B*****y Cyclists

Only a 'code' for guidance, not the law ;-)
Must at the start of the paragraph, means you can be prosecuted for not adhering to it. So you are wrong.
"Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence."
I hope you are not a road user.
 
Must at the start of the paragraph, means you can be prosecuted for not adhering to it. So you are wrong.
"Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence."
I hope you are not a road user.
If its the law then it includes reference to the relevant law but as for the rest.........
 
If its the law then it includes reference to the relevant law but as for the rest.........
You can also be prosecuted for careless driving if you willfully ignore the 'advice'. E.g approach and enter a roundabout from the LH lane of a dual carriageway and then cut across traffic to turn right
 
If its the law then it includes reference to the relevant law but as for the rest.........
The two that you said were just guidance started with MUST which identifies them as legal requirements, or are you seriously suggesting that the law about not cycling or walking on motorways are just suggestions, let me guess you are a FOTL?
 
The two that you said were just guidance started with MUST which identifies them as legal requirements, or are you seriously suggesting that the law about not cycling or walking on motorways are just suggestions, let me guess you are a FOTL?
I think you're confusing me with someone else.
 
Only a 'code' for guidance, not the law ;-)
Must at the start of the paragraph, means you can be prosecuted for not adhering to it. So you are wrong.
"Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence."
I hope you are not a road user.
If its the law then it includes reference to the relevant law but as for the rest.........
The two that you said were just guidance started with MUST which identifies them as legal requirements, or are you seriously suggesting that the law about not cycling or walking on motorways are just suggestions, let me guess you are a FOTL?
I think you're confusing me with someone else.
Obviously not.
 

clanky

War Hero
The sort of lounge bar barrister who makes that argument doesn't understand how soft law and umbrella legislation actually works. A good way to explain it is to compare the HC with the relationship with an Approved Code of Practice and the HASAWA.
 
Well they are usually the one's who think laws are just "optional guidelines".
That's not what I said or implied :) The highway code is not a bible of traffic laws, some are laws and some are guidance.
 
That's not what I said or implied :) The highway code is not a bible of traffic laws, some are laws and some are guidance.
And the paragraphs suggested to you were in fact laws.
 

daz

LE
And the paragraphs suggested to you were in fact laws.
Rule 146
Adapt your driving to the appropriate type and condition of road you are on.

In particular, do not treat speed limits as a target. It is often not appropriate or safe to drive at the maximum speed limit, take the road and traffic conditions into account.

Be prepared for unexpected or difficult situations, for example, the road being blocked beyond a blind bend.

Be prepared to adjust your speed as a precaution where there are junctions, be prepared for road users emerging
in side roads and country lanes look out for unmarked junctions where nobody has priority

be prepared to stop at traffic control systems, road works, pedestrian crossings or traffic lights as necessary
try to anticipate what pedestrians and cyclists might do.

If pedestrians, particularly children, are looking the other way, they may step out into the road without seeing you.

Rule 147
Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care (see Rule 204).

you MUST NOT throw anything out of a vehicle; for example, food or food packaging, cigarette ends, cans, paper or carrier bags. This can endanger other road users, particularly motorcyclists and cyclists.

try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well.
be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake.

do not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey.

slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them.

One Law to bind everyone, you'd of been better off quoting Rule 145
Rule 144
You MUST NOT

  • drive dangerously
  • drive without due care and attention
  • drive without reasonable consideration for other road users.
Law RTA 1988 sects 2 & 3 as amended by RTA 1991

:)
 
Rule 146
Adapt your driving to the appropriate type and condition of road you are on.

In particular, do not treat speed limits as a target. It is often not appropriate or safe to drive at the maximum speed limit, take the road and traffic conditions into account.

Be prepared for unexpected or difficult situations, for example, the road being blocked beyond a blind bend.

Be prepared to adjust your speed as a precaution where there are junctions, be prepared for road users emerging
in side roads and country lanes look out for unmarked junctions where nobody has priority

be prepared to stop at traffic control systems, road works, pedestrian crossings or traffic lights as necessary
try to anticipate what pedestrians and cyclists might do.

If pedestrians, particularly children, are looking the other way, they may step out into the road without seeing you.

Rule 147
Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care (see Rule 204).

you MUST NOT throw anything out of a vehicle; for example, food or food packaging, cigarette ends, cans, paper or carrier bags. This can endanger other road users, particularly motorcyclists and cyclists.

try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well.
be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake.

do not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey.

slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them.

One Law to bind everyone, you'd of been better off quoting Rule 145
Rule 144
You MUST NOT

  • drive dangerously
  • drive without due care and attention
  • drive without reasonable consideration for other road users.
Law RTA 1988 sects 2 & 3 as amended by RTA 1991

:)
I am quite sure the bit I underlined could be used to prosecute cyclists who toddle along at <10mph on the road causing a large tailback, right next to a swanky new segregated cycle lane.
 

daz

LE
I am quite sure the bit I underlined could be used to prosecute cyclists who toddle along at <10mph on the road causing a large tailback, right next to a swanky new segregated cycle lane.
Rule 144? That's the one I added as it was more relevant than the two originally suggested - as an aside, the law quoted in Rule 147 is not a Road Traffic Law, it's the Environmental Protection Act 1990
 
I feel very alienated by all this cycle whining, living out in the middle of bald prairie cyclists are a rare sight you can see them in towns and its environs, out on the prairie its either very cold-20 or-30c or hot 20c or 30c and windy, very windy. I've rescued a few that I have found battling a wind, exhausted and de-hydrated in the middle of nowhere you either have to be very fit or very ignorant to brave cycling out here. then of course there are rednecks that will shoot at you for fun coyotes and bears that want to eat you and plenty of other unpleasant wild life and we will dispose of any camera evidence before throwing you and your bike into a coulee to rot.
 

Niamac

GCM
Last attempt.

No Highway Code rules were broken by me. I did not try to admonish him by sounding my horn or any other inconsiderate action. What you saw there was a still from a video and you do not know the speeds of the traffic or when I first saw him. I could have stopped within the distance and not run into him. If he had overbalanced and stepped into the road or just suddenly decided to join the road again that would not have helped. Fortunately I had just checked my off side mirror and was able safely to move to the extreme right of the lane without danger although I was not able to give him the road space that is my normal driving.

The point that I was trying to make that was that he was putting himself and other road users at risk by not getting away from a potentially dangerous location but being more concerned about his bike (or his stockbroker).

He was also breaking HC Rules 59 and 70. No helmet, neutral clothing and leaving his bicycle where it caused an obstruction.

I notice that there is no general Rule like 146 and 147 (for considerate behaviour) in the section of the Highway Code applicable to cyclists. Not all cyclists are angels any more than all drivers are demons.
 
The two that you said were just guidance started with MUST which identifies them as legal requirements, or are you seriously suggesting that the law about not cycling or walking on motorways are just suggestions, let me guess you are a FOTL?
I think, from my NEEBOSH days, a code is just that a code of conduct. I haven't read the Highway Code for a number of days and am not legally trained. However, it's my understanding (and I'm open to correction) that if you "break" the code you may be prosecuted under a relative law?
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer

clanky

War Hero
Last attempt.

No Highway Code rules were broken by me. I did not try to admonish him by sounding my horn or any other inconsiderate action. What you saw there was a still from a video and you do not know the speeds of the traffic or when I first saw him. I could have stopped within the distance and not run into him. If he had overbalanced and stepped into the road or just suddenly decided to join the road again that would not have helped. Fortunately I had just checked my off side mirror and was able safely to move to the extreme right of the lane without danger although I was not able to give him the road space that is my normal driving.

The point that I was trying to make that was that he was putting himself and other road users at risk by not getting away from a potentially dangerous location but being more concerned about his bike (or his stockbroker).

He was also breaking HC Rules 59 and 70. No helmet, neutral clothing and leaving his bicycle where it caused an obstruction.

I notice that there is no general Rule like 146 and 147 (for considerate behaviour) in the section of the Highway Code applicable to cyclists. Not all cyclists are angels any more than all drivers are demons.
Sadly rules 59 and 70 start with should not must. The reason helmets and hi vis aren't mandatory is that the research suggests that the reduced uptake rates outweigh the marginal safety benefits. Of course helmet use is most common amongst the mamil club riders so derided in this thread. My Mrs was shocked when she found out what I paid for my Kask Mojito.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top