Motorists may face penalty for overtaking cyclists on some c

[trashbat]

Just so I understand you correctly, your question is:

'why should a cyclist who wants to be treated as an equal on the road, have to wear a helmet, have working lights front and back, wear high viz AND reflective clothing, be tested, licensed and insured to prove that they are competent enough to ride on a road, just like other road users ?'.

To name a few, pedestrians and horse riders are also road users. I hope you treat them as equals, despite them not being particularly encumbered by legislation.

You seem want to legislate to protect people from themselves, with the motor vehicle legal framework as your model. However as I hinted at, the motor vehicle framework is largely not there to protect people from themselves, but to protect people from others, as befits an activity where one can almost trivially cause death or millions of pounds of damage - not impossible, but certainly hard, on a bike.

The scenario you describe is both unpleasant and unfortunate, but in the extremes of your alternative, how many children will you allow to become obese and ultimately die early because it's not practical for them to get exercise?

[true blue]

I personally think that cyclists should carry the burden of making themselves visible, and use their brains to work out the safest routes from A - B. They should also be considerate of cars, and give priority to them (and pedestrians too, imo).

I strongly disagree. Whether I'm on the road as a driver, a cyclist (or indeed once in a blue moon as a horse rider) I am simply one road user dealing with others in what I think is the most appropriate manner.

As a cyclist, I tend to be up higher and with much better all-around visibility than cars. I can hear things that drivers can't. My size also makes me nimbler in congestion or tight spots. I'm mindful of available road width, and know whether one lane can accommodate an overtake of a cyclist of not. I use these aspects of being on a bike to cycle positively and assertively (e.g. taking the middle of a lane on a narrow road, weaving up through a queue of traffic when the lights ahead are red and local knowledge tells me that they are likely to remain so)- though never belligerently. That said, I'm cautious when it comes to changing lanes or moving across to turn right - identifying a likely gap, signalling etc. in good time. In moderate traffic, I may dismount and cross as a pedestrian, whereas in heavy, slow moving traffic I'm more likely to ride. None of these decisions are based on the fact that cars are bigger, or more important. They are based on a realistic ideas of my speed, traffic speed/density and a healthy dose of self-preservation.

As for cycles/pedestrians - the same rules apply as for cars/pedestrians. Stop at red lights, look before turning, stay off the pavement. Any driver repeatedly failing to comply would face prosecution, and I'd support the same principle being applied to cyclists.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

OK, I'll humour you, but you'll have to work for it.

What burden of responsibility do you think a cyclist should carry, and why?

Humour me? I'd take me very seriously, if I were you.

It's hard to take people seriously when they insist on being facetious and talking in riddles.

Just so I understand you correctly, your question is:

'why should a cyclist who wants to be treated as an equal on the road, have to wear a helmet, have working lights front and back, wear high viz AND reflective clothing, be tested, licensed and insured to prove that they are competent enough to ride on a road, just like other road users ?'.

Nope, that wasn't his question. You've turned an open question into a closed one. He didn't say "why should?" he said "what burden?" - it was for you to answer with your suggestion(s). For clarity, the following currently apply:

- working lights front and back are a legal requirement
- riding on the pavement is against the law as are:
- riding carelessly, dangerously or inconsiderately, or disobeying any sign or traffic light signal
- helmets and light coloured, fluorescent and reflective clothing are advised as part of rule 59
- training is recommended in the Highway Code, although not part of a rule
- licences and insurance are not legal requirements or mentioned in the Highway Code

You could ask the family and school friends of the 16 year old boy whose neck, left leg, left arm, several ribs etc were broken, along with multiple abdominal injuries and a fractured skull a few months ago, at the top of my road. He seemed to have inadvertantly done his level best to conceal his presence from other road users.

Roadside tracheal intubation and CPR is never an easy sight to see when done to an unconscious child and the car which I saw him ride out from a side turning and directly infront of, was instantly written off from the impact. I saw him impact the top of the windscreen, travel about 20 feet, his head hit the curb before bouncing off it and the rest of him hit the tree. I called the ambulance. I gave a witness statement and I held his inconsolable mother (they are neighbours and she came out to see what all the noise and sirens were about) at the scene. For the cost of some cycling gear and road training, the trauma of being forced to deal with this is simply not worth arguing against it. The car was travelling within the speed limit and it just so happened that the car infront of it was carrying two off-duty firemen.

Nobody wants to be exposed to such emotional trauma, and you have my sympathy. However, if we subtract the emotional content, what we're left with is a poorly trained cyclist who was careless with his own safety. No doubt he will either never ride a bike again, or think very carefully about his riding when he does. I hope he is recovering well.

I didn't see trashbat "arguing against gear or training". You put those words in his mouth.

So fine, haggle the toss of lights, training etc if you will but I don't find that argument a compelling enough case. It took me about a week before I was ready to get on my bike again and dealing with the recriminations of what I could have done to help avert this, has subsided.

Your interlocutor wasn't arguing the toss. He asked you a question.

Still, if someone wants to express their freedom to travel and express themself etc through their clothing and while riding a bike, that's up to them. Shame such obvious things aren't 'fashionable'.

Au contraire - there's lots of "fashionable" bike gear, but it has its own problems. You have to wear it, which means having somewhere to store it, changing facilities, extra washing, expense, and so on. When I learnt to ride a bike, none of this had been invented. Hi-viz materials didn't exist. Nobody knocked me off my bike. I learnt to follow the rules of the road, be positive but cautious, and motorists did the same. Now it seems we need "gear" to help us do the same job. Fancy gear or education - I know which works better!

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

I personally think that cyclists should carry the burden of making themselves visible, and use their brains to work out the safest routes from A - B. They should also be considerate of cars, and give priority to them (and pedestrians too, imo). The reasoning behind that idea is because cars are big metal boxes weighing more than a ton. If they hit you, on a bicycle, you are coming off worse. In that case, you should be the one taking measures to protect yourself and to help the drivers of cars help make your environment safer.

I'm a little confused by the comment about pedestrians. Are you saying:

- bikes should give priority to pedestrians?
- pedestrians should give way to cars?

In the first case, they already should where the pedestrians are either using a prescribed crossing and they have priority by virtue of being on the crossing (with the lights in their favour on light-controlled crossings), or they're crossing a road into which the road user (including bikes) is turning. The second case is just the reverse of the first - pedestrians give way except in the cases above.

I, and the Highway Code, disagree with you about vulnerable road users automatically ceding priority to other vehicles. There are measures, such as wearing visible clothing, that they can take to improve their safety, but to suggest they constantly stop or move out of the way of people in motorised vehicles is to reduce them to second-class road users, and that's not how the law views them at present. I hope it never becomes so. Currently the advice, and to some extent the law, regards the person capable of causing the greater injury and damage as having at least equal responsibility for ensuring the safety of the more vulnerable road user. In some European countries they've gone further - there's an assumed hierarchy of responsibility. Motorists are automatically assumed liable for damage caused in accidents involving cyclists - unless the cyclist has committed a traffic violation, which would have to be decided in court.

By your own admission, you don't drive yet. You have a disability. Yet you already have the attitude, even if only held as an opinion, that once in a car you will be more important than any cyclists or other vulnerable road users you will be sharing the road with. That is not correct. I think you need to work on that before starting to drive.

It's a two way system, one party cannot hold 100% responsibility, they both have to do things to accommodate the other.

99.99% of people understand that. Pedestrians don't deliberately (unless mentally unbalanced) put themselves in the path of moving cars without some sense of having priority - although this may sometimes be a mistaken belief. Neither do cyclists. But your point is sensible - there has to be give and take.

[Ancient]

For a basic understanding of what "Duty of care" means, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care is a reasonable start. Note that it applies "while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others". The chances of harming others whilst driving a motor vehicle are many times more than the chances of doing so whilst riding a pedal cycle. Motoring laws were first introduced to identify exactly what actions by motorists, were required as a duty of care. Unfortunately interpretation of what constitutes a 'careful driver' has dropped recently: The expectation that driving into blinding sun and killing someone is an unavoidable accident is just one example.

[MGF]

...
I agree that a sensible person would take those measures to protect themselves. However, English Law has little interest in protecting people from themselves, only protecting them from others. It may appear otherwise, but have a think about what you're legally not allowed or legally required to do and what the motivation for that is/was.

So, really, I should have asked 'What legally enshrined burden of responsibility do you think a cyclist should carry, and why?'

English law does attempt to protect people from themselves.

Who is responsible for an employee's safety at work? His employer? His colleagues? Himself?


Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

2. General duties of employers to their employees.

It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.


7. General duties of employees at work.

It shall be the duty of every employee while at work—

(a)to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work; and

(b)as regards any duty or requirement imposed on his employer or any other person by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions, to co-operate with him so far as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be performed or complied with


********************




It doesn't take much thought to realise that to protect the safety of an individual a burden must be placed on all those who can influence that safety, including a burden on those concerned to co-operate with others' in the discharge of their duties.

[trashbat]

I thought someone might pop up with that. H&S law has its roots very deep in protecting employees from unscrupulous employers, or indeed employees from the acts of their colleagues.

Regarding section 7 that you cited, I'd say it's mostly about enabling H&S legislation and enforcement to work effectively, and not principally about obliging you to look after yourself.

Generally things that are prohibited are because of other people. For example, you're not allowed to do gas-related DIY, yet it's primarily not because you might blow yourself up, but because you might kill all your neighbours or future owners of the property.

There are a few exceptions, I'll admit. Seatbelts would seem to be a topical one.

In the transport context, the evidence is very clear.

If you drive a passenger coach or 44 ton artic, the duty of care is great and is accompanied by extensive legislation; this is to say nothing of e.g. airline transport pilots. However we don't have a particular interest in protecting the rare and endangered species of trucker or bus driver, so it's about protecting the public from them.

If you drive a car, then legally you have to do a bunch of cumbersome stuff, but not as much as the above.

If you ride a bike, you don't have to do much at all, just what Mr C-W said earlier.

And if you're a pedestrian, the world is your carefree oyster, various locales' jaywalking laws aside.

This is all aside from moral responsibility, but in terms of what you enshrine in law, we've struck a balance I'm very comfortable with.

[MGF]

I thought someone might pop up with that. H&S law has its roots very deep in protecting employees from unscrupulous employers, or indeed employees from the acts of their colleagues. .

Yet Section 7 clearly imposes a statutory duty on an employee to take responsibility for his own safety. Why would it do that if the law is intended to protect employees from the actions of others?

If you continue to assert such a fundamentally flawed premise - that English law doesn't, as a matter of principle, protect people from themselves, - you are precluding any meaningful discussion on the subject.

[sussex2]

I thought someone might pop up with that. H&S law has its roots very deep in protecting employees from unscrupulous employers, or indeed employees from the acts of their colleagues.

Regarding section 7 that you cited, I'd say it's mostly about enabling H&S legislation and enforcement to work effectively, and not principally about obliging you to look after yourself.

Generally things that are prohibited are because of other people. For example, you're not allowed to do gas-related DIY, yet it's primarily not because you might blow yourself up, but because you might kill all your neighbours or future owners of the property.

There are a few exceptions, I'll admit. Seatbelts would seem to be a topical one.

In the transport context, the evidence is very clear.

If you drive a passenger coach or 44 ton artic, the duty of care is great and is accompanied by extensive legislation; this is to say nothing of e.g. airline transport pilots. However we don't have a particular interest in protecting the rare and endangered species of trucker or bus driver, so it's about protecting the public from them.

If you drive a car, then legally you have to do a bunch of cumbersome stuff, but not as much as the above.

If you ride a bike, you don't have to do much at all, just what Mr C-W said earlier.

And if you're a pedestrian, the world is your carefree oyster, various locales' jaywalking laws aside.

This is all aside from moral responsibility, but in terms of what you enshrine in law, we've struck a balance I'm very comfortable with.

I think our balance may be skewed too much in favour of the wheeled road user and on balance would prefer the system of priority used in some of our neighbouring countries.
We have a high off-crossing pedestrian casualty rate in the UK but a low on-crossing one. This suggests to me that the balance may be wrong. We have a few highly expensive pedestrian crossings but few places all road users can recognise as places where pedestrians may be crossing. We have not fully bought into the idea of shared space and even where they exist the priorities are still not clear.

[trashbat]

Yet Section 7 clearly imposes a statutory duty on an employee to take responsibility for his own safety. Why would it do that if the law is intended to protect employees from the actions of others?

It's necessary for multiple reasons. Suppose your employment involves you climbing a ladder, completely on your own. Your employer trains you in how to safely climb a ladder, and tries to make sure you do it, but when left to your own devices, you ignore him.

You fall off the ladder and break your back. Who is legally responsible? You are, because you've failed in your statutory duty, and it was important to define this to avoid an infinite duty of care on the employer. It also means you rather than your employer can be prosecuted for damage to others if the employer did their bit but you didn't yours.

If you feel that H&S law does have an interest in protecting a person - and only that person - from their own wrongdoing, show an appropriate example where enforcement action was taken. What would the public interest of such a case be? I don't think it's impossible, by the way, but it's not a major concern behind the existence of legislation.

[MGF]

Yet Section 7 clearly imposes a statutory duty on an employee to take responsibility for his own safety. Why would it do that if the law is intended to protect employees from the actions of others?

It's necessary for multiple reasons. Suppose your employment involves you climbing a ladder, completely on your own. Your employer trains you in how to safely climb a ladder, and tries to make sure you do it, but when left to your own devices, you ignore him.

You fall off the ladder and break your back. Who is legally responsible? You are, because you've failed in your statutory duty, and it was important to define this to avoid an infinite duty of care on the employer. It also means you rather than your employer can be prosecuted for damage to others if the employer did their bit but you didn't yours.

If you feel that H&S law does have an interest in protecting a person - and only that person - from their own wrongdoing, show an appropriate example where enforcement action was taken. What would the public interest of such a case be? I don't think it's impossible, by the way, but it's not a major concern behind the existence of legislation.

Your post demonstrates a lack of understanding of the substantive law and its application. I don't 'feel' anything. I am demonstrating that your assertion, that there is a principle in English law against imposing positive duties on people to protect themselves from harm, is misconceived.

If the positive duty is on the employer to provide the necessary training and appropriate equipment, in circumstances in which he has done so, he has discharged that duty. No offence.

It is not necessary to impose an additional statutory duty on the employee in order to absolve the employer from being liable for the employee's failure to use the equipment in accordance with his training.

Imposing positive duties on the employee to take reasonable precautions to protect his own safety contradicts your purported principle of law.

[trashbat]

your assertion that there is a principle in English law against imposing positive duties on people

I'm asserting no such thing; neither this, nor any notion that there is any particular legal principle about self-protection. You've attempted to make it an absolute. The point is much simpler: that there is little interest in it, thus little legal provision, anywhere in law. Note little, not none. There is however demonstrably a strong interest in protecting people from each other.

Since we're hooked on this particular point, I will concede this. The policy for prosecution reiterates that employees can be pursued for breaches related to their own safety (Appendix 1). I question whether true instances of this would satisfy the other tests, particularly the public interest one, and thus whether it ever happens, but there it is.

Does this mean the spirit behind and existence of H&S law is borne of protecting people from themselves? Absolutely not. Nor does it for almost all of our traffic legislation.

[TheInsanity1234]

I'm a little confused by the comment about pedestrians. Are you saying:

- bikes should give priority to pedestrians?
- pedestrians should give way to cars?

I may have worded what I meant wrong, as I am thinking really in terms of speed, not size. Any slower moving vehicle should cede priority to a faster moving vehicle. This then means pedestrians should be ceding priority to bikes, and bikes should have priority over pedestrians, but cede priority to cars, and the such-like.

I, and the Highway Code, disagree with you about vulnerable road users automatically ceding priority to other vehicles. There are measures, such as wearing visible clothing, that they can take to improve their safety, but to suggest they constantly stop or move out of the way of people in motorised vehicles is to reduce them to second-class road users, and that's not how the law views them at present.

I'm not suggesting that bikes should constantly stop, but I am suggesting that they should, every now and then, pull over, if they are riding along a road, and there is a long tailback behind them with very few opportunities to allow a car to safely overtake them. They should also try to minimise the delay that they can cause to faster moving vehicles by helping to accommodate their overtakes and progress.
You may say that this is merely (un)common courtesy, but I feel that it should be enforced by law. It is not an attitude of "cars are superior to bikes and pedestrians and therefore should take priority."
It is merely an attitude of taking the responsibility upon yourself to try and prevent any road-rage taking place.
I do this all the time when riding my bike along the road, if I hear a car coming, I will look forwards and if I feel it is safe to do so, I will slow down, move as close to the left as I can (or even stop if I feel it is necessary), so I can reduce the time spent on the other side of the road for the driver, and reduce the time I am holding the driver up. If I don't consider it safe, then I will move more into the centre of the lane, and try to signal to the driver using my road positioning that s/he should not take the risk of overtaking, as there is, for instance, a blind bend coming up. Here's the thing, I have never had any problem with the driver of the car overtaking me stupidly close, or being overtaken in dangerous places. Every time they go past, I have always put one hand up to say thank you, and they always reply with the same gesture. (A habit I picked up from the horse riders around here).

Now I know this may not exactly apply to London, but it works well for the country roads around the village I live in.

By your own admission, you don't drive yet. You have a disability. Yet you already have the attitude, even if only held as an opinion, that once in a car you will be more important than any cyclists or other vulnerable road users you will be sharing the road with. That is not correct. I think you need to work on that before starting to drive.

Only because my age restricts me from doing so. I am going to presume that you are saying that my disability is that I don't drive.
I don't hold any such opinion. I understand that if there was a pedestrian in the middle of the road, I would do my best to ensure their safety by taking the appropriate measures, such as stopping to allow them to continue crossing. All I am saying, is that the slower ones allow the faster ones to continue forwards at their higher speed, as it is their choice to travel at that higher speed, and the slower ones should not take any responsibility of controlling the speed of the faster ones, but merely to try and accommodate them if practical.

I will assure you that I will be carrying my bike-riding attitude into my driving attitude, which is if someone wants to go faster, let them. I will do my utmost best to allow them to overtake safely and continue on their merry way.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

I may have worded what I meant wrong, as I am thinking really in terms of speed, not size. Any slower moving vehicle should cede priority to a faster moving vehicle. This then means pedestrians should be ceding priority to bikes, and bikes should have priority over pedestrians, but cede priority to cars, and the such-like.

Sorry, that's not what the Highway Code says. We all share the road. Each of us has some responsibility for our own safety, and for that of others. If faster moving traffic wishes to move faster, it must overtake the slower moving ones. There is already a clause in the HC about pulling over if you're causing a long tailback (Rule 169). This is principally there for drivers of very slow vehicles like tractors and steam-powered vehicles, or caravans etc. where they are very hard to overtake due to their size. This doesn't normally apply to bikes. Pedestrians can usually hop up on the verge or something.

I'm not suggesting that bikes should constantly stop, but I am suggesting that they should, every now and then, pull over, if they are riding along a road, and there is a long tailback behind them with very few opportunities to allow a car to safely overtake them.

See above about the actual HC position.

It is merely an attitude of taking the responsibility upon yourself to try and prevent any road-rage taking place.

A sad inditement of the times. "I stop and let them past because I'm scared they''ll get out of their car and beat me up".

By your own admission, you don't drive yet. You have a disability.

Only because my age restricts me from doing so. I am going to presume that you are saying that my disability is that I don't drive.

I thought you had said in an earlier post that you were partially deaf? Apologies if I have misunderstood. I only mentioned it because I would have hoped that while you probably expect more courtesy from others, you should understand the need for it on your own part as well. No insult or criticism was intended.

All I am saying, is that the slower ones allow the faster ones to continue forwards at their higher speed, as it is their choice to travel at that higher speed, and the slower ones should not take any responsibility of controlling the speed of the faster ones, but merely to try and accommodate them if practical.

The HC merely says a few things about how to facilitate others overtaking you, and the clause about tailbacks. You're adding extra rules for your own convenience. I'd advise against that.

[MGF]

I agree that a sensible person would take those measures to protect themselves. However, English law has little interest in protecting people from themselves, only protecting them from others. It may appear otherwise, but have a think about what you're legally not allowed or legally required to do and what the motivation for that is/was.

So, really, I should have asked 'What legally enshrined burden of responsibility do you think a cyclist should carry, and why?'

your assertion that there is a principle in English law against imposing positive duties on people

I'm asserting no such thing; neither this, nor any notion that there is any particular legal principle about self-protection. You've attempted to make it an absolute. The point is much simpler: that there is little interest in it, thus little legal provision, anywhere in law. Note little, not none. There is however demonstrably a strong interest in protecting people from each other.

You requested examples of legal duties that could be imposed on cyclists in the context of a legal system that doesn't generally attempt to protect people from themselves. In your words "only protecting them from others".

You then suggested we should think about your observation. If you weren't intending the observation to act as a fetter on the extent of possible "legally enshrined burden of responsibility" what was the purpose of qualifying your earlier request with it?

Does this mean the spirit behind and existence of H&S law is borne of protecting people from themselves? Absolutely not. Nor does it for almost all of our traffic legislation.

I haven't used the word 'absolutely' and you have used it without foundation.

The stated purpose of both H&S and road safety legislation is to minimise casualties.

The law doesn't make a distinction between risking causing yourself to be a casualty or risking causing someone else to be a casualty.

It wouldn't make sense if it did as it couldn't achieve its stated purpose.

I think you have been reading too much and too little.

There are policy reasons as to why we might not want to impose duties on cyclists but a reluctance to protect cyclists from themselves isn't one of them.