Highway Code for cyclists

The AA has published an HC for cyclists

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/aa-publishes-cyclist-s-highway-code/019648

I'm divided over this. On one hand who the fuck are the AA to come out as an authority on cycling matters, on the other, there are plenty who would benefit from instructions issued by some pseudo-authority.

Same here - and compounded by the fact that they want £4.99 for it.

Part of the Highway code is already aimed at cyclists. anyone know how this is different apart from the fluff about buying a bike? Or is the just same and so wasn't it published before this, but just part of the larger code?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82

Seems like a way to make some dough for the AA. I'm in a bad mood with them this month anyway as they tried to put my home insurance up by about 150% and added about 400% to the cost of my breakdown cover. Switched though, so stuff them.

Both probably refer to the legislation (The official HC does at least), but it seems like a pretty clear rehash of the cycling section within the HC.

On one hand who the fuck are the AA to come out as an authority on cycling matters

My first thought too, then I thoughts that it's about time that driving orgs got on board with communicating information that would improve transport culture and since this is based on bikeability it will legitimise cyclists ride in the middle of the lane in many instances... and if the AA say it it must be true

I'd like to read it first before passing judgement. But not for £4.99.

From the article:

The AA Cyclist's Highway Code contains the cycling-specific information from the standard Highway Code as well as cycle maintenance tips and guidance for new cyclists based on Bikeability teachings.

So you can buy this, which if it is "complete" includes the bit about riding a bike and driving a car for £1.74 or you buy the massively shorter version with just the pedaling bit of the code and with some probably average advice about buying a bike for £4.99. Sounds about right.

http://dash4it.co.uk/aa-the-highway-code.html?___store=d4it_en&gclid=CPi0kr6Cls0CFdZsGwodYbMGSA

Feels weird to be defending a motoring organisation, but...

Edmund King has been a consistently pro-cycling AA president which is great. He cycles himself, is a member of the DfT's Cycling Safety Stakeholder Group and in 2012 called cyclist-hating drivers 'absolute idiots'.

This this isn't the first time the AA have done things on cycling so they're not exactly suddenly coming out as an authority on cycling matters. They have also worked with Carlton Reid, the Editor of Bike Biz on the content, which seems like a sensible approach.

For what it's worth the AA is now mostly commercial (it's a FTSE 250 company) but also has a trust which was created to continue its public interest and road safety activities. I don't know if the £4.99 goes to the commercial arm or the trust but it's the price of a pint in a lot of London pubs so it doesn't seem outrageous.

Personally I think it's a good thing that an organisation which has traditionally only cared about motorists is now taking an interest in cycling. Perhaps it's a sign of changing times.

Agree completely. As to defending a driving org, if that org engages positively with it's members about cycling/walking then that is to be encouraged

I'm just not sure publishing something that is already published is quite as impressive as actually contributing something new. Also, does anyone actually think the cycling part of the highway code is any good? Rule one is wear a helmet. Rule two is wear some hi vis...I'm sure we've been here before.

Rule one is wear a helmet. Rule two is wear some hi vis...I'm sure we've been here before.

Is this really a thing? These are the first rules?

It's actually 1 and 3
http://toptests.co.uk/highway-code/
Somewhere near page 25 in the pdf

Can read the highway code rules here https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82

Dunno why you'd buy this when it's all on GOV.UK

Ah good. It says 'should' so it's advice, not dogma. Not rules.

They are not laws but it is referred to as 'rule 59'.

They are not laws

Unfortunately true - ridiculously the whole Highway Code is advice, not law.

Which results in judges often explicitly directing jurors to ignore the Highway Code when motorists have killed or seriously injured a cyclist.

It's insane.

ridiculously the whole Highway Code is advice, not law.

Can you elaborate this @fox ? What exact status do the 'Must' rules have? Do you know what makes something dangerous driving as opposed to careless?

I think you already know that where the HC states 'must' it is quoting or referring to legislation. Where it does not say 'must' then it simply advice proposed by the dft, commented on by interested bodies then published as informed advice, regardless if they took any of the comments onboard.

Dangerous v careless, ask the cps. It seems dangerous is a there be dragons issue when they can get a lighter but easier conviction using careless.

Not a lot. From the official Highway Code site:
Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability.

So basically if you don't end up in court there's no reason to follow any of it.

A number of judges have directed jurors to disregard the code when reaching verdicts on the grounds that it is not law. One example here:
http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2014/02/12/futility/

In this example the judge directed the jury to ignore the advice on rules 93 and 237, advising drivers to slow down or stop if dazzled. Because why should motorists slow down if they can't see where they're going? Clearly the dead person and the person who got airlifted to hospital are necessary sacrifices to our need to get everywhere quickly even when we can't see the fuck where we're going.

(Pardon my French but this makes me so angry).

I have definitely heard of others, including more recently, but can't find the info now.

IANAL but I wonder if there is a possibility that the judges telling jurors to disregard the Code is precedent forming. I guess it doesn't matter given that first paragraph.

One of the problems is there are differing levels to how the 'not law' parts should be regarded IMO. As said above, a driver who doesn't slow down when dazzled should really be seen as driving carelessly at least and probably dangerously. However a cyclist who decides not to wear a silly fluro lanyard is not being careless or dangerous. However in the highway code, both bits of advice get similar footing. This is what I imagine makes it difficult for it to be applied in court sensibly.

Thanks ^ ^^
So the law is such a vague tool in this area where more lives are put ar risk than any other area..which beggars belief.

How do you think we ended up in this sorry state while in most other areas the law had a degree of clarity?

My recent experience leads me to believe that the authorities use / ignore the Highway Code to suit their own purposes.

I reported a driver who overtook me just as I had my arm out signalling I was turning right. I was told by the popo that a Traffic Officer had looked at my video and I was actually at fault for breaking the Highway Code! I disagreed but did not have a copy to hand to make my case.

It turns out the code says that cyclists MAY wish to dismount when turning right on a busy road, and push their bike across the road. However the code also states that drivers MUST NOT overtake any vehicle indicating right.

So in my case the Traffic Officer had chosen the bit of the code that meant he / she did not have to do anything about my complaint. Thanks A&S popo, way to go!

My thoughts on the AA's code? They should make it compulsory reading for all their driving members, then we may have a few less ' the highway code says...' comments shouted at us.

I'm not sure I can add much to what's already been said apart from regarding David's point as to why the law relating to the application of the Highway Code seems vague.

Road traffic incidents involve specific sets of facts which boil down to the actions of the different road users, often in the heat of the moment. Whilst there are many cases which are pretty clear cut, a lot of cases turn on their own facts. A court wouldn't want their hands to be tied when deciding a case because they need into account all the circumstances surrounding an incident. This is the same whether it is a criminal or a civil case.

For instance, if a motorist were driving at 40mph in a small vehicle on a fine day with good visibility and little traffic that may be seen as reasonable. However, a lorry driver going at 40mph on the same stretch of road driving in fog with heavy traffic may be unreasonable.