higher percentage of cyclists with driving licences then the UK national average.

What I'd be really interested in hearing from out wee trolling friend is his response to the detail from a YouGov survey of drivers, where 54% of the responding sample admitted to breaking the classic law for which everyone pillories cyclists namely s.72 of the Highways Act 1835 (s.129(5) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 North of the Border) Cyclists were first officially covered by this legislation in 1888 with the Local Government Act although case law had been established in 1878 with a first prosecution. It took a further 15 years before the Motor Car Act of 1903 included motor cars in the definition of a carriage, and thus (in theory) judged equally with cyclists when they drive or ride a carriage or animals on a footway.

However there seems to be a disportionate enforcement regime with cyclists getting FPN's regularly for footway cycling but hardly any prosecutions for drivers, whilst the clear evidence from deaths and serious injuries to pedestrians on a footway, and the number of cars actually parked thereon that by far the greater offenders are driving cars.  Perhaps HS111 has an answer for this little conundrum.

Oh and as for the taxes and duties stuff it is a rather sad load of tosh, I pay a substantial amount in local and national taxation towards the provision of roads on which I am normally the traffic on foot or on a bicycle, and feel mighty disappointed to find that the provision for walking and cycling is risible compared to that for motor traffic. It is particularly damning to note that locally a measure to ensure the continuity of a significant local route, over 300 years old, and severed by the construction of a motorway has remained incomplete for a period of nearly 40 years, and has only now be finished because of a major contribution from the National Lottery Fund. Frankly that really shows up the failure in our transport network delivery - when a project which should have been completed 40 years ago and paid for as part of the transport system has to be funded by a Lottery Fund hand-out.

Oh and I've had a driving licence for 43 years now, been a cyclist for 48 years, but last owned a car full time in 1976, as since then I realised that spending so much on something I used so little was a mug's game (most cars sit idle for over 90% of the time, and enjoy subsidised 'parking' for most locations where they are stored)

Plus a small PS - If you use other dangerous equipment such as chain saws, guns, etc then few would argue against a requirement that you are trained, tested, and licensed, and have to carry a suitable autonomous third party insurance cover as a minimum when you use such items. There is automatically a presumption of liability when any incident occurs, as you are using equipment which can cause substantial damage and harm, even if the 'victim' is the architect of their own misfortune through walking in to the 'line of fire'. The same principle applies for motor vehicles and was considered from the outset in the 1903 Act, (requirement to provide particulars and for third party insurance) unfortunately the full delivery of that presumption of liability (or duty of care) has never been properly completed.   

This post was edited by Dave H at 12:51am 19 Sep 2013.

Troll

@Dave H. An excellent explanation, and more eloquent than I could have done. Thanks for sharing.

Good Gordon Highlanders, how long do we have to put up with this sort of nonsense from people like HS111? It’s probably indicative that he hides behind a pseudonym rather than give his full name in public. The answers are obvious: 

Firstly, if he believes that 95% (a totally unsubstantiated claim) of cyclists ignore the Highway Code then it is as sure as eggs is eggs that more than 95% of drivers do as well – and they drive a contraption which currently kills almost 2,000 people a year and maims probably ten times as many. 

Secondly, the taxation to which he refers is NOT hypothecated to roads any more than taxes on cigarettes go to pay for the ills caused by smoking. Those taxes and dutiesgo to pay for schools, hospitals, our soldiers in Iraq, social security payments, foreign aid, courts, prisons, concert halls, trains, police and a host of civil servants to manage them. Even car insurance is spread across other areas and ‘pays for’ earthquakes and mobile phone theft. 

The chances are that I may pay more in tax than HS111; the reason is that I probably earn more than he does and therefore pay more in income tax and my disposal income is spent on more VAT. That doesn’t mean that I expect to get more back from the system as a result: I expect it to be spent on the most vulnerable – the elderly, the sick, children in school – and on improving the quality of life – which includes making cycling safe for myself, my wife and my children.

  • By SimonS at 10:22am 24 Sep 2013
WHEN YOU MAKE COMMENTS IN ALL CAPITALS AND BANG ON ABOUT THE EMPIRE YOU SHOW THE WORLD THAT YOU ARE UTTERLY INSANE. Put the trolls in the zoo!

Our troll sounds like the sort of guy who spent a full minute swearing at me for asking why he was in an ASL and using his phone - and then when he drove off told me off for swearing at him - when the nearest I'd got to swearing was to call him an idiot !

Post a reply

Sign in to post a reply.