In the news

A friend who is getting a bmx from Evans for bmx track use only is having ball ache getting it with one brake, said she needs to unbuild it a bit now it's arrived.

To complete the moronic front page they also use "abortion on demand"

Indeed. Much worse than having regular, annual abortions for all women. Prevention abortions for the win.

<653mm limit surely so shouldn't be affected?

Either way it's not a huge job to remove front brake on a bmx, unless it's a Big Daddy Rooster with a Giro, then they'd just need to wait for it to fall apart...

Letter from DfT to all local authorities.
Because We all want safe roads

1 Attachment

• 170912 Ltr to LAs re cyclist responsibilities_updated FINAL[52935].pdf

Was a GT of some sort.

65cm isn't very tall, the wheel alone on a bmx is 50cm tall so 15cm for head tube, heatset, bars...

The 653mm limit is on the seat height only

Are letters about road safety sent out to LAs regularly or is this a special case?
Hard to disagree with the content, but it smacks of yet more persecution.

I guess the LAs are unlikely to do much anyway - just put it on the growing pile of unaffordable directives to ignore.

This bit though:

The Highway Code clearly sets out rules for cyclists including on
equipment, clothing and use of lanes and crossings

What rules on clothing are there other than the overarching law on not being naked in public?

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

"
Rule 59

Clothing. You should wear

a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.

"

Of course, "should" means it is not a legal requirement, only advisory.

Highway code rule 59:

Clothing. You should wear

• a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
  
• appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
  
• light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
  
• reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.
  
  

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

I do wish they wouldnt call them rules when they're not. Just leads to this kind of rubbish. Some of the rules are rules and some of the rules are just advice.

The way it's framed makes it sound like the rule for the front brake is equivlent to the rules on clothing when they're not. Its all just a bit of a mess really.

Why hasnt he written to all organisations with people who might drive to/from or for work? It's all the biggest over reaction I think I've ever encountered for one single (tragic) death.

"
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the 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. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
"

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction#wording-of-the-highway-code

The level of my responsibility for a given accident could therefore be altered by whether I was
wearing a reflective ankle bracelet. Great.

I suppose if you're cycling around in the dead of night on a full black bike with all black clothes and no lights and you get hit by a car, it sort of is your own fault. If you get hit by a car riding a normal bike, wearing normal clothes, without a reflective ankle bracelet in the day time it's the driver's fault.

It would be hard to legislate that, really, so I suppose a law with some wiggle room is the best way to deal with it.

Does the DfT send a similar letter to all LAs when a vehicle kils a pedestrian, or a cyclist, or another vehicle occupant?

[No need to answer,
'cos we all know the answer.]

"just-in-time", surely.

Yeah, Jesse Norman is a busy boy, he sends 5 of these letters a day, everyday of the year.

That must be one disillusioned spad!

I suppose if you're cycling around in the dead of night on a full black bike with all black clothes and no lights and you get hit by a car, it sort of is your own fault

What about drivers looking and having their headlights on?

I suppose if you're cycling around in the dead of night on a full black bike with all black clothes and no lights and you get hit by a car, it sort of is your own fault.

The point of liability is that it isn't binary.

@skydancer @Greenbank I was trying to take it to the logical extremes. Imagine a cyclist riding down the centre of a straight road, who is hit from behind by a car.

In the case of a perfectly camouflaged cyclist who has somehow made themselves completely invisible to other road users, the driver (who is not breaking any other laws) would be blameless and the cyclist 100% at fault.

At the other extreme - a cyclist wearing normal clothes, in the day time, in ideal conditions - the driver should be able to see the cyclist. If the driver hits the cyclist from behind again, the driver is 100% at fault, and the cyclist has done absolutely nothing wrong.

The point is that in the real world everything falls somewhere between those two scenarios. I don't think you could write a law that says "when it's darker than this amount of illumination, this item of clothing/safety gear is required". So you write an ambiguous law instead, and let a judge decide on a case-by-case basis.

a cyclist wearing normal clothes, in the day time, in ideal conditions - the driver should be able to see the cyclist. If the driver hits the cyclist from behind again, the driver is 100% at fault, and the cyclist has done absolutely nothing wrong.

And, should the driver kill said cyclist, the police will not bother investigating, the CPS will not prosecute, and a jury in a private prosecution will acquit in 12 minutes or so.

Maybe i'm misreading this, but centre top & centre bottom? That's the same image, but with differing skin tone?

Maybe i'm misreading this, but centre top & centre bottom? That's the same image, but with differing skin tone?

No, I assume (and hope) that it's a not completely opaque veil over the face.