Bike bells..

[pogofish]

I've never read the Highway Code - as a cyclist, am I required to read it by law?

Dear god!

Yes you are.

 

[Orang Utan]

No-one ever told me!

 

[Orang Utan]

What's in it that I might need to know that I wouldn't do anyway using my common sense?

 

[Biddlybee]

Yes you are.

By law? Or just advisable?

 

[pogofish]

Most of it is just that but it carries force of law & any vehicle user in the UK is required to have read it & paid attention to it.

Here:

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/index.htm

 

[lighterthief]

Rule 51 & another. Although it isn't that clearly expressed.

No, it isn't.

51. You should...be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example by ringing your bell.

Just pointing out that you don't have to have a bell at present. But as I said earlier, I think people should.

 

[pogofish]

No-one ever told me!

Ignorance is no excuse.

 

[Orang Utan]

Most of it is just that but it carries force of law & any vehicle user in the UK is required to have read it & paid attention to it.

Here:

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/index.htm

It just tells you that it's essential reading, not that you are legally required to read it. Is there a special section for cyclists cos I'm damned if I'm gonna read the whole thing.

 

[Orang Utan]

Ignorance is no excuse.

Ridiculous maxim

 

[Biddlybee]

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/cyclists.htm

 

[pogofish]

Just pointing out that you don't have to have a bell at present. But as I said earlier, I think people should.

Yes, other noisemakers are also equally acceptable but a voice is arguable. Don't know what the construction & use regs have to say about bikes/bells.

 

[lighterthief]

Ridiculous maxim

Not where the law is concerned.

 

[Biddlybee]

It's not law to read it though.

 

[pogofish]

Ridiculous maxim

Tell that to the court.

The legal assumption is that you know & have agreed to the HC from the moment you first hit the road.

It would also be assumed you know it in the case of any injury or insurance settlement & if you are found lacking, it could also adversely affect any settlement or division of responsability.

 

[pogofish]

It's not law to read it though.

You can probably have someone read it to you but now you are just being daft.

 

[Biddlybee]

You can probably have someone read it to you but now you are just being daft.

I have read it, but I didn't think it was a legal requirement to read it before cycling on roads.

 

[Kanda]

I have read it too, it is not a legal requirement.

They are trying to close this loophole when the harmonised cycle construction standards are introduced across all 25 EU states in the Autumn.

 

[lighterthief]

I have read it, but I didn't think it was a legal requirement to read it before cycling on roads.

I don't think it is, but if you were charged with an offence on the roads, simply 'not knowing about it' would not be an adequate defence.

 

[pogofish]

First page:

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, it itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under Traffic Acts to establish liability.

Pretty-much sums it up

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Here's a thought: Why not ring that bell before you go past a pedestrian, and give them a wide berth just in case they decide to cross without looking.

and get run over by the car coming behind.

 

[Kanda]

Nice how almost every other cyclist seems to have their own good reason to be exempt from the rules & responsabilities that the rest of us have to comply with. Quite a lot in common with brain-out car drivers there too.

Do all pedestrians obey the Green Cross Code?

If they did, the problem would dissapear.....

 

[guinnessdrinker]

I don't think it is, but if you were charged with an offence on the roads, simply 'not knowing about it' would not be an adequate defence.

ignorance of the law is no defence, no matter what.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Ridiculous maxim

try this one in court....

 

[Kanda]

Here's a thought: Why not ring that bell before you go past a pedestrian, and give them a wide berth just in case they decide to cross without looking.

Have you ever cycled through central London? You pass pedestrians pretty much every second. Cycle lanes are next to footpaths etc etc....

 

[Orang Utan]

Not where the law is concerned.

I know that, but only pompous arses self-righteously say 'ignorance is no excuse'

 

[Orang Utan]

I have read it, but I didn't think it was a legal requirement to read it before cycling on roads.

Is there anything I need to know that I don't know already?

 

[guinnessdrinker]

I know that, but only pompous arses self-righteously say 'ignorance is no excuse'

thanks for the self pompous arse comment we're only pointing out the situation in court. you're free to ignore us if you want.

 

[Orang Utan]

thanks for the self pompous arse comment we're only pointing out the situation in court. you're free to ignore us if you want.

Maybe I went to far with that comment, but when I hear that I always imagine a priggish schoolmaster saying it. Not saying you are, of course.

 

[Kanda]

For the pedestrians and The Highway code:

3: Help other road users to see you. Wear or carry something light coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions. When it is dark, use reflective materials (e.g. armbands, sashes, waistcoats and jackets), which can be seen, by drivers using headlights, up to three times as far away as non-reflective materials.

Is that law like the Bells then ?

 

[pogofish]

I know that, but only pompous arses self-righteously say 'ignorance is no excuse'

Maybe you are demonstrating exactly the same sort of selfishness & lack of consideration for anyone else that I'd suggest is a significant contributor to so many accidents today?