A law firm has found that many drivers don't know all the road rules governing cyclists. Only 58 percent of drivers' answers to Irwin Mitchell's online quiz were right, while cyclists overall scored 70 percent.
Set up for the Tour de France, Irwin Mitchell's eight-question quiz has had over 7,000 responses to questions covering topics such as whether cyclists must wear protective equipment; the amount of space needed to pass a cyclist; and which signs and signals apply to cyclists.
Happily, 95 per cent of respondents knew all traffic signs and signals apply to cyclists as well as motorists, but only 43 percent got right a question about when you're allowed to carry a passenger (when the bike has been fitted with additional seating space, it turns out).
Fourteen percent of respondents thought cyclists were obliged to wear some sort of protective equipment.
On average, cyclists got right 5.5 questions out of 8.
The results were released to coincide with the end of last week's Road Safety Week initiative.
Neil Whiteley, a partner at Irwin Mitchell who specialises in serious injuries, said: "The results so far from our Great British Cycling Quiz show there is a need for motorists in particular to be more aware about the rules governing cyclists on UK roads.
"In light of Road Safety Week's theme – and the darker evenings presenting a greater risk to road users – now is the perfect time to raise awareness of that need."
"Often there are issues between road users which may arise from a lack of understanding about the correct approach or rules that apply to each other.
"Cyclists and motorists alike have a lot to consider when they are on their travels, and we hope our findings will help to bring safety to the top of their agenda."
Want to test yourself? Get over to the Great British Cycling Quiz.
36 thoughts on “Drivers don’t know cycling road rules, quiz results show”
Only caught out by the last
Only caught out by the last question. Who would have thought that a rickshaw, (you know, the things with extra seats) wasn’t allowed to carry a passenger! :/
Ashn27 wrote:Only caught out
Rickshaws have the required additional seating spaces, as do tandems and bikes with retrofitted seats like child seats.
Ive said it before, the Key
Ive said it before, the Key is educating drivers(and many cyclists) on what cyclists are allowed to do and the rules on how to act when you come across cyclists on the road.
100%
100% <:P
100% woo! Although I guessed
100% woo! Although I guessed on the independently fit to ride question, I had no idea.
The “correct” answer was that
The “correct” answer was that cyclists can never ride on the pavement.
Except some pavements have clear signage indicating that they’re shared use for pedestrians and cyclists.
Consider also the toucan crossing. Clearly the cyclist is not expected to mount/dismount in the carriageway*.
Ergo, the quiz is wrong, the condescending manner all the more offensive, and we shouldn’t take it seriously.
*although no-one has yet been able to point out clear guidance stating how far from the crossing I can continue on my bike. A crossing for cyclists built into a route where cycling is otherwise prohibited. A farcical piece of infrastructure illustrating the lack of thought given to routes for cycling.
pmanc wrote:The “correct”
Also only correct in EW&NI – in Scotland the ‘right to roam’ legislation grants permission for non-motorised access on all footways starting and ending in a public place
mad_scot_rider wrote:pmanc
Are you sure about this? There is a briefing paper on the Land Reform Act by staff at Holyrood but it states that it is still an offence in Scotland.
Please ignore. Duplicate
Please ignore. Duplicate post.
Mmmm it tells me I got one
Mmmm it tells me I got one wrong, I said that you cannot cross a stop line at a red light (to access a ASL)
I was under the impression that these could only be accessed through the appropriate cycle lane which doesn’t have a stop line, ie the first (motor vehicle) stop line doesn’t cover the full width of the road.
EK Spinner wrote:Mmmm it
Well spotted EK Spinner. There’s a general problem with the quiz that the questions don’t say whether they’re asking about law, custom, practicality etc. Several of them use the word “should”, when they really mean what is the legal requirement.
You’re right that it is currently illegal to ride over the stop line to get into an ASL, and instead you’re theoretically meant to continue into it from a cycle lane. But I haven’t heared of that law ever being adhered to or enforced, and I was advised by a policeman at a cycling event to ignore it, so if I ever get pulled up on it I’ll claim entrapment. The law is going to be repealed next year.
bdsl wrote:By the way, I
Actually the law is that they/we have to stop on AMBER – though popular opinion seems to be that amber means “floor it before the lights turn red”. :/
And likewise red doesn’t count if it is “just turned red”.
Yep. Though bizarrely there are some ASL boxes around like this one, which is illegal to use:
GrahamSt wrote:Yep. Though
I thought the law had been changed to make it legal for a cyclist to enter the ASL at any point regardless of the lines to avoid that?
farrell wrote:I thought the
Yeah I thought that too (see my CTC link in the earlier comment) but I don’t think those reforms actually take effect till next year. This road.cc story suggests March 2015:
http://road.cc/content/news/117789-dft-launches-road-sign-consultation-strong-focus-cycling-infrastructure
bdsl wrote:
You’re right that
I should hope so. It’s especially bad at ‘No right turn’ junctions (typically into a major road), if you want to go straight ahead, but the only ‘entry point’ is on the left, putting the cyclist at risk of left hooks. E.g. this ASL http://youtu.be/wWs3X4I_4do
EK Spinner wrote:Mmmm it
Seconded, if there is only a solid line before the ASL then you can not legally enter the ASL if the light is red, I have seen ASLs like this.
So, the people who wrote the quiz got 2 of the answers wrong and I really don’t see how it does anything to improve cyclists safety.
The red light/ASL question is
The red light/ASL question is misleading.
Where there is an ASL there are two lines but the first isn’t a stop line, only the second. Cyclists are not allowed to ride past the second, so they can never cross a stop line when the lights are red. The question also says the ASL is a “red boxed area” which isn’t necessarily true.
I’ll take issue with Q1. “as
I’ll take issue with Q1. “as much room as you would when overtaking another vehicle” is not a set distance and is one of the most wooly bits of the entire HC.
Didn’t know the passenger
Didn’t know the passenger one, how often does a bike have two seats and not be a tandem or a kiddie carrier?
Oh and the stop line one, needs to be read properly. But I guess it’s to educate not to just get 100%
When taken at face value,
When taken at face value, rather than dwelling on the minutiae of some questions’ wording, the quiz seems fair enough, no doubt alerting some non-cyclists to errors in their understanding.
Including something on the whole “two abreast” argument might have been worthwhile, another popular inaccuracy that it would also be worth dispelling.
Otherwise, just light-hearted fun, nothing more. The reach of the survey was miniscule anyway.
Oh, I got 7/8. Cycling when drunk thing caught me out.
Actually the stop line thing
Actually the stop line thing got fixed in the May 2014 traffic reforms I believe.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/traffic-signs-reform-signal-better-cycling-infrastructure
Prior to that reform you could only legally enter the ASL box on amber or red via a feeder-lane which didn’t have a stop line on it.
The pavement one got me too though. “Never”, really?
That’s a bit misleading. There are tons of shared use pavements round me.
GrahamSt wrote:
The pavement
“Pavement” is another grey area. I think the law is specifically against cycling on a “Footway”, which is a word that has specific meaning. Lots of useful info on all of these topics at http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/
“all traffic signs and
Like a speed limit sign? :/
Re pavements/never, it
Re pavements/never, it applies where there’s an adjacent roadway, but may not otherwise IIRC.
100%
100% B-)
considering the Police don’t
considering the Police don’t seem to know the law about ASL infringement, its not surprising motorists and some cyclists don’t know either?
I’ve directly asked a number of PC and PCSO during their “crackdowns” in London, sat on my bike in an ASL next to them on the pavement, and 3/4 of them did not know either what the law was, or what the penalties for breaking this law actually was.
God help us…..
I (well technically we) have
I (well technically we) have been accused of ‘illegally’ riding two abreast several times and been given abuse… Not sure how many of them did actually check the highway code when they got home as I politely suggested to them 😉
M_Vos wrote:I (well
B-)
Here is what it says:
Rule 66 never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
freespirit1 wrote: M_Vos
Not quite – the precise wording even here is ‘should’, not ‘must’ – same wording as for helmets – so >2 abreast isnt actually illegal either – tho’ depending on circumstances those doing so could be charged with ‘cycling inconsiderately’, Sect. 29 of the Road Traffic Act. (I think that may have been what one guy taking the lane into a roundabout was charged with c/o some overzealous Plod but it was dismissed/thrown out/similar)
By the way, I think the law
By the way, I think the law for motorists at ASLs is that they have to stop at whichever of the two stop lines they are able to safely stop at if the light is red – so if it turns red as they are approaching and they aren’t able to safely stop at the first line then they are supposed to wait behind the ASL. That’s why the police say that a motirist waiting in an ASL box hasn’t necassarily done anything wrong.
I think it might be better if instead motorists were told to ignore the second stop line and go through the junction if they pass the first line as the light turns red.
Stupid quiz, used ‘Right of
Stupid quiz, used ‘Right of way’ where it meant priority.
2 wrong. The rickshaw /
2 wrong. The rickshaw / added seat one and riding on pavements (I went for local bylaws since there are plenty of cycle lanes in London that are on the pavement. Guess I’m wrong by a definition).
2 wrong. The rickshaw /
2 wrong. The rickshaw / added seat one and riding on pavements (I went for local bylaws since there are plenty of cycle lanes in London that are on the pavement. Guess I’m wrong by a definition).
Regarding the overtaking
Regarding the overtaking distance – “the same amount of space needed to pass another vehicle” – this wording is not really clear and to me it encourages close passes. Why ?
From diagrams/images it clearly means – “treat the narrow cyclist as if they were as wide as car and then add your overtaking gap.”
but the words only, could be interpreted as “the size of gap between your nearside and the cyclist, needs to be the same as between your nearside and a slower cars offside”. Which is possibly too little in many cases.
How about a new message ..
“*twice* as wide for those who ride?”
Yeah, I got two wrong… I
Yeah, I got two wrong… I thought we came under the same rules for alcohol as other road users, and I thought the ASL question was a trick question, as I’d never seen a re ASL box.
So, I am a danger on the roads basically.
Not sure the law firm Irwin
Not sure the law firm Irwin Mitchell fully understand the law. The question about riding on the pavements is misleading, as pavements can be designated as “shared use”, therefore cyclist can use them under those circumstances.