Cycling into the killing fields

Some years ago, I was working with a very experienced forester planning new planting on a piece of land I'm a trustee for. All our precious trees - our oaks, our alders, our ash, our elms, our rowans and our thorns - were to be planted in tubes, and then netted when they emerged from the tubes, to protect them from deer. But down along the burn, he planned to plant willow in an open area overlooked by a road, and these were not to be tubed and netted. Why not? I asked. The answer was simple: to lure the deer down into an area in which they could conveniently and safely be killed, so that we could control their numbers and protect our trees.

No-one supposes that road engineers see cyclists in the light that foresters see deer. No-one supposes that cycle facilities are planned as killing zones. And if someone were to say to you that many cycle facilities are killing zones, you'd think they were being hysterical.

But look at the facts. Eighteen out of twenty one women cyclists killed in London in the past four years were killed in left-hand entry lanes to 'advanced stop line' boxes. Like the deer, cyclists are lured into these lanes; and in these lanes they die. They die because, when the lights turn green, the traffic alongside them moves off and may turn left. As a long vehicle turns left, it's body sweeps through an area which neatly covers a left hand cycle lane. The cyclist has nowhere to go. Obviously, this is particularly lethal where there are railings along the pavement edge; but it's extremely dangerous even if there are not.

Or take cycle lanes alongside parked cars. These look sensible enough, don't they? Good use of road space. Until a driver opens the car door without looking. In London, 10% of all deaths and serious injuries to cyclists are collisions with suddenly opened car doors. Not only is the trailing edge of the door often relatively sharp, but also this type of accident tends to knock the cyclists suddenly into the path of faster moving traffic.

Cycle facilities, then, are often dangerous. I've cited two examples, but there are many more. 'Suicide' lanes round the edges of roundabouts, for example, that put cyclists in conflict with motor traffic at every exit. And 'shared use' pavements, which not only put cyclists in conflict with pedestrians, but also put them in conflict with road traffic at every junction - yet another killing zone.

To be fair, most cycle facilities are not designed for experienced cyclists. As the Department for Transport's Design Manual for Roads and Bridges puts it:

'...cyclists travelling in excess of 30Kph are less likely to be using off-carriageway facilities...'

So why does this matter? These facilities are dangerous, yes, but if cyclists know not to use them, what's the problem? The problem is a proposed change in the Highway Code. The present code says

Use cycle routes when practicable. They can make your journey safer.

But a new revision of the Highway Code is now lying before Parliament, and it says

Use cycle routes and cycle facilities such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings wherever possible, as they can make your journey safer.

The new Highway Code has been out for consultation, of course. And according to the consultation report, 4,000 responses were received, 70% of them from cyclists. Nevertheless, although the consultation report acknowledges that

...the choice to use these facilities remains with the cyclist, and there is no law forcing their use...

the Driving Standards Agency did not see fit to improve the wording - in fact, they chose to make it slightly worse. 'When practicable' leaves the judgement of what's practicable with the cyclist. Of course, as the consultation report acknowledges, that's actually the law, and what the new Highway Code says is not the law.

Nevertheless, the Road Traffic Act says

...any... failure [to observe the highway code] may in any proceedings... be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability...

So, although there's nothing in the law to say that cyclists should enter killing zones, if a cyclist does not use a cycle lane and is involved in an accident, the cyclist will be deemed liable.

So what does this mean? And if you're not a cyclist, why should you care?

It means that, if you're a cyclist, and you don't use manifestly dangerous, inconvenient or substandard facilities, you are fair game for any motorist too busy answering his phone to pay attention to the road. He can now mow you down with impunity, so long as there is any facility that you could 'possibly' have used.

Which means, of course, that a lot of cyclists will give up cycling. But those ex-cyclists are still going to have to get to work. You may feel that cyclists slow you up in the morning; but how much more would they slow you up if instead of using two square metres of road space, as each does now, they each drove their cars?

And if you walk, you probably don't like cyclists on the pavement (and you're very right not to - cyclists shouldn't be on the pavement). But now, wherever the local authority has painted a bike on the pavement, cyclists will be there, travelling fast to get to work.

So even if you never ride a bike - even if you loathe cyclists - this change to the highway code makes your life worse. Unless you act, the draft will become the official Highway Code within a month. Menzies Campbell has put down an Early Day Motion - number 1433 - to oppose this. Write to your MP ��' write today ��' to ask him or her to sign it.