The government is set to add a number of new cycling offences to the Road Traffic Offender Act — including “cycling on a road dangerously” and “cycling on a road without due care and attention”, as well as mandatory light use at night and offences relating to cycling behaviour in London’s Royal Parks — with punishments of education courses or fixed penalty notices to be available to the police.
The significant announcement was made public by the Home Office, with secondary legislation to update the Road Traffic Offender Act (RTOA 1988) to follow “in January 2025”. While the announcement states “the Order will not produce an undue focus on cycling offences”, almost all the new offences apply specifically to cyclists.
Of an initial 13 proposed, that were put forward and heard consultation responses from police bodies, councils, road safety organisations and cycling groups such as Cycling UK, London Cycling Campaign and The Bikeability Trust, ten offences will be put forward.
“Cycling on a road dangerously”, as well as “cycling on a road without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road” are perhaps the most significant. While these are existing offences, their proposed addition means they can be punishable with an education course or fine.
The final list of road traffic offences which will be added to schedule 3 Road Traffic Offenders Act also includes “using a pedal cycle without lights between sunset and sunrise” and offences relating to cycling behaviour in London’s Royal Parks, such as Richmond Park and Regent’s Park, where there has been a lengthy discussion around cyclist safety in recent times, with calls for stricter legislation being pushed by the charity that runs the parks themselves.
In full the offences to be added are:
- Failure to stop at a school crossing patrol.
- Cyclist holding on to a vehicle while in motion on a road for the purpose of being drawn along.
- Cycling on a road dangerously.
- Cycling on a road without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.
Offences under Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989:
- Using a pedal cycle without lights between sunset and sunrise.
- Using lamps so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road.
- Using a non-motor vehicle with any lamp so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort.
Offences under Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997:
- Failure to comply with any direction given by a constable or by a notice exhibited by order of the Secretary of State regarding the use of a pedal cycle in a Royal Park or other specified land.
- Using a pedal cycle in manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any person in a Royal Park or other specified land.
- Using a vehicle or pedal cycle between sunset and sunrise, or in seriously reduced visibility between sunrise and sunset, with no lights in a Royal Park or other specified land.
Despite the government’s assertion that the update does not amount to “an undue focus on cycling”, it is impossible to miss the emphasis being placed on cyclist behaviour. Concluding the announcement, the government once again committed to a new Road Safety Strategy, for which next steps will be set out “in due course”, but for now it is these new cycling offences that are to be added to the RTOA 1998.
It is proposed that National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme (NDORS) regulations would be laid following the secondary legislation, meaning those who commit the new offences may be offered a place on an education course as an alternative to a fixed penalty notice.
However, the government stressed that due to the “circumstances of each case” and the need for an “appropriate penalty”, the police will decide on punishment and “although an NDORS referral will be available it won’t be the only option which the police officer could choose for a penalty”.
“There will numerous motor vehicle road traffic offences listed in the NDORS regulations schedule of offences, so we can confirm that the Order will not produce an undue focus on cycling offences,” the government stated. “Following careful consideration, we have decided to go ahead with the proposal to add nine offences to schedule 3 of the RTOA.”
A total of 14 responses to the consultation paper were received, approximately half coming from road safety organisations or cycling charities, the remainder from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)/Transport for London (TFL), UKROED, Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS), 2 x County Councils and a Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office.
road.cc has contacted Cycling UK for insight on its responses to the consultation, however the cycling charity (along with The Bikeability Trust and London Cycling Campaign) were not mentioned as having “supported the proposals”.
According to the government, the joint TFL/MPS submission and Action Vision Zero both raised concerns about the inclusion of dangerous cycling as an offence which could be punished by means of just a fixed penalty notice, implying they believe it should be dealt with by means of a more harsh punishment. Three respondents questioned whether any road user behaviour sanctioned as “dangerous” should be dealt with out of court.
Of the other consultation responses, none are attributed to specific bodies but the government accepts that the following points were raised: “That this proposal does not appear to address real priorities within roads safety or roads policing.”
The need for “a potential new NDORS training product for drivers who commit motoring offences involving cyclists” was raised, as was “a query about the increase in price for the cycling related NDORS courses”, and a party highlighting “the proposal’s potential impact on children under the age of 18”.
While the specifics are not mentioned further by the Home Office announcement, that second consultation response suggests there is a suggestion an education course for cyclists would be more expensive than the current course fee of approximately £100 for motorists. However, given this was still at the consultation stage, it remains to be seen if this will be an issue when formalised.
A later point also suggests “the Safe and Considerate Cycling (SCC) course is only a 30-minute e-learning course”.
The announcement marks the latest update in the ongoing story around cycling laws in the United Kingdom, the past eight months having been regularly punctuated by calls from politicians and figures in the media for such legislation.
The topic of dangerous cycling attracted widespread national print and broadcast media coverage in May, during the aftermath of a coroner’s inquest being told that no charges would be brought against a cyclist who was riding laps of London’s Regent’s Park when he crashed into a pensioner, causing her fatal injuries.
The cyclist, Brian Fitzgerald, was riding in a group at a speed of between 25mph and 29mph at the time of the fatal crash, which led to the death of 81-year-old Hilda Griffiths. The speed limit in the park is 20mph, but the Metropolitan Police confirmed that it does not apply to people riding bicycles (as is the case throughout the country), and that the case had been closed because there was “insufficient evidence for a real prospect of conviction”.
In the weeks after the coroner’s inquest, former Conservative leader Duncan Smith proposed the introduction of a specific offence of “causing death by dangerous, careless, or inconsiderate cycling, and causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling”, to ensure people on bikes “face the same penalties as drivers and motorcyclists” responsible for the death of pedestrians.
Transport Secretary Mark Harper backed the legislation and it looked as thought it would be passed, Labour offering no opposition to the proposal. However, when Rishi Sunak called a general election and Parliament was dissolved, it meant there was not sufficient time for the amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill to be passed.
During the subsequent campaign a Labour spokesperson confirmed such legislation would be resumed post-election: “Labour will change the law to protect people from dangerous cycling, and we commend the families for their relentless campaigning. The Criminal Justice Bill was meant to be a flagship bill for his government, but Rishi Sunak walked away from his promises to these families the moment it suited him. It’s understandable that the families of victims will feel let down.”
Today’s announcement does not go as far as the proposed legislation of the previous government, however it does also highlight offences related to cyclist behaviour in London’s Royal Parks, two of which, Richmond Park and Regent’s Park, are popular destinations for the city’s cyclists.
The Royal Parks has campaigned for laws to prosecute “speeding” cyclists, the charity having reviewed its cycling policies last summer amid claims of dangerous cycling in its parks.
The organisation has also cancelled early-morning time trial events, upsetting local cycling clubs, and pulled the plug on the London Duathlon in Richmond Park.
A Royal Parks spokesperson suggested its cycling policies had been reviewed due to “several cycling-related incidents linked to a minority of people cycling at excessive speeds” and the charity had “implemented physical changes in the parks, including larger or wider pedestrian paths, additional crossing points to improve pedestrian safety and additional signage”.
Richmond Park, which the Royal Parks proudly calls an “extraordinary landscape” that is also London’s largest Site of Special Scientific Interest and a National Nature Reserve, remains open to through-traffic.
129 thoughts on “Cyclists to face education course or fine for 10 new offences — including “dangerous” riding, cycling “without due care and attention” and riding without lights at night”
So that’s every anti-cycling
So that’s every anti-cycling police force, organisation and person empowered to harass and intimidate cyclists on the basis of “without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road”.
Along with “must have lights” but “mustn’t have lights that work” – that’s the 1970’s EverReady 5 lumen incandescents at the back of the garage back in use then.
Yvette Cooper has plummeted in my estimation.
I’ve been told, by two
I’ve been told, by two different police officers in the same week that the exact same setup of lights is too bright and dazzles drivers, and is too dim and that’s why the driver drove into me.
the little onion wrote:
Schrödinger’s bike lights, innit?
“or without reasonable
“or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road”
That is the part that part that made me wince as well. I also wonder how much it would in the minds of some motorists justify punishment passes and use of cars as a weapon to harass cyclists.
I hope that doesn’t pass parliamentary vote as it stands, it needs to be very narrowly defined or removed altogether.
The part about lamps and lighting could be redefined to something sensible, I don’t think it’s often a problem in the real world. I rarely see riders who could do with pointing their lights down a bit, but some of the lights for off road riding at night are ridiculous so it might not hurt to have some legislation relating to their sale and use, but it needs to be much more specific.
Peredur wrote:
i had the ‘your light is too bright and aimed too high’ accusation once. i asked them if their vehicle (an XC90) was in-spec regarding the aim and intensity of its dipped beams so a comparison could be made, and they chose to drive away.
The legislation on motor
The legislation on motor vehicle lamps needs to change as well, but of course it won’t. Literally every new car, van and truck sold for the last 20+ years that has LED or HID/xenon is too bright. Even if that XC90 was in spec, I’m pretty sure it’s more dazzling and blinding than 99.999999% of bicycle lamps.
I don’t think I know any older persons who drive at night, they all consistently say they can’t see against the constant glare. It’s especially a problem for anyone with cataracts, they can’t get NHS surgery until an optician deems them unsafe to drive, but apparently that only means unsafe to drive in daylight. I’m sure going after cyclists will tip the balance though and make it safer for everyone.
Peredur wrote:
It passed Parliamentary vote in the eighties. That’s the existing law.
In principle and in the
In principle and in the abstract, this is difficult to object to. An educational course to improve road safety is a good thing. The problems are multiple, including the obvious ones around proportionality.
One that I’m particularly concerned with, based on recent experience, is the quality of policing. It is abundantly clear that very few road traffic officers have any practical experience of cycling, and surprisingly little knowledge of best practice, and the occaisional absolute howler of ignorance around cycling and the law (such as a belief that cyclists must use the cycle lane). So we can expect policing and enforcement based on ignorance and prejudice rather than best practice and the actual existing law.
If this goes ahead, I’d like
If this goes ahead, I’d like to think that there will be a requirement for any police officer enforcing these regulations to have adequate training, which must include a certain amount of time spent cycling around their area, and they should have to repeat that experience at regular intervals.
I’ll accept that you don’t need cycling experience to know when someone is cycling without a light after dark, but any judgement of what is or is not considerate will surely be vulnerable to challenge if the person cannot demonstrate that they know what is reasonable in the first place, or why cyclists will choose to do something for their own safety.
the little onion wrote:
Completely agree – having taken a moment I though “nothing to see here” (not new offenses) BUT because we have a new focus, I’m expecting an increase in the possibility of police officers ignorant of the law (never mind the practicalities of cycling) now stopping me for imaginary offences.
And … in fact I do break the law.
I do not always dismount the instant I reach a footway – if there’s nobody about or I’d be no hassle I do occasionally ride short distances (e.g. to access the cycle racks). (Never mind that no doubt police are as confused as some councils are on whether a particular place is in fact shared use).
I don’t have any speed measurement devices currently fitted, so no doubt sometimes I will be going faster than the speed limit (not specifically an offense but it’s always open to the police to decide…)
Despite having low-powered lights and trying to keep them pointed appropriately I’ve had people say they’re “way too bright”. Well – they are LEDs and with some lenses because dynamo powered, and if you’re in an unlit area and somehow manage to look right into one, yeah…
Can anybody give an example
Can anybody give an example of what riding dangerously or without consideration might look like?
Some people might see a cyclist not giving way to a car joining from a side road as being inconsiderate, especially seeing as many drivers will just stop randomly to do so.
Home Office Proposal
Home Office Proposal
I’m not sure the article made it clear enough that these are not new cycling offences, it’s about providing more options for dealing with existing offences.
You could always refuse to do the course and take the fine instead. Currently you don’t have the choice for these offences.
Home Office Proposal
[quote=Tom_77]
Home Office Proposal
I’m not sure the article made it clear enough that these are not new cycling offences, it’s about providing more options for dealing with existing offences.
You could always refuse to do the course and take the fine instead. Currently you don’t have the choice for these offences.
If you take the course offered, then what is this going to look like, who is going to write the course, lead the course? Then how many will be on this day of magnificent educational worth! The police are going have to bust a lot of cyclists to make it worthwhile, or will it just be billy no mates and a few uber eats riders in a room with a powerpoint presentation and an instructor who sole experience of cycling is a BSO He/She has rusting in the shed at home and is only dragged out for a few sunny days a year!
I doubt that such a course
I doubt that such a course would be ‘in person’ – far more likely that it would be online.
60kg lean keen climbing
The Safe and Considerate Cycling Course already exists, The AA (!?!) run it. It’s 30 minutes online, cost is £38.40.
The Safe and Considerate
The Safe and Considerate Cycling Course(link is external) already exists, The AA (!?!) run it
Great! Run by the AA cycling and road traffic law experts
https://upride.cc/incident/yf70xwu_aadrivingschool_uwlcross/
PS No response from the AA when I sent them the video
Do you get a badge ? Then I
Do you get a badge ? Then I could show it to an irate driver!
I did wonder in what way was
I did wonder in what way was mandatory light use at night not covered by the current law.
Tom_77 wrote:
This is all too common, at the moment – “never mind that we don’t have the resources to enforce existing laws, let’s waste more time and resources introducing new laws/procedures that could be covered by existing stuff – if only we had the resources”
I’ve decided to call it “Heath Robinson politics” – for those of you old enough to remember him (except that his contraptions actually worked)
belugabob wrote:
This is him, isn’t it?
Tom_77 wrote:
That would suggest Road.CC is using this article for clickbait….surely not!
I hope the law will also be
I hope the law will also be applied to drivers, no enforcement of speed limits, action against dazzling lights etc where I live.
I expect cyclists to be disproportionately affected.
It’s never applied to drivers
It’s never applied to drivers, there are legal teams out there defending drivers for doing unforgivable things behind the wheel like drink driving, causing death/serious injury by careless driving. The charges get dropped with these legal teams so sometimes I wonder whether it’s even worth reporting drivers. We shouldn’t be allowed to cycle but they are allowed to drive because they will lose their livelihood? Cyclists have jobs too and not all of them hold full licences. Cyclists will be disproportionately affected when you are considering the damage caused by motorists every single day. We already have an increasing death toll but which isn’t being caused by smart motorway, but by overconfident drivers who don’t know what they are doing.
We are having delivery riders having their bikes confiscated when they are doing way less harm and are forced to ride these powerful bikes so they can make their living. The government are obviously corrupt. If they want these bikes off the streets then then all they will have to do is to ban these companies from operating or put legislation in place so the companies don’t incentivise these riders to put their powerful electric motors on their bikes. When taxi drivers get caught using their phone behind the wheel when they could easily buy a dash mount as they are driving all day and need to make calls without it being handheld. There is uproar when drivers like this are being reported as they are losing their livelihood. When these guys get their bikes seized and destroyed apparently that’s real police work, ignoring bike thieves and careless and inconsiderate drivers
Expect a sharp increase in
Expect a sharp increase in cyclists required to attend awareness courses as the money from these go to the Police directly as opposed to fines which go to the Treasury.
While it’s hard to argue
While it’s hard to argue against the position that cyclists should be held to account for their actions, it is easy to argue that this is a knee-jerk reaction to petrolheads pointing the finger at cyclists to distract from their own, much more dangerous failures. And it’s so much easier than having a full examination of road laws, promised so long ago.
I’m hoping that this is some kind of quid pro quo for the fantastic cycling facilities we’re going to get.
eburtthebike wrote:
The article mentions IDS, so there is definitely a jerk involved…
Oh good.
Oh good.
So the angry drivists & right whingers will presumably now calm the f*ck down & show a tad more patience & a tad less entitlement on the road in their w4nkpanzers then?
No, thought not.
Clem Fandango wrote:
Nope, I predict a flurry of efforts to fit otherwise sensible cycling into one of the mentioned categories – particularly…
“without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.”
I.e. “expecting me to slow and wait for a safe place to overtake”
Quote:
What a f-ing surprise…
Can’t help but think that
Can’t help but think that there are a lot of road users who think that riding a bike on the road AT ALL is “cycling dangerously on the road”.
I’m expecting the cycling
I’m expecting the cycling version of “Constable Savage“-style stories appearing here soon.
“Cycling in a loud shirt during the hours of darkness? It was high-vis!?”
“Exactly, sir”.
“He’s a criminal sir, and a
“He’s a criminal sir, and a jailbird.”
“I know he’s a criminal, Savage, we’ve got him in the cells now, we’re holding him on a charge of possession of firm calves and large thigh muscles in a built-up area!”
“Loitering near an ASL”
“Loitering near an ASL”
“Launching snot rockets
“Launching snot rockets without due care and attention. Riding on the cracks in the road*. Riding around with an offensive bike.”
* Not an offense – just a reminder that cyclists don’t pay road tax but they’re still wearing out the roads!
Certainly a lot of cyclists
Certainly a lot of cyclists consider riding on nice wide cycle lane, marked off from road and available on both sides if road, is either too dangerous or inconvenient so they use pavement to ride at 69-year-old me and 13-months granddaughter with no lights and stealth clothes or ultra-bright flashing lights
yes that’s what we all agreed
yes that’s what we all agreed to do at the Evil Cyclists lobby meeting the other day
Clem Fandango wrote:
First time I’d seen Feathers McGraw there.
E6toSE3 wrote:
No they don’t. Please stop making stuff up.
Rendel Harris wrote:
No they don’t. Please stop making stuff up.— E6toSE3
Don’t forget the ones cycling on the pavement through red lights well above the speed limit forcing wheelchair users to have to bunny-hop into the bushes…
I think there are definitely some reasonable concerns. We all know that because – even in the few parts of London where there is a lot of cycling visible – it is still not “mainstream transport”. Perhaps a small part is that there isn’t a “mainstream” cycling culture (there are certainly cycling cultures)?
And cyclists are “not the same as everyone else” and they are still seen an out group and don’t have the same provision, or respect / understanding as everyone else. (Plus the (food) delivery companies using public space as a free resource and outsourcing what should be their risks onto the public).
FWIW I bet there is as much or more “antisocial behaviour” by people on bikes in NL as by drivers! Because people; and also where people are relaxed they’ll cut corners or “just do stuff”. But because they’re on cycles and space has been made for this * that will have far less effect.
* Unlike our say our “share the road” or “shared space” concepts – where e.g. some drivers become aggressive because cyclists are cheating – taking “their” space…)
So e.g. there the issues are e.g. bikes left about thoughtlessly (a problem, but much less so than vehicle parking). There isn’t conflict at bus stops because the cycle path goes round them. There will be people cycling without lights, or with overly bright lights, or even drunk… but of course they’re cycling in *their* space, not on a footway (well, mostly!). Because in NL they have made it so convenient to “do the right thing” that there’s no incentive to do something antisocial which is also more of a nuisance to yourself.
That’s true, whatever you do
That’s true, whatever you do is dangerous to them, even though they won’t even feel it. But speeding past cyclists is alright because I didn’t knock them over
Quote:
Erm – why should it be more expensive?
brooksby wrote:
Because these new rules seem to have defined by a petulant 8 year old…?
A lot of them are either covered by existing rules, or are sufficiently open-ended that things will be left to the whims of the police officer involved to decide why an offence was committed and what the penalty will be.
Sledgehammer/nut…
I think the article
I think the article misinterprets this point. A consultee simply asked a question about the increase in cost of the cycling course. The question was outside the scope of the consultation. I think the cycling course price may have been increased, but it is independent of this review, and it is not more expensive than the motoring course.
Quote:
So, to say you didn’t see them and you’re really sorry and you really really need your bike, so please can you just walk free?
Quote:
So I’m breaking the law if I refuse to do something a police officer says in a Royal Park, even if what I’m doing isn’t actually illegal?! Surely the word “reasonable” should be in there instead of “any”?
A good point given the Parks
A good point given the Parks Police gave out speeding fines for ~20 years despite them knowing they had no legal power to do so.
I suspect direction will have
I suspect direction will have to relate to an act or si
Eg
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/169
Pedestrian contravening constable’s direction to stop to give name and address.
Quote:
Presumably the punishment for this will be a CHF200 fine and a yellow card?
mdavidford wrote:
Not if the cyclist is French.
No skitching, it’s a war on
No skitching, it’s a war on cyclists, I tell you…
Cases of hung, drawn and
Cases of hung, drawn and caught? Or if not in favour of the rules, hung, drawn and court erred?
The government needs to
The government needs to review all road traffic offences as was promised in 2014. I feel a letter coming on for my local mp (who is broadly pro cycling). I’m sure CUK are also working on the same.
I’d also like to see transparency regarding road traffic laws that are not currently enforced. Eg parking facing the wrong way at night, crossing a solid white line to overtake a cyclist doing more than 10mph, failure to stop when required to do so by a stop sign. Just to give 3 quick examples.
Is it not simpler !
Is it not simpler !
eg “Parking”
mattw wrote:
Was about to say the same!
I’d add “overtaking at a pedestrian crossing where those zigzag lines are painted” but I believe the problem here is this is actually an unintended loophole – because it specifically says “motor vehicle” – so cyclists don’t count here. But if it’s important to e.g. update “wanton and furious cycling” I would suggest this is equally important – overtaking here is a genuine hazard.
Tanking through as/ after traffic lights change needs addressing I’d say, but again that’s probably another “needs policing” plus “lawyers will always find an excuse…”
Also “speeding” except in specific circumstances (TBF think this is just a “so common we just don’t have time to police it mostly”…)
LOL !
LOL !
My local MP is the Leeanderthal Man, who will probably express a preference for Fred Flintstone pedal cars.
Not quite OT here but on stop
Not quite OT here but on stop signs Robert Weetman has an interesting (as always) article about the dangers of drawing hasty or “obvious” conclusions about road infra and human behaviour – perhaps worth a browse?
The Royal Parks stuff is
The Royal Parks stuff is infuriating. Until the RP police manage to stop all motor vehicles in Richmond Park (my local) from speeding, or prevent all trade vehicles from using the park as a cut-through (expressly prohibited with signs on all the gates) clamping down on cyclists is disproportionate. I’m planning a ride there tomorrow morning and I can guarantee I’ll be close-passed, or someone will be overtaking a cyclist on the other side of the road without noticing I’m coming in the opposite direction, etc. etc.
RP – my nightmare. But that
RP – my nightmare. But that was summer 2012. I’d dropped son in Chiswick for a cricket match. Got changed, onto bike to RP. Struggled up the little slope into the Park. Blazing hot day. Trundled round barely able to turn 34*32 bottom gear as grannies overtook me. Shouted about no oxygen in air. Felt better on way back to son and car. Diagnosed as late onset exercise induced asthma. Turned out I was heading for a heart attack despite core fitness which helped with survival, operation, and recovery rehab
Constantly blinded at night
Constantly blinded at night while driving or cycling due to the brightness of car lights but it is we cyclists who will be punished? FFS.
After the news about eurosport and this, what will be next? As everything comes in 3s so I’ve been told.
Lots of motorists say the
Lots of motorists say the same. There’s an arms race to brighter car and bike lights. Bright street lights may be worse than old sodium lamps as we now have pools of brilliance interspersed with blackness. SUV lights are bright and higher above the road than old fashioned cars so, when they go over a speed bump, other drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, all get blinded.
Up to 1980s, I could ride with Wonderlights on A21 in dark & rain in February, wearing an orange cape, from East Ham to Tunbridge Wells with confidence. Now, I take quite a few minutes just to put on ankle and wrist bands, mount several lights front and rear, wet weather gear, etc. I am visible as I’ve checked. Makes hopping on and off journeys a drag, so I tend to walk up to an hour each way unless I’ll be staying in one spot for some time
I’m interested in what is
I’m interested in what is meant by “road” in the phraseology. It suggests writing by a carbrain who has not examined reality outside their skull:
Cycling on a road dangerously.
Cycling on a road without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.
So does that apply to mobility tracks, multiuser paths, footways, bridleways etc, or just to the road carriageway?
Clearly Constable Savage will need to be out-of-the-house trained.
If we are using the definitions from the RTA 1988, then this is the definition of “Road” in S192. It seems to exclude a lot of things, and “highway” is not defined.
“road”, in relation to England and Wales, means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes,
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/192/enacted#:~:text=%E2%80%9Croad%E2%80%9D%2C%20in%20relation%20to,1988%2C%20the%20%5B1988%20c.
mattw wrote:
Definition of highway is broad:
Parliament says,
“The land over which a public right of way exists is known as a highway; and although most highways have been made up into roads, and most easements of way exist over footpaths, the presence or absence of a made road has nothing to do with the distinction. There may be a highway over a footpath, while a well-made road may be subject only to an easement of way, or may exist only for the landowner’s benefit and be subject to no easement at all.”— Parliament
Bolton Council (not a source of record, but this isn’t the council’s first day on the job) says,
‘a way over which members of the public have a right to pass and repass, either on foot or dependent on suitability, in a vehicle motorised or otherwise’— Bolton Council (emphasis in the original)
In practice, anytime legislation refers to offences on the road/highway/in public, it includes such places as supermarket car parks and anywhere the public can go.
So, at the same time it’s
So, at the same time it’s ‘cyclists don’t use lights and cyclists use lights that are dazzling’ – that goes well with ‘cyclists cause accidents by riding dangerously slow on the road and dangerously fast’ at the same time and speed.
A lot of motorists seem to
A lot of motorists seem to think that bike lights are only there to make the bike more visible to them. I don’t think it occurs to them that the front light needs to be strong enough to able to illuminate potholes, fallen branches at a reasonable stopping distance.
Unfortunately, many cyclists
Unfortunately, many cyclists ride recklessly with no lights on roads and pavements while (a few) other cyclists have dazzling lights on roads and on pavements. That’s the reality of SE London. Maybe things are different where you are
Unfortunately many motorists
Unfortunately many motorists drive recklessly with (and I see these so often it’s not funny) one working headlight / just the sidelights on. Others have the full beam set on auto that reacts very slowly to others / just full beam all the time. That’s the reality in SW London & Surrey.
Are there cyclists with badly angled lights? – sure. Are some of them bright – sure, but no contest with massive SUVs with lights positioned increasingly higher & significantly brighter than they’ve been previously.
Funny story, just the other night I was riding home using unlit (and quiet) roads. I run front lights on the handlebar (800-1000 lumens allegedly) and on my helmet (not so many lumens but very effective) giving me adequate visibility down the road to see the inevitable potholes & damages road surface coming. Lights directed downward and ahead & not on the max setting, plus me making an effort to direct the head mounted light away from oncoming traffic. Was passed in both directions by a number of vehicles without bother. Then, one gent in a Landrover starts flashing his lights at me (having belatedly dipped his lights having spotted me coming in the other direction) & shouting as he came past. I just shrugged it off & carried on. Said Landie driver then doubled back & pulled alongside me (very unnerving after getting pushed off the road a couple of weeks ago) to give me the benefit of his opinion – ie my lights were too bright, inconsiderate yobbo. something something think you own the road. Nonplussed, I turned the helmet light off so as not to blind the poor fool, pointed at my front light (it’s quite a small thing) & asked if he thought it was producing more lumens than the things on his vehicle & enquired if he’d like to do a beam comparison now that we’d stopped & were good mates. For some reason he declined & carried on with his journey (u-turning again) chuntering about bloody cyclists. You can’t win with some people.
Clem Fandango wrote:
I was cycling towards a T-junction two nights ago and a motorist turned into the junction on my side of the road and drove straight towards me. I drew to a stop which of course caused him to have to stop at which point he complained rudely and vociferously. Some people are just massive a…holes.
Meanwhile the pavement
Meanwhile the pavement parking consultation goes nowhere (over 4 years old).
Then this on bluesky
As a blind person & a guide dog handler whenever I share examples of problematic driving or dangerous behaviour by drivers people will tell me to report it. So this is what happens when I report it.
This morning a car drove onto the pavement at speed. My guide dog Ava acted quickly by pulling me away. If I’d been using my white cane I could’ve been hit by the car “parking” on the pavement. I’ve reported it to the police & managed to take several photos. I won’t tolerate dangerous driving.
This morning two officers visited my home to follow up the report, I repeated the details & they said they would go & check CCTV in the area. I’ve just received a call stating that the Metropolitan Police have reviewed the CCTV & decided that no offence has been committed. It was just ‘bad timing’.
So there are no consequences for the driver. Not even a stern talking to about being aware of disabled pedestrians. I wonder what level of ‘bad timing’ will it take next time? What if this driver hits a blind person, or a wheelchair user, or an older person or a child?
https://bsky.app/profile/blondehistorian.bsky.social/post/3lgscainnss23
* note the tyre tracks and position of Dr Amy Kavanagh after she was moved by her dog.
“I’m sorry that you were
“I’m sorry that you were struck by a driver. It was just bad timing that you were both trying to be in the same spot (on the pavement) at the same time.”
“It’s unfortunate that the
“It’s unfortunate that the pavement chose that particular time to leap in front of the car.’
Saw a massive SUV bypass a
Saw a massive SUV bypass a junction of traffic lights by mounting pavement and driving through the pedestrian crossings on Saturday about 1:15pm just after we left Bagshot Railway Station.
E6toSE3 wrote:
It was an emergency: had to pick up the new au pair so that she could pick up Tamsin from school so I could get to my fine wine appreciation course in time.
Hirsute wrote:
That’s just bull droppings! Either an offence of driving on the footway was committed or it was not. It’s not “bad timing”.
Now, it may well be that they find a lack of evidence; or that, in the circumstances, they do not think it is sufficiently expedient and in the public interest to take further action. Those are feasible and justifiable outcomes, provided that the evidence (or lack of it) justifies that position. In which case, that should be the response.
“Bad timing” is just dismissive and ill-educated.
If it is a decision not to prosecute, I should think a review of that decision, taking into account the equality impact involved for a blind person as the victim, is in order.
So the police will be able to
So the police will be able to give cyclists on the spot fixed penalty fines for what they decide alone to be inconsiderate or dangerous cycling, but they will have to prepare a case for CPS for drivers doing the same which they will more likely state won’t be worth the effort because there wasn’t independant witnesses and the cyclist the driver killed had lights that caused that driver discomfort?
I think, instead of a cycle to work day, all cyclists should leave their bikes at home for a drive to work day. Perhaps only then they will see why cycling benefits society.
Isn’t a fixed penalty in
Isn’t a fixed penalty in place of a prosecution? So if you’re certain that you have done nothing wrong you can refuse it and go to court, although doing so risks a higher fine.
Muddy Ford wrote:
in england & wales, 2025/09/02 would probably be a good date for that.
Cyclists and most pedestrians
Cyclists and most pedestrians know only too well that the UK is a highly toxic culture when it comes to motornormativity. Reinforced by the equally toxic media regurgitations and so-called ‘policing’, CPS, carbrained juries and judges.
Nothing will change. White Van Man is the cultural norm and only a widespread government media campaign could hope to address the current irrational hatred of people using bicycles while thousands of KSIs by drivers is normalised.
I agree 100% with others’ posts that if it were possible, a ‘drive to work day’ once a month, to totally clog up towns and cities, would be a great starting point in addressing this cultural hatred.
Personally, I’m happy with drivers’ demands to go where they want when they want, as it often means massive stationary traffic jams.
What I do wish a JCB for, is pavement parking….
Round our way, in SE London,
Round our way, in SE London, most vans are well driven and considerate, even following priorities of Highway Code. Maybe they’re aware of body cameras or maybe they just don’t want to risk the small but real chance of being apprehended in such a way as to lose trade. Before lockdown and heart attack, I volunteered with local police speed gun sessions. It worked. Speeds did drop significantly. Except for the one or two a day of mad drivers (maybe high, drunk, or getaway vehicles). Hopefully, they crash without harming anyone else and never drive again
E6toSE3 wrote:
I find that … surprising. Or is it in how you define “well driven and considerate”?
Here in Edinburgh I’m rarely close-passed by Amazon and DPD vans. Actually the majority of drivers now pass either acceptably or well. But the ones that don’t are a very mixed bag and of those liveried vehicles proudly being road-bullies are notable.
But as for parking like a …. ? That is universal. Indeed I think the bigger delivery firms see themselves as having the “post office exemption” e.g. park wherever is most convenient for the driver, because “vital services” and “it’s just for a couple of minutes”.
(I think personally that the Post Office should have slightly higher standards applied to them. As an organisation they’ve been doing this for ever – they should know exactly what good parking is and where suitable and more pro-social parking options are. e.g. not right at a junction, or across a cycle track where it crosses a side road. Plus the public is a shareholder so it might be possible).
Bad parking itself isn’t directly lethal, but it is effectively creating new micro-road-environments which can then present elevated hazards to try to navigate (e.g. by blocking what was good visibility at a junction). I’d say it was worse than your two slow cyclists on a footway. You can’t negotiate with a parked vehicle! So that may not make you fearful but constantly having to work round people who’ve dumped their property in the way is attritional. And it can be far more so if you have disabilities or are just less steady on your feet / see less well.
chrisonabike wrote:
And also forcing already vulnerable road users (with wheelchairs, pushchairs or young children) into the carriageway.
I’ve just bought a pair of these. Good grip on slippery surfaces, like snow, ice and car rooves. Let the negotiations begin!
E6toSE3 wrote:
Once again I am left wondering where this version of South London in which you live is, because in the one in which I live vans constitute at least 50% if not more of the vehicles that cut me up, left hook me, pull out in front of me, close pass me, park dangerously and illegally and so on.
I like the idea of attending
I like the idea of attending an educational course after being caught jumping a red light, or doing wheelies through the pedestrianised shopping centre. I would choose to do my course in English Literature, hopefully featuring The Romantic Poets and Jane Austen.
Or conversational Mandarin
Or conversational Mandarin (more and more I’m thinking that’s going to be useful…)
Yes. Maybe for ordering
Yes. Maybe for ordering Chinese made carbon wheels.
Re-education is futile. You
Re-education is futile. You will be machine-translated.
To be more in keeping with the times (I think we’re down on mandarins now – a smaller state is in) I would suggest a course in Common Sense, Cultural Warfighting or Traditional Values. Put all those together for fun and profit! (Well, profit, maybe, although not for you, the internet-user).
Not clever. It can be a
Not clever. It can be a matter of life and death – yours or someone else. The speed awareness driver courses are brilliant. Known a few otherwise very diligent drivers who took speed from vehicle in front to go faster than limit. They went on such a course, extremely grateful for the input and drove better. Ideally, all drivers and cyclists would get such coaching every few years.
If it works. But we don’t
If it works. But do we measure that…?
Yes to repeated training (testing?) though! Problem is, it probably costs similar amounts to do this for drivers as for cyclists, and motor vehicles are to a first approximation “who kills and injures others on the roads” (also another visual comparison here). Cyclists are at least subject to a natural check on their dangerous behaviours because they are vulnerable themselves – even in collision with pedestrians. Drivers? Not so – and the rate of detection and legal sanctions are clearly not enough to deter people from ignoring them in cases, some featured here.
Ultimately I think the solution is a bit like with motor vehicles now – different modes need different spaces*. With motor vehicles it’s by fiat – because people outside of a car have learned the hard way to “keep out of the road”. Of course, that doesn’t guarantee the safety of pedestrians from motor vehicles either…
* Separate (cars and cyclists) where necessary, mix where possible. In general pedestrians and cyclists should always have their own spaces, except where people on foot predominate (e.g. a “shopping street” – which should not be a normal through route for cycling though). Or where there are few of either e.g. between small places in the countryside.
E6toSE3 wrote:
It would be rich to give speed awareness training for cyclists ie the limited number in Richmond Park ignoring the 20mph limits – when so few motorists are held to account. The laser focus on cyclists seems nonsensical given our cash strapped public services: Just today the Police are insinuating that they can’t/won’t (be bothered to) enforce the dangerous dogs act because of lack of funding.
I agree with you on the speed
I agree with you on the speed awareness courses. I attended one about 10 years ago and it made a difference my driving – especially in built up areas. However, from mine and many other cyclists point of view, we do not require any awareness training. But why not have motorist cycle awareness training? Most weeks I am close-passed, or have to slow to avoid a head on collision with on overtaking car. I have been shunted from behind at a roundabout. And I have nearly been hit by an oncoming overtaking car, while waiting to turn right at a junction. Whole some cyclists would benefit from training, the focus is in the wrong area in my view. And I have always enjoyed the works of Jane Austen and the likes of Keats etc.
motorist cycle awareness
motorist cycle awareness training?
Waste of time without deterrent punishment – all the most dangerous drivers think they’re wonderfully skilful and can steer with one hand and the elbow resting against the offside window. If they hit a cyclist while close passing, they and their friends think it’s the cyclist’s fault – just like the police do
I think such training would
I think such training would change some drivers’ behaviour. Admittedly not all.
After all, I changed my driving behaviour after my speed awareness course. The course had a strong message of how excessive speed can affect others.
At one point, we were shown a slide of two policemen standing by the side of the road and asked what we thought was going on.
“Speed trap” most of us said.
The course tutor then explained that it wasn’t a speed trap, but an investigation into the death of a young girl after being hit by a speeding car. He finished by saying “Aren’t you lot glad that you encountered a policeman with a speed gun, rather than a child?”
I will never forget that.
A cycle awareness course could highlight similar results of vehicles hitting them.
BMW, Audi, GTI etc. drivers
BMW, Audi, GTI etc. drivers are immune to sob stories about dead cyclists and children.
Are you my doppelgänger? I
Are you my doppelgänger? I’ve had all these things happen to me too. There is definitely a case to be made for 5 or 10 yearly retests, with cycling awareness as a specified component. Most drivers have an overinflated opinion of their own abilities.
Mr Blackbird wrote:
I would also hope it included some Thomas Hardy whose fine poetry was influenced by the Romantic poets.
Pub bike wrote:
And also well versed in cycling. In fact, you’ve got the makings of a very nice looking course here:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jul/01/wheel-life-and-fiction-bicycling-in-literature
I prefer his prose – such as
I prefer his prose – such as The Mayor of Chainstay-Bridge, or Far From The Madone Crowd.
EDIT meant for Pub Bike…
chrisonabike wrote:
Trek of the d’Urbervilles…
Oh have you not read his
Oh have you not read his poems such as:
“The Darkling Thrust (bearing)”
“Convergence of the Chain”
“At Tea (stop)”
etc.
I like his novel about the
I like his novel about the carriage driver acquitted in court after colliding with a cyclist : ‘View Was Obscured’.
I didn’t know that. But I
I didn’t know that (the Romantic Poet influence). But I have enjoyed several of his novels albeit they all had an almost perversely, tragic storyline.
Several issues come to mind.
Several issues come to mind. Who’s policing it primarily. We can’t police the millions of drivers so where are they going to find the personnel to achieve this?
Who’s going to deliver the education course? I’ll be wager good money on there not being enough resources to deliver a suitable course across the country.
Totally behind the lighting regulation but the others will serve to empower drivers more.
From earlier in the item
From earlier in the item comments
The Safe and Considerate Cycling Course already exists,
Now I’m 69 with 13-month
Now I’m 69 with 13-month granddaughter and my wife moves with difficulty after several serious impacts, I have to say this makes a lot of sense. Of course, some aspects will be open to heavy handed policing and all of it will be subject to lack of resources to police it.
In SE London, the greatest experiential threat to pedestrians and other cyclists is from reckless and merely careless cyclists.
Just yesterday, two middle aged ladies rode (separately) towards me in a narrow footpath with high fences either side that runs through a large sheltered housing estate. One way, I had granddaughter in pushchair taking to our daughter; other way, on my own. Inadequate lights, riding slow but wobbly. Very clear ‘No cycling’ signs and they both showed embarrassed guilt. Numerous more dangerous incidents in past week, but those two epitomise how bad cycling is done across demographics (as is good cycling). Since nobody knows regulations about cycling, they see folk getting away with something and end up following the example. I ride that route each week using the slightly longer but faster option, on the road (which is safe, 20 mph, wide, well lit). Sometimes I feel like a fool for doing so.
Day before, walking down Shooters Hill, a bike struggled up, on the road, in the gutter, with 2 ultra bright flashing front lights. Blinded me for maybe 15 seconds, eyes hurt and affected me for some time. The out of sync flashing did strange things to my brain. Thank goodness, I didn’t have gd in pushchair, though I’d have stopped and turned her away from the lights. Such lighting creates a rabbit in the headlights discombobulating effect.
My Exposure Strada II cost £240 very many years ago. Just 600 lumens, it has recently died but was worth every penny. Only 2 brightness settings and instructions were very clear to use dim-dip in urban lit streets. It’s brightness is dwarfed by modern lights costing far less and used recklessly.
So: reckless brightness, no or inadequate lights, riding in wrong places. No wonder we cause a stink.
Positively: on train from Basingstoke on Saturday. A lovely group of young lads had been out off-roading on XC mtbs. They noticed my Muck-Off buff, we got talking. And a nice young man was taking his brand new Trek Madone out for first ride. He had started in lockdown with an undersized bike but got the bug. I mentioned, after a long chat, that his front light should be on rhs of bar, so he changed it immediately. Interesting: all of them concerned about behaviour of other cyclists.
So … what happened with the
So … what happened with the two women cyclists?
I take it you all managed to [somehow] get by, and that granddaughter isn’t still sat there, in her pushchair while concerned family members bring you hot food and drinks?
Meanwhile…
Meanwhile…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqjvz79d079o
Yup – danger from cycling is clearly where we need to be cracking down.
And that’s only where
And that’s only where exceeding the speed limit was a factor: there are many more where going too fast for the conditions contributed also.
Using education as a punitive
Using education as a punitive measure. Hmmmm. I welcome the concept of bringing careless people in cars and on bikes to account but not sure how effective this will be. There are supposed to be punitive measures for careless/dangerous driving in l use of a mobile phone at the wheel. I see this on a daily basis but it is done with impunity. Nothing will change…
fozzieuk wrote:
Not sure how you got to that view. Education courses are primarily to avoid the incident happening again – the clue is in the name. Calling them punitive just coz you dont like them doesnt make them so.
So when the police have
So when the police have already said in public record they cannot keep up with bike thefts due to numbers….. But magically they’ll have the numbers to police every rider out there and typical BS will target the slow/elderly/adapted cyclists. My local force were given surons to deal with the kids using them illegally yet never used as there’s no officers qualified to use them 🤦♂️…. Kinda the same thing with all those police bikes donated to that lot thousands of pounds all better spent on hiring.
Saw about 5 Police this
Saw about 5 Police this morning all riding on the pavement.
Must be some new rule?
I think that’s a long
I think that’s a long-established rule:
“Do as I say, not as I do”
It is good to see them on
It is good to see them on bikes, but they were weaving all over the place, especially those at the back so if it was a training ride they hadn’t covered lane discipline or positioning yet.
Ah, my favourite lane
Ah, my favourite lane markings on the Priory Road cycle lane there on the left-hand side, the ones that pretend that a 1m wide strip of tarmac is a two-way cycle lane, thereby giving permission for road-raging motorists (Priory Lane example pictured) to rant furiously against cyclists heading for Richmond Park for not using it.
That’s the short Aussie chef,
That’s the short Aussie chef, isn’t it? That video is a classic.He got doxxed and there were some interesting photos…
What were you selling when
What were you selling when you were born?
Is it not reasonable to
Is it not reasonable to expect that in return for these new stricter laws for cycling that hold cyclists to the same or stricter standard than motorists, that they will drive more respectfully around cyclists?
[blows raspberry]
(No subject)
These are not new laws. If
These are not new laws. If anything it’s not stricter, it’s more lenient – you can get education or a FPN instead of going to court.
How does a cyclist know if
How does a cyclist know if thier lights are dazzling other road users? I appreciate, if somone is using a ridiculiously powerful light that this could be the case but when using a ‘normal’ bike light, how do you know you are dazzling someone?
This post in the forum holds
This post in the forum holds some clues – people shielding their eyes, or stopping until you’ve gone past: https://road.cc/content/forum/moan-constantly-dazzled-other-commuters-312109
When you get a ticket???
When you get a ticket???
Haven’t been through the
Haven’t been through the comments, so someone may already have covered this, but I think the article could be clearer that these are not new cycling offences – they’re just changing how these offences can be handled, by allowing them to be enforced with a fixed penalty or education, rather than prosecution. The article makes it sound like there’s a whole host of new things we can be slapped with, but in fact there’s a whole host of things we no longer have to go to court for.
Of course, whether adding a quick disposal option will bring an uptick in these offences being detected and acted on is another matter.
[EDIT – yes, Tom77 got there before me!]
I’m guessing that the
I’m guessing that the disparity between motorists and cyclists is due to cyclists not having number plates, so a cyclist can’t be sent an NIP because the cyclist can’t be readily identified at the roadside and therefore has to be stopped by plod or A. N. Other there and then else they’ll get away with whatever meaningless transgression we are discussing here. If we want parity then do we have to accept number plates? And is it worth it…?
If you mean the disparity
If you mean the disparity between the number of cycling offences and the number of driving offences in the above list – remember this is just a list of offences which are being added to the relevant schedule. Overall there are far more motoring offences on the list which can be disposed of by fixed penalty.
“Failure to comply with any
“Failure to comply with any direction given by a constable or by a notice exhibited by order of the Secretary of State regarding the use of a pedal cycle in a Royal Park or other specified land”.
I suspect this will be used by the Verderers sheriffs of the New Forest
This is just a joke certainly
This is just a joke certainly in any tvp area they can’t even police themselves let alone anything else all their interested in is fineing motorists from the comfort of a van or breaking laws getting to Gregg’s 30seconds quicker for lifesaving doughnuts . Come out for a breakin or stolen tools from a van or direct traffic after an accident Oh NO we’d rather sit in our warm car with the engine running. Bikers don’t worry you’ve got more chance of winning the lottery than getting booked
So:
So:
“Using lamps so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road.”
“Using a non-motor vehicle with any lamp so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort.”
1. We don’t have the equivalent of StVZO to define what sort of lights don’t cause dazzle?
2. How do they prove the intentionality of the all-important “so as to cause”?
I don’t think “so as to cause
I don’t think “so as to cause” requires intentionality – I think it just means “in a way that causes”.
I think mdavidford had the
I think mdavidford had the most likely view on (2) – on (1) I guess we’ll find out if anyone wants to donate to the lawyers and actually try to see this in court…
(Can’t guess how this will go – anything from “this law is ludicrously imprecise” and it effectively being unapplicable in most circumstances (like pavement parking) to “I know it when I see it (or the police do)” )