- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
London cyclist approaching junction.jpg‘Nonsense’ Express article fuels ‘toxic road environment’ says Cycling UK
Cycling UK says that an article on the Express.co.uk website based on research by National Accident Helpline into cyclists’ knowledge of the Highway Code and proposed changes to it “is the sort of nonsense which can create a toxic road environment.
The results of the survey are published on the claims management company’s website, although there is no hint of how many cyclists participated in it, or what the methodology was.
Having seen a number of similar surveys over the years, the level of ignorance this one purports to demonstrate regarding cyclist’s knowledge of the rules of the road struck us as strange – the vast majority of adult cyclists after all also hold a driving licence.
National Accident Helpline listed a number of questions asked about the Highway Code as it currently stands, together with the percentage of cyclists that it says got the answer wrong.
Some 80 per cent apparently believe, incorrectly, that use of cycle routes, advanced stop lines, bike boxes and toucan crossings is compulsory for cyclists, and 64 per cent appeared unaware that you must not cross the stop line when the traffic light is red – percentages that are way higher than previous similar polls would suggest.
The Express went to town on the survey, with its article headlined “Cyclists unaware of Highway Code in a major threat to road users who could face fines.”
Among other things, it said that National Accident Helpline’s report “found that over two-thirds of cyclists worryingly believe they are able to ride more than two abreast on the road,” and that “A total of 68 percent did not think they needed to leave room when cycling past parked vehicles or needed to watch out for doors opening.”
Both those Highway Code rules employ the word “should” rather than “MUST” – in other words, they are recommendations, and do not have the force of law, though neither the company carrying out the research nor the newspaper make that clear.
Jonathan White, legal director of National Accident Helpline, quoted in the Express article, said: “With just their bikes and protective clothing between them, the road and other vehicles, cyclists are some of the most vulnerable road users – so it’s right that rules should be in place to protect them from harm.
“Our study shows that not all cyclists are as up to speed with the rules as they could be.
“So we’d encourage both drivers and cyclists to brush up on the Highway Code and put that knowledge to use day-to-day to help prevent accidents from happening.”
Now, there’s nothing wrong with that – all of us could do with refreshing our memories now and again over what the current rules are, whichever mode of transport we use to get around on the road.
However, the Express seems to have made up some of its own rules as well as suggesting that cyclists somehow benefit from special treatment when they are the victim of a collision.
“Drivers could be deeply affected by the findings as motorists are often automatically blamed for hitting a cyclist in a collision,” the newspaper says.
“Bartletts Law warns that it would be down to the motorist rather than the cyclist to prove they are innocent during a collision,” it continued – a reference we think to the civil law doctrine of presumed liability common on the continent but not in force here.
“They [Bartletts Law] reveal cyclists can claim against car insurance policies for a range of injuries including mental trauma and damage to property” – as indeed can other motorists, pedestrians and property owners, et cetera, who have suffered injury or property damage for which the driver is legally liable.
“This can be hard in areas with few witnesses and where the driver has no dashcam footage to use,” says the Express, which says it “could deeply damage a driver’s car insurance policy with an incident likely to end a no claims discount.”
It adds that “Drivers could also be hit with a £1,000 fine for opening the door and accidentally hitting a cyclist in a violation of Rule 239 of the Highway Code” – a penalty that Cycling UK in fact has been campaigning to have increased following a number of cases of cyclists who have been killed in exactly such circumstances in recent years.
Aside from the reservations we expressed above about the survey itself, one could be forgiven for interpreting the Express’s coverage of it as suggesting that somehow cyclists injured or killed due to a driver’s negligence should somehow not be entitled to recourse to the law.
Keir Gallagher, Cycling UK’s campaigns manager, told road.cc: “It’s difficult to know where to start with this report given the series of misleading statements, such as the idea that ‘motorists are automatically blamed for hitting cyclists’, an assertion made without any supportive evidence, and which does not reflect the law.
“But one thing is clear: this is the sort of nonsense which can create a toxic road environment, and make our roads less safe for everyone.
“Fortunately, the current review of the Highway Code will help make our roads safer for everyone, and it’s good to see this article highlighting widespread support for the concept of a hierarchy of responsibility, ensuring those vehicles which pose the greatest risk to others carry the greatest responsibility.
“Other positive changes include improved rules relating to close passing and car-dooring, and with two weeks left until the review closes, it’s vital that everyone has their say on these much needed changes, which they can do here.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- brooksby 4 sec ago
Police investigate tractor that created ‘devastating’ wave in flooded UK town...
- don simon fbpe 28 min 15 sec ago
Attention seeking fan didn't hang around, they'd been there the previous laps then disappeared. I hope the arm wasn't damaged too badly....
- mdavidford 43 min 34 sec ago
There's a few places clustered either end of the road that might potentially have CCTV (a few shops, garage, Orange Hall, surgery), but a much...
- joules1975 47 min 31 sec ago
Fair enough, but to describe the tool required for the lockrings as 'niche' when its a readily available in various forms from dozens of...
- Secret_squirrel 1 hour 41 min ago
Disappointed that the not even in the land of the free do they shoot or jail bike thieves.
- S.E. 6 hours 18 min ago
That made me think of that "Hot Fuzz" comedy movie... so many truths in it.
- Rendel Harris 8 hours 11 min ago
Good to see a V-brake option available for all those people who ride Cosmic Elites with V-brakes...seriously, you must know really that the answer...
- mattw 8 hours 48 min ago
Get thyself over to Buildhub - a community owned forum where I am on the moderation team ("Ferdinand") which is about self-build and renovation....
- Destroyer666 18 hours 52 min ago
Nonono, not those, but those that have constructed Italian cars and motorcycles that have been driven to hundreds of race and championship...
- RoubaixCube 19 hours 1 min ago
This may well be the case although Im unaware of the brands popularity on their home turf. I used to see them being advertised more in the UK...
Add new comment
32 comments
Both those Highway Code rules employ the word “should” rather than “MUST” – in other words, they are recommendations, and do not have the force of law, though neither the company carrying out the research nor the newspaper make that clear.
You can't make too much of this 'MUST' stuff- the police don't! Rule 175 states:
175
You MUST stop behind the white ‘Stop’ line across your side of the road unless the light is green. If the amber light appears you may go on only if you have already crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to stop might cause a collision.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36
This renders traffic police helpless with mirth- they will never prosecute anyone for crossing on amber even if it turned amber 3 seconds before it was crossed- 3 seconds seems to be the common duration of green-following amber. 73 yards are travelled in 3 seconds at 50 mph. Consequently, the dangerous drivers view the amber as a signal to accelerate, because they're almost always going to get away with it. It's difficult enough persuading the police to prosecute even when the STOP line is crossed over a second after the light turns red.
I do this myself. Let me give you a cunts eye view. I see an amber light as "not much time left". The problem with many lights is that they are red for about 10,000 years and then they will flash green before reverting back to red until new maps will need to be rendered due to contintal drift. To make things worse, lights often go thru their red phase without a single vehicle passing. Since when has stop/start driving or idling engines been good for anyone or anything?
I obviously used some exageration here but driving is painful. Every second is a long time when it hurts. Havn't driven a single yard in weeks now. Havn't needed to and I am much happier for it.
To make things worse, lights often go thru their red phase without a single vehicle passing.
By this I mean a traffic light will turn red for me. But where that system has turned green to allow traffic from another direction there were no cars at that time anyway.
Express, Mail, Sun = Hyper-Junk Press
The Express is by far the worst of these. Google still gives me their slant on articles, and it's generally so massively bullshit, even just from the headlines that i can't stomach it.
My Google newsfeed also contains lots of articles from the Express (which is weird as I never read them, or it). I can only assume they pay a lot of money for that.
In addition to all the above, they also seem to be obsessed with Death In Paradise.
"the report found that those aged between 25 and 34 years old were the most oblivious to the risks with 56 percent answering them correctly."
So the least knowledgable group of cyclists were right 56% of the time.
"Meanwhile, just 41 percent of drivers over the age of 65 answered incorrectly, which is still a major risk."
And the most knowledgeable group of drivers were right 59% of the time.
It seems that the level of knowledge among drivers and cyclists is pretty similar. In fact it's looks suspiciously like they're hiding the fact that drivers' knowledge is even worse than cyclists' knowledge if the most knowledgeable drivers are only 3% better than the least knowledgeable cyclists.
From the original report (not The Express version):
"Six out of ten cyclists (62%) agreed that it should be mandatory to wear a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size, and is securely fastened...
...On the flip side, this surprisingly reveals that almost four in ten cyclists (38%) don't agree that cycle helmets should be worn on UK roads."
No it doesn't!
It means that 38% don't agree they should be compulsory. Presumably because they know that where helmets have been made compulsory (NZ, Australia, parts of the US and some Candian provinces) there has been a huge decrease in the number of people cycling but no corresponding fall in the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured. If the intention is to save lives, it fails every time. However, if the intention is to get rid of cyclists, it's a success.
I'd be interested to see how they framed the helmet question - the devil is in the details.
For example, their results state that 77% got it wrong about riding across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing. Personally, I would interpret "across" as encountering one whilst riding on the road and "riding over" one would be using it to go from pavement to pavement.
Ah, the Express. For those for whom the Mail is a bit liberal.
Now they've got a suspect in the Madeleine McCann case, an increasing proportion of readers say "who?" when you refer to "Diana", and Brexit is finally done, what will there be left to talk about?
Always good for a laugh...
My favourite bit in that article? A photo of a woman opening a car door onto a cyclist, captioned "Drivers are usually blamed for incidents with cyclists".
And my favourite comment BTL? A full bingo card:
Brake lights ??
I think the upshot of that is simply to ban all cycles and they would be replaced with mopeds etc
That would be apparently not many then...
It's the great Irony. If the Code became Rules it would be far more onerous on Drivers than cyclists. My particular hobby horses are parking near junctions and overtaking at junctions.
Don't get me started on parking across dropped kerbs - particularly mine!
Aah, the "innocent motorist", the hard-pressed, massively taxed, world's greatest "poor little me" victim. And now apparently forced to take responsibility when they crash into someone or something - whatever next??
The Express publishing misinformation, lies, made up stuff? Never.
it says on the National Accident Helpline page thats linked, they claim to have surveyed 1000 cyclists.
though Im surprised the stats about the rules these 1000 cyclists feel should be in the highway code havent been mentioned...though maybe weve had enough of helmet rows lately
it does have some interesting accidents stats broken down on ages, gender, city/rural, and numbers of accidents and with what, which dont often get shared like that, so its not all nonsense, just mostly nonsense.
though the Express ignores all that as well, and as for the Express, well I think this line from their article sums it up "This shows that in for elderly cyclists are oblivious to the legislation while also being slower to react to road changes." huh?
but there you go Im sure the Express readers will fulminate over their cornflakes about it all,well maybe not the elderly ones
Express readers are all elderly.
was I too subtle for you
I find it hard to believe that 2/3 of cyclists thought it ok to carry a passenger on a bike not adapted for it.
The should/must thing seems an exercise in whether you have memorised vast swathes of the HC.
Lets not forget a whole page on speed limits for drivers of motor vehicles, which is so often forgotten about when complaining of cyclist code breaking
And the wording for pedestrian bright and visible clothing is very similar to that for cyclists...
Thanks guys for raising my blood pressure just before bed time....🤬
Thank god no-one with a brain reads the Express.
Isn't there some sort of media code that says they can't just publish BS and call it news? Not all bad though; as a sometime driver I know to avoid National Accident Helpline like corona virus. Don't they know that most cyclists are also drivers and they've just offended a large slice of their target market.
I wonder what the results would be if they asked drivers the same questions? I'm guessing that it would be much, much worse.
I'd bet on a high percentage believing 2 abreast to be illegal, cycling more than 6" from the kerb being illegal, using cycle lanes being compulsory and ASLs being...ASLs? What's that? Anyway, bloody cyclists should pay road tax...and have insurance...and a registration number...and wear a bloody helmet...and...and!!
The two abreast thing is undoubtedly an example of poor wording. Certainly when I passed my driving test and for all the years I was a driver before returning to cycling in my 40s I thought it was "you must not cycle two abreast" - its also one of the few things I remember from doing Cycling Proficiency in the '70s. Given the amount of times it's quoted in social media, or yelled at you out on group rides I think it's a popular misconception.
Looking at those answers, I think they did ask drivers the cyclist questions.
I do wonder how the questions were set out though which they don't show. Were they confusing? Did they have nearly answers? Was it a selection of five answers of a 50/50 Yes /no. All of those do have an impact on results.
The downside of that is that quarter of a million Express readers are out there, and none of them have a brain.
And would anyone be surprised if it was the Sun or Daily Mail instead?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_b...
That sounds like ReGuLaTiOn Of ThE pReSs. We can't have that! A free press is a vital force for society, law and good order! Imagine what kinds of societal ills could be propagated without the power of the free press!
OH WAIT.
Pages