Legal advice on Cycle Lanes

[Speshact]

Shoosmiths are misleading motorists:
Sharing the roads with cyclists: Tips for motorists - Access Legal from Shoosmiths

I've jotted them this email:

In your advice note published today for drivers on cyclists rights you state:
"Cycle lanes tend to be around 1.5 metres wide, and cyclists should ensure they remain in the designated lane."
This mis-represents the Highway Code which states "Keep within the lane when practicable.....Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills"
Should you choose not to quickly correct your website please provide me with your reasoning.

[aidan.f]

Pity that's at the top, the rest is  all good  stuff.

[Gandalf]

I wasn't too happy about "cyclists should attempt to stay as close to the kerb as possible" even with the caveat  "but this doesn't mean they'll 'hug' the kerb".  Poorly written IMHO.

[JohnP]

It got off to such a good start ....

"So, how much of the road are cyclists entitled to?

The answer is as much as is needed to cycle safely. A bicycle is a legitimate road vehicle with the same rights and responsibilities as a car, van or lorry. When motorised vehicles and bikes follow the same rules, the roads become safer and more predictable for everyone."

[toekneep]

I think if you read the entire article it's pretty good and gives the overall impression that cyclists should be treated with respect and have equal rights on the road.

[Speshact]

I agree that in them the most part it was positive advice from a cyclist's perspective. Let's hope they make a tweak to make it more so.

[SlowCoach]

I've contacted Shoosmiths about the poor advice on cycle lanes and road positioning  and had a long and interesting reply from the author.  Within the response he says:

"I take on board your comments and confirm that there is no intention to misrepresent the highway code or go against the advice given to prospective cyclists who are seeking training at any level. With this in mind I am prepared to alter the offending paragraph to avoid any confusion."

and

"If you have any further comments or advice that I could find of use, or more importantly if there are any other areas related to cycling that as a cyclist, you find are not appropriately covered in the media generally, please do not hesitate to respond directly to this email".

Someone seems to be listening for once.

[clarion]

Respect.

[toekneep]

What an excellent and intelligent response. I do admire people who can admit their mistakes.

[Speshact]

Well done Slowcoach. The answer I got this morning was:

"First of all, many thanks for not only reading our articles, but also spending the time to comment upon the same. As the cycling safety campaign leader it is always nice to have feedback, particularly from somebody who may well have a passion for cycling.
 
I believe that the article you mention is this :
 
Sharing the roads with cyclists: Tips for motorists - Access Legal from Shoosmiths
 
The guidance note is aimed at motorists to help them share the road with cyclists. It's aim is to highlight to motorists common riding styles or techniques that cyclists may adopt. The same is not a list of cyclists rights.
 
I take on board your comment and confirm that there is no intention to misrepresent the highway code. In addition, the note does not portray to motorists that cyclists do, and have to, stay within a cycle lane. The introductory paragraph to the 5 tips advises that cyclists are entitled to as much of the road as they need and have the same rights as other road users. Furthermore, the proceeding paragraph confirms that cyclists are entitled to as much of the road as they need to cycle safely.
 
Throughout the note there is repeated guidance to motorists to allow cyclists as much of the road as they need, not to try and squeeze past them or what is effectively bully a cyclist into stopping, moving over or hugging the kerb.
 
Although we are a firm of solicitors who deal with personal injury claims and have dedicated bicycle accident specialists, the aim of my various guidance notes is to provide advice in a way that the public will take on board. I do not believe that listing the law in this area or the rights of motorists and cyclists would be productive. As cyclists we know, that motoring laws and regulations are often flaunted.
 
If you have any further comments or advice that I could find of use please do not hesitate to respond directly to this email.
 
Kind regards
 
XXX
Team Leader


Access Legal from Shoosmiths

[eck]

Yer man said:

I do not believe that listing the law in this area or the rights of motorists and cyclists would be productive. As cyclists we know, that motoring laws and regulations are often flaunted.

Flaunted they may well be, but I think he means flouted. 

[Speshact]

my reply to Shoosmith's email:

Thanks for your reply.

I am a fully accredited National Standards Cycling Instructor working full time teaching children and adults in London to cycle on road. Much that you have written in the article is good in my view.

However I spend a fair amount of time telling cyclists not to cycle in sub-standard cycle lanes - which in my experience means many of them in the UK (see Cycle Facility of the Month website Cycle Facility of the Month ) - and I believe that advice to motorists that "cyclists should ensure they remain in the designated lane" will result in conflict when cyclists choose not to. I disagree with your assertion that this does not portray to motorists that cyclists do, and have to, stay in a cycle lane. Quite a lot of motorists assume that the lanes are well designed and they can be affronted when cyclists cycle outside them (because for example the lane is adjacent to parked cars, in the 'dooring' zone, and thus abysmally designed). Their affront may be reinforced by articles written by a firm of reputable solicitors.

Please reconsider your advice - maybe replacing  "Cycle lanes tend to be around 1.5 metres wide, and cyclists should ensure they remain in the designated lane." with "Cycle Lanes are of variable quality and cyclists can choose whether it is better to use them or use another part of the highway.""

I look forward to your reply,

[Speshact]

Positive reply
"Having taken on board your comments I have gone back to our PR team and requested an edit to the article. Our aim is to be cycle friendly and certainly have the cycling community 'on board'. "

[handcyclist]

I had a similarly quick and postive reply to my email regarding cycle lanes.

Many thanks for your comments on my recently published article.
 
I have received a number of similar comments from other members of the public and having considered the matter further I am intending to make an amendment to the article to ensure that there is no misrepresentation of any regulations and so the same does not put cyclists in any additional danger.
Kind regards

[Access Legal Guy]

Hi all,

I'm the author of said article and many more on the Access Legal from Shoosmiths website.

Many thanks to Speshact, Slowcoach and Handcyclist for their input and comments.

The article is certainly not intended to be misleading. It is also not intended to be 'legal advice'. Having considered the comments made I am more than happy to defer to those more experianced in this field. I have now requested an edit to the offending paragraph and as Slowcoach highlights, I do most certainly listen.

It is nice to see that aside form the cycle lane issue, the balance of the article was seen as being positive.

As a Personal Injury Lawyer, and somebody with experiance and specislism in representing injured cyclists, I am dedicated to promoting the interests of accident victims. This includes safety awareness for cyclists of all ages and experience.

The particular comments in respect to cycle lanes has interested me greatly and I would be interested to seek the cycling communities views on exactly how poorly they are or can be designed, with a view to writing further articles and addressing the same in any way that I can.

Furthermore, my invite to Slowcoach to highlight particular concerns that cyclists have (around safety issues, injury, compensation and legal rights) is extended to all. Please feel free to contact me direct, or, now that I have registered here, post replies so that any discussions can be generic and open to public view.

With such useful and informative input, I hope that some of you could provide assistance and a cyclists point of view in the future.

Thanks for reading

Access Legal guy.

[hatler]

Access Legal guy,

Welcome !

I predict that you're going to get a fairly voluminous response to your request.

Thanks for registering and taking note. It is greatly appreciated.

[clarion]

Hello Access Legal guy.

Further to my comment of 'Respect' above, I would like to express my further admiration for your taking this matter seriously enough not just to make amendments, but to come on here and engage in a dialogue with us.

Very impressive.

I am sure you will be able to pick up a lot of information about issues with design of cycling facilities, and why we may or may not use certain paths/lanes/ASLs etc.

For a quick introduction to the issues, I might point you towards the Southend - Cycling Town thread, and the one on the Cycle Superhighways.  Both have links to Youtube videos illustrating the problems and benefits.

Once again, welcome!

[hatler]

Southend thread

Cycle Super Highways

Facility of the Month

[Jacomus]

Welcome - glad to see you appear, along with the prior posts about how receptive you have been.

hatler's links should prove to be quite a bit of reading on the subject!

[tonycollinet]

Brilliant - top notch - well done.


One (non cycle lane) comment from my side. Article very positive overall, but one statement made is about the distance a driver needs to give a cyclist when overtaking. It states that 1.5m should be given.

However to comply with rule 163 of the highway code, then drivers "should give as much room as they would a car" - with a handy picture to show that they mean "as though the cyclist were as big as a car.

So if a typical car is about 1.8m wide (ford focus), and assuming the cyclist is roughly where a cars near side wheels would be - then drivers should be giving about 1.8m + the 1m gap that he would leave between him and a car. So 2.8m rather than 1.5.

While I accept 1.5m may be enough in town where differential speeds are low, on a fastish A road, where a car may be passing at 60mph, then it is nowhere near enough.

To put it another way - If I can feel the air displaced by the car as it passes - it is too close.

Cheers

[hellymedic]

Welcome Access Legal Guy!

Other posters have pointed out links to poor cycle lanes. WCC's Facility of the Month draws in blatant examples of poor design from around the country (and occasionally the Continent). It's worth going through the whole lengthy archive. This month's facility is in Enfield, on the Great Cambridge Road (A10).

I am no longer able to cycle but I'm sure someone here can point out some counterproductive facilities not too far from you.

[Oaky]

Brilliant - top notch - well done.


One (non cycle lane) comment from my side. Article very positive overall, but one statement made is about the distance a driver needs to give a cyclist when overtaking. It states that 1.5m should be given.

However to comply with rule 163 of the highway code, then drivers "should give as much room as they would a car" - with a handy picture to show that they mean "as though the cyclist were as big as a car.

So if a typical car is about 1.8m wide (ford focus), and assuming the cyclist is roughly where a cars near side wheels would be - then drivers should be giving about 1.8m + the 1m gap that he would leave between him and a car. So 2.8m rather than 1.5.

While I accept 1.5m may be enough in town where differential speeds are low, on a fastish A road, where a car may be passing at 60mph, then it is nowhere near enough.

To put it another way - If I can feel the air displaced by the car as it passes - it is too close.

Cheers

This is one of the things that most annoys me about the HC wording in that section (the other is that it's a "should" not a "MUST").   The specification "at least as much room as you  would when overtaking a car" is ambiguous.

Whilst the accompanying picture suggests the above interpretation, it certainly doesn't require it, and the driver could interpret it as "leave the same gap between your car and the vulnerable road user as you would between your car and another car" which woudl be considerably closer.

[phil d]

Given the progress on this thread, might it be in order to amend the thread topic?  I'm sure Shoosmiths would rather not be shown under "dodgy" legal advice

Perhaps "Legal advice on cycle lanes" or similar?

[Greenbank]

Brilliant - top notch - well done.

One (non cycle lane) comment from my side. Article very positive overall, but one statement made is about the distance a driver needs to give a cyclist when overtaking. It states that 1.5m should be given.

However to comply with rule 163 of the highway code, then drivers "should give as much room as they would a car" - with a handy picture to show that they mean "as though the cyclist were as big as a car.

So if a typical car is about 1.8m wide (ford focus), and assuming the cyclist is roughly where a cars near side wheels would be - then drivers should be giving about 1.8m + the 1m gap that he would leave between him and a car. So 2.8m rather than 1.5.

2.8m? Really?

If a lane is 2.5m wide and you're riding in the middle of it (1.25m from the kerb) then the car should be over in the next lane, so about 2.5m (lane width) + 0.5m (50cm further into the other lane) = 3m from the kerb.

3m - 1.25m = 1.75m, but your shoulders/hips will stick out 25cm or so from the middle of the bike, so the actual separation of you and car will be 1.5m, which (IMHO) is perfect.

The problem with many motorists reading the "should give as much room as they would a car" is that they assume this means the 30cm or so separation they give when overtaking another car.

While I accept 1.5m may be enough in town where differential speeds are low, on a fastish A road, where a car may be passing at 60mph, then it is nowhere near enough.

To put it another way - If I can feel the air displaced by the car as it passes - it is too close.

Nice idea but it'll never happen. I'd be quite happy with a minimum 1m, even on 70mph dual-carriageways, that'd be a vast improvement to what I regularly experience.

[Greenbank]

This is one of the things that most annoys me about the HC wording in that section (the other is that it's a "should" not a "MUST").

MUST makes it a legal requirement and there to be an offence for not complying with it. I'm not sure whether this could be rolled into an offence of 'careless driving' or whether it would require a new offence.

I just don't think it would work if it was made a legal requirement. There are plenty of times where an overtake with less than 1.5m space is ok, and plenty of places (urban environments) where it would bring traffic to near standstill ("so what" cry the anti-car brigade). It'd be utterly unworkable on the roads I use for my commute into London.

Maybe increasing it to "MUST" on roads above 30mph would work though.

Enforcement is another tricky problem as there's no clear right/wrong test. From reading this thread (and others like it) I know I'm less sensitive to close overtakes than others.

The specification "at least as much room as you  would when overtaking a car" is ambiguous.

I definitely agree on that bit.