- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
London cyclist approaching junction.jpgObey! Transport minister tells cyclists to follow Highway Code… well, he asks leaders of cycling organisations to tell them for him
Transport Minister Jesse Norman has asked cycling organisations to remind their members to follow the Highway Code, less than 48 hours after announcing a review on whether dangerous and careless cycling offences should be introduced.
Norman has written to British Cycling, Cycling UK, the Bicycle Association, Sustrans, and Chris Boardman and Will Norman, Cycling and Walking Commissioners for Greater Manchester, and London, respectively, asking for their help highlighting the rules relating to cycling, including use of equipment, clothing and the use of lanes and crossings to their networks.
Norman’s letter, which directly references the recent case in which Kim Briggs died following a collision with cyclist Charlie Alliston, has prompted ire from cycling groups, who question whether Norman has written to motoring groups on the issue, given the relatively greater risk posed by motor vehicles.
Government announces cycle safety review in wake of Alliston case
“I am writing to you following the tragic death of Mrs Kim Briggs to ask for your help in highlighting the importance of cyclists adhering to the rules set out in the Highway Code.” Writes Norman, who is MP for Hereford and South Herefordshire.
“The Highway Code clearly sets out rules for cyclists including on equipment clothing and use of lanes and crossings. It states that every pedal cycle must have efficient brakes and meet the applicable legal requirements”.
Norman also refers to the more detailed information set out in the Pedal Cycles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1983, which states bicycles must have independent working front and rear brakes.
The cycling review was launched in response “to a series of high profile incidents involving cyclists”, including the case in which cyclist Charlie Alliston was this week sentenced to 18 months in a young offenders’ institution for the death of pedestrian Kim Briggs when the pair collided in London’s Old Street in February 2016.
Roger Geffen, Cycling UK Policy Director, told road.cc: "We're responding robustly behind the scenes to the DfT."
Cycling UK would not be drawn further on the matter.
Cycling organisations, such as British Cycling and Cycling UK, already promote safe cycling among their members, and critics would question whether the response to the Alliston case from the Department for Transport has been fair and proportionate. According to the Department for Transport’s own statistics, 1732 people were killed on UK roads in 2015, and 22,137 seriously injured. Cyclists, by contrast, account for around two deaths per year, on average.
Some have asked whether the RAC, AA and driving instructors have been contacted on the issue, given the respective risk motor vehicles pose on the roads.
Greater Manchester Cycling Campaign tweeted the letter today, commenting: “Unprecedented ministerial action after 2 cycle related deaths. Awaiting 750 times this much effort to address the 1500+ motor-related deaths.”
In 2014 Chris Grayling, the then Justice Secretary, who is now Transport Secretary, promised a review into sentencing policy in relation to convictions for the offences of causing death by dangerous driving. Despite more than 22 requests from Cycling UK and Parliamentarians since then the review, nor any legislation, have not been forthcoming.
The Highway Code, where it relates to cyclists, covers legal obligations such as the use of lights at night and reflectors fitted to the bike. It also advises cyclists to wear a cycle helmet and wear light coloured, reflective or fluorescent clothing, though this is not the law. There is also a section on road users requiring extra care, which Norman says “aims to educate and remind drivers of the needs of more vulnerable road users, such as cyclists”.
Laura Laker is a freelance journalist with more than a decade’s experience covering cycling, walking and wheeling (and other means of transport). Beginning her career with road.cc, Laura has also written for national and specialist titles of all stripes. One part of the popular Streets Ahead podcast, she sometimes appears as a talking head on TV and radio, and in real life at conferences and festivals. She is also the author of Potholes and Pavements: a Bumpy Ride on Britain’s National Cycle Network.
Latest Comments
- mark1a 2 hours 7 min ago
No problem at all old chap, its successor the CAAD13 is available in mechanical 105 11sp guise (not too shabby a groupset IMO with Shimano trickle...
- David9694 3 hours 1 min ago
Car crashing into Colchester Co-op sees two hospitalised https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/24719022.car-crashing-colchester-co-...
- mdavidford 3 hours 1 min ago
That's an 'interesting and brave' repurposing of the word 'highbrow' there.
- mdavidford 3 hours 8 min ago
Best to avoid driving on the A34 if at all possible, never mind cycling on it.
- . . 3 hours 12 min ago
I have two of these (I use one on the front with the red LED turned off and taped up) and think they are great, at least in daylight Plenty of...
- JohnMcL7 3 hours 42 min ago
With the lack of any decent content updates for a long time now, the build up to the tenth anniversary and the big hike in monthly price we'd...
- Prosper0 4 hours 2 min ago
No offence to Endura, but same advice as to Rapha, I actually have all the kit I need, for probably several years. You need to go and win the next...
- chrisonabike 7 hours 57 min ago
Ah - yes, they've got an American Star the wrong way round (means the child carrier needs rearranged though). Or it could be a Facile but inverted?
- lesterama 9 hours 49 min ago
What a bunch of ases
- quiff 10 hours 42 min ago
It was only your comment in the carousel that first brought me here, and yet I still managed to read most of the page before remembering this isn't...
Add new comment
71 comments
Hang on, its the Cycle Show at the moment - surely the best thing he could do is pop up to Birmingham and chat to cyclists there?
The sheer unadulterated insensitivity of sending this to Chris Boardman is utterly beyond contempt. Hope Chris tears him a new one (either verbally or physically will do). What a monumental cunt.
What he completely fails to understand is that in 99%+ of cases if a cyclist fucks up badly enough its them that gets killed/injured, no-one else. Aren't we all acutely aware of how vulnerable we are on the road and ride accordingly? I'd warrant out of all road users a regular cyclist will have among the very best hazard perception and risk assessment skills of anyone this side of a professional emergency driver.
I'm very conscious of doing it when I ride, and often reflect on what I could have done better to avoid a risk if an incident occurs, and because my commute is on the same roads every day you build those risk assessments into your ride. Even then the unexpected happens or you make an error of judgement and then you adapt your behaviour accordingly.
Still does nothing to defend against close passes and people cutting corners mind...
I was already furious about this letter, and I hadn't even considered this. You're absolutely right and it removes any doubt in my mind on the calibre of Jesse Norman as a politician or person.
This. Times a million.
Give him 5 minutes in the back room of a Manchester bar.
Sickening disrespect.
Absolutely spot on. Couldn't have worded it better myself.
The old "helmets and hi-viz" again.
I interpret this as:
1. Wear a helmet, so when you are hit by a vehicle, you won't be killed as quickly. And you're going to be hit by a vehicle.
2. Wear hi-viz clothes, or when you are hit by the vehicle, the driver, police, and courts can blame you for not "being seen."
They seem to build guilt and fault on the part of cyclists into their recommendations, rather than telling drivers to "QUIT DICKING AROUND WITH YOUR PHONE, KIDS, DOG, OR INFOTAINMENT PANEL AND OPEN YOUR EYES AND DRIVE!
As I have posted before, the "I didn't see them" "excuse" is not a valid excuse. If you didn't see them it's because you weren't paying attention, let's face it.
Pedestrians, other vehicles, animals, etc are not necessarily "hi-viz", yet drivers see them, and do not hit them, all the time. Why aren't pedestrians supposed to wear hi-viz?
1. Actually wearing a helmet isn't as much to do with hitting your head on a car as much hitting your head on tarmac, kerb, tree, lampost, etc. and it doesn't require being hit by a car to meet bang your head on any of them.
2. As I've said many times before hi-viz matters little as the most common effect of wearing more seems to result in the user suddenly believing they've become immune to all forms of harm and danager.
Although I'm not surprised about the general article or the general lack of sense when it comes to the comments section, it seems ironic that a lot of people here complain about the Daily Mail when you've got so much in common with it but instead of the Daily Mail's migrants rant and comments it is cycling.
Really don't wish to feed the troll which comments upset you:
Those suggesting that it's strange to write to possibly the least dangerous group of road users following one freak incident
Those suggesting hi vis and helmets have little impact versus distracted, speeding, unlawful drivers
Or
Those suggesting writing such a letter to a man whose mother was killed by an uncharged incompetent danger is at best cuntish
Your fear is justified.
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/futility/
Would he not be better off writing to the police and getting to crack down on all illegal vehicles operating on our roads? It really is trivial to see whether a bike has a front brake or not. But at all their interventions they are too busy advising on helmets and hi viz.
Will he also be writing to the horse society about the 10 people a year killed by horses? What about the 74 people killed by cows in the last 15 years? Will he tell all the farmers?
Looking forward to Boardman's well researched and fact filled reply this this dreadful letter. It'll have been written by one of her aides, checked for correctness, before she signed it.
I think a face to face televised meeting between her and Boardman would be fun to watch, as she hasn't got a clue. But it'll never happen
Well researched? She is a he.
in the back room she was everybody's darling. She said "hey, babe, take a ride on the wild side".
Ok, I got my wires crossed, because it was Hedi Alexander being interviewed on the BBC, as SHE is the MP for Mr Briggs whose wife Kim was killed by Charlie Alliston.
Doesnt help he's got a girls name
The Pedal Cycles (Construction and Use) Act hasn't been updated since Bernard Hinault won the Tour de France using the first generation of clipless pedals. Carbon fibre was just for aerospace at that point in time. Things have moved on a bit since then.
Perhaps Mr Norman could make better use of his time as a legislator by making our laws relevant and creating legislation based on evidence including numbers and science, rather than asking powerless organisations (which no one is required to join) to promote (unevidenced) advice that is not part of an actual law?
Bizarre. The letter reads like Norman simply want to be seen to be doing something.
If I were in one of the cycling organisations, I'd be tempted to throw the ball back into his court. Something like "We're so glad you recognise the importance of abiding by the Highway Code. It applies of course to all road users. We'd be pleased to work with you and other agencies, including local authorities, police forces and motoring organisations, so that together we can reinforce to all road users that they need to comply with the Code. This would be an ideal starting point for a broader review of these rules and sentencing policy, which can pick up this Government's promises to review sentencing policy for motoring offences and in light of the recent Alliston case."
Norman is a retarded plonker and his knowledge of highway code similar to trigger out of fools and horses
Yet another ill-conceived action from a government minister who feels the urge to be seen doing something. It is probably well intentioned (giving the benefit of the doubt here) but shows incredible prejudice that all cyclists are unaware of the highway regulations and need reminding. What about the motorists who are members of these organisations who act outside of expected regulations and regularly kill/maim/injure cyclists? It is also wrong in the assumption that if you are a member of a cycling organisation you don't know the rules. How far from the reality where members of such organisations are probably more informed than your average road user? It's the ones that aren't that are the problems.
All of this stems from an accident where a pedestrian unfortunately lost her life due to the actions of one arrogant knob on a bike. Why is there no such action when a motorist kills a pedestrian or cyclist?
It really is a pity that the transport secretary doesn't know that there are no rules governing what a cyclist choses to wear and that the advice in the highway code is only advice
Apparently official government advice is now to be that all cyclists must wear sackcloth and ashes. And a helmet.
Is it the sackcloth or the ashes that should be hi vis?
The sackcloth, definitely the sackcloth (ashes can't be hi viz: that would just be silly!
)
Laughable if the knock on effect wasn't so serious.
I think the time has come to get a camera for the car and I'll send the muppet multiple examples of drivers flouting the Highway code.
Some points for the Minister for Transport to raise in his forthcoming ?? letter to the motoring assosiations....
Car doors - Check behind before opening, especially if it is a government car in Westminster
Lights - Especially on modern cars with daylight running lights and a permanently lit dashboard - TURN THEM ON WHEN IT'S DARK AND WET, otherwise the back of the car is damn near invisible.
Indicators - Factory fitted and compulsory, try using them (Might need to include diagrams for BMW and Audio owners)
Speed limits - It's a MAXIMUM, not a minimum, a target, just decoration at the roadside.
Mobile phones - You're in a car, not a phone box. leave your call till later.
Road Tax - It doesn't exist, so stop complaining that cyclists don't pay it. VED is emissions based so unless a cyclist has a really severe stomach problem, they are exempt (as as electric cars and many low emission vehicles)
We called him "Failing Grayling" when he was the Minister of (in)Justice for a reason. In a Cabinet of lightweights, he is truly an intellectual Pygmy.
In case anyone wants to read the full letter in all its ignominy , here it is.
It's outrageous and only lends itself to the cretinous viewpoint that cyclist are a homogenous group with a hive mind.
So Charlie Alliston is a dick (albeit a harshly treated one) who rides a bike, so I am by extension also a dick too.
There is another theory. One for conspiracy theorists.
http://singletrackworld.com/2017/09/the-law-will-be-fixed/
Interesting reading and hard to disagree with any of the detail - the dots all make sense but it doesn't mean he is connecting them correctly. Still, food for thought.
Pages