Proposed changes to the Highway Code

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

will limit rider's rights to use the roads, make convictions for "inconsiderate cycling" more likely and effectively make any cyclist killed or injured in a road accident guilty of "contributory negligence" at the very least. The Highway Code is not the law but it is used to decide legal cases so this is very important.
Please sign this on-line petition:- http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/ (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/)

and write to your MP asking them to oppose the change.

Read this for background:- http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4568

Anyone in Britain who has not signed this petition yet really should do so.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/

There are responsible cyclists out there such as you and me as well as the idiots who aren't cyclists at all. I mean those kids who go at high speed on the pavement, don't have any breaks or lights or know anything about the Highway Code.
It may be these are the folks who'll be targeted.
I've been knocked off twice by now and, in one case, the driver confessed he simply hadn't seen me and appeared pretty shaken. So, he settled up and gave me a payment.
Rarely, the fault is mine. Once I wasn't looking and went straight into a van and another time I walked out onto the road, straight into a cyclist who was hopping mad as a result. His words: " For C-----'s Sake, Mate! Can't you look where you're going!"
I did feel a bit sheepish too.
I do think the idiots should be made to have lights and not race on pavements but I do agree responsible cyclists should be protected from idiot drivers - and there are many of them out there.

Anyone in Britain who has not signed this petition yet really should do so.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/

The proposed changes to the highway code are not targeted at law-breakers, they are instuction to all cyclists to use cycle-lanes &c. wherever possible. This means that if a cyclist who declines to use a lane for any reason is involved in an accident, then the cyclist will be regarded as being at least partially responsible. The Highway Code is not the Law but it is cited in such cases, so failure to use a cycling facility, however inadequate it might be, would make the cyclist open to a charge of "contibutory negligence".
It would also make charges of "inconsiderate cycling" more probable. You may remember the "Telford Incident" when Daniel Cadden was fined £100 with £300 costs because he was riding on the road instead of on a nearby shared-use footpath. He was considered to be holding up traffic and therefore riding inconsiderately. There was a happy ending; he appealed and won; but the new wording would make a successful appeal in a similar case less likely.

So sign.

Sure, I'll sign the petition. Really, they should be cracking down on the idiot cyclists not borderline cases. I guess it's the same with smoking. I totally oppose smoking at work and believe that should be banned. However, I don't personally mind non-smoking and smoking pubs so people simply have a choice.
The problem with this country is they'll take pains to swat a fly but ignore the rampaging elephant if you know what I mean.
P.S. One word of advice: Don't trust commercial bike locks. I bought a huge motorcycle lock instead as I hear organised gangs are going round with chain-cutting tools.
Also try bolting a padlock over your chain and through the chain ring as an extra measure.
My family think I over do it as my bikes are now covered in chains. :rolleyes:

The proposed changes to the highway code are not targeted at law-breakers, they are instuction to all cyclists to use cycle-lanes &c. wherever possible. This means that if a cyclist who declines to use a lane for any reason is involved in an accident, then the cyclist will be regarded as being at least partially responsible. The Highway Code is not the Law but it is cited in such cases, so failure to use a cycling facility, however inadequate it might be, would make the cyclist open to a charge of "contibutory negligence".
It would also make charges of "inconsiderate cycling" more probable. You may remember the "Telford Incident" when Daniel Cadden was fined £100 with £300 costs because he was riding on the road instead of on a nearby shared-use footpath. He was considered to be holding up traffic and therefore riding inconsiderately. There was a happy ending; he appealed and won; but the new wording would make a successful appeal in a similar case less likely.

So sign.

Thanks for signing.

The new wording would affect neither idiot cyclists nor borderline cases; it would penalize any competent law-abiding cyclist who prefered riding on a proper road rather than a green-painted strip of gutter or a footpath with a white line down the middle.

My bike is currently locked up with a chain you could use as an anchor chain. Unfortunately it came with a lock which is very tricky to use, so I'm looking for a replacement lock that offers the same level of security as the chain but can be operated by someone with only two hands.

I was nearly taken out the other day by a lorry. The mind boggles as to how these idiots are let loose on the main road. This driver overtook me so closely the lorry actually brushed my elbow. It weighed several tons with a huge trailer. Then the idiot nearly capsized when he hit a curb and ran over the edge.

Thanks for signing.

The new wording would affect neither idiot cyclists nor borderline cases; it would penalize any competent law-abiding cyclist who prefered riding on a proper road rather than a green-painted strip of gutter or a footpath with a white line down the middle.

My bike is currently locked up with a chain you could use as an anchor chain. Unfortunately it came with a lock which is very tricky to use, so I'm looking for a replacement lock that offers the same level of security as the chain but can be operated by someone with only two hands.

Anyone in Britain who has not signed this petition yet really should do so.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/
Really, this is getting serious:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2007-05-17a.288.2&s=speaker%3A13512#g288.4

Not ideal, but a slight improvement. They still want those e-signatures!

http://ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4568