Go to content Go to navigation Go to search

Highway Code Cycle Lane Danger!
25.02.06 by Buffalo Bill

This press release was forwarded to me with the following message: ‘as if you needed anything more to get agitated about’. Insurance companies have a policy of trying to shift some of the blame of a collision to the victim, and this proposed change to the Highway Code will allow them to do exactly that.

_The Cyclists Touring Club issued the following warning this week:

Cyclists driven off road by new Highway Code

A seemingly innocuous addition to the new Highway Code, which tells cyclists to ‘use cycle facilities…where provided’, will have serious legal implications for those who choose to cycle on the road, according to national cyclists’ organisation, CTC.

CTC fears insurance companies are likely to use the wording of the new Code, which has recently been re-drafted, as an excuse to reduce the amount of compensation that they pay if a motorist hits a cyclist that has chosen to use a road rather than a nearby cycle facility.

CTC Campaigns & Policy Manager, Roger Geffen, said: “Cyclists have the right to choose a direct route using roads rather than the meandering, badly-designed and poorly-maintained paths that often pass as cycle facilities. This well-intentioned but highly prejudicial Highway Code rule must be changed before it’s too late.”

A similar rule in the existing Highway Code, which states that cycle helmets ‘should’ be worn has caused serious problems for cyclists, including 9-year-old cyclist Darren Coombs who was left permanently disabled after being hit by a car. Darren’s parents then had to face the claim that they themselves were guilty of “contributory negligence” for allowing him to ride unaccompanied and without a helmet. There was no legal requirement for Darren to wear a helmet – the actions of the insurance company stemmed entirely from the Highway Code wording.

CTC believes the new rule about using cycle facilities is even more insidious, as it will be almost impossible to argue against contributory negligence claims based on non-use of a cycle facility. However strongly the cyclist might argue that their decision not to use the facility was a rational one, the courts are almost bound to conclude that the collision would have been avoided if the cyclist had been in a different place at the time.

CTC is calling on all cyclists to spend less than two minutes joining its online campaign to see:

The removal of all words (e.g. those relating to cycle facilities and helmets) which may give rise to unwarranted “contributory negligence” claims against cyclists;

Stronger advice to drivers on interacting safely with cyclists (particularly the advice on leaving an adequate gap when overtaking a cyclist);

All advice on cycling (particularly the advice on negotiating roundabouts) to be in line with the new National Standard for cycle training

A recommendation to anyone wishing to improve their confidence and safety to undertake cycle training to the National Standard.

The Highway Code consultation ends on 10th May 2006._

  1. Insurance companies, as we all know, are a bunch of old cants.

    some muppet    3 March 2006, 14:53    #
  Textile help

<  ·  >