Cycling laws that need clarifying

[AY1975]

Three cycling laws that I'm not sure about and that don't appear to have been discussed in any existing threads, including the long-running and now locked "Cyclists - your experiences on the road" thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/cyclists-your-experiences-on-the-road.207709/

Firstly, is it legal to have your lights on your person instead of attached to your bike (or to have your rear light attached to a backpack that you're carrying) when riding after dark?

Secondly, I've heard different things from different sources about the requirement (or not) to have an audible warning device (i.e. a bell or a horn) attached to your bike. I've heard from some sources that a bike has to have one when it is sold but not when you are actually riding it, but I've heard from elsewhere that there is no requirement for a bike to have one either when it is sold or when it is being ridden, only that official advice is to have one (in the same way that the wearing of cycling helmets is currently only advisory in the UK, not mandatory unlike in some countries such as Australia and New Zealand and some states of the USA).

Thirdly, I understand that although it's an offence to cycle under the influence of alcohol or drugs, cyclists are not subject to the same alcohol limits as motorists. Presumably the thinking is that a bike isn't such a complex piece of machinery as a car and doesn't take as long to stop (although it can still take a while to stop under certain conditions, such as in heavy rain when cycling downhill on a steep gradient), so cyclists are simply left to decide for themselves how much they can safely drink before cycling. In practice the safest bet is probably to stick to the same limits as you would before driving, though.

 

[The exile]

Presumably the thinking is that a bike isn't such a complex piece of machinery as a car and doesn't take as long to stop (although it can still take a while to stop under certain conditions, such as in heavy rain when cycling downhill on a steep gradient), so cyclists are simply left to decide for themselves how much they can safely drink before cycling.

Does a bike really have a shorter braking distance than a car travelling at the same speed? My gut instinct coupled with experience would suggest that it’s the other way round.

 

[bramling]

Does a bike really have a shorter braking distance than a car travelling at the same speed? My gut instinct coupled with experience would suggest that it’s the other way round.

I’d say it depends on a range of factors. A mountain bike can pull up fairly quickly, a road bike less so. Likewise wet conditions will have a considerable effect. Where the bike may have a slight advantage is that it is lighter, and generally the person in control is probably going to have a better level of situational awareness than your average vehicle driver, so reaction times will likely be considerably quicker.

Worth noting that car braking distances will also vary according to many factors. Patsi in her poorly maintained Astra with bald tyres and two kids screaming in the back probably isn’t going to react very well to a hazard.

 

[Magdalia]

Does a bike really have a shorter braking distance than a car travelling at the same speed?

At the same speed is almost entirely irrelevant: cycles rarely reach speeds that cars are driven at most of the time.

Even in a 20mph zone, and a cyclist fit enough to reach 20mph, the cycle will stop more quickly than a car, and, more importantly, in a shorter distance.

Where the bike may have a slight advantage is that it is lighter, and generally the person in control is probably going to have a better level of situational awareness than your average vehicle driver, so reaction times will likely be considerably quicker.

The bike being lighter is a significant advantage, and I'd agree regarding situational awareness and reaction times. I have lost count of the number of times where I have avoided being hit by a car by reacting to danger more quickly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For (2) they are required to be on the bike when sold (with some exceptions e.g. track bikes not designed for road use). There's limited real need because all riders (near enough) are equipped with a mouth and vocal chords which can be used as an audible warning, though I get that a bell is a bit more civilised!

For (3) it's probably just that there isn't a major problem with drunken cycling and so the laws have been left as they historically were - in essence it's just not worth Parliamentary time. I have wondered if they'd bring it into line with motor vehicles if/when the law on personal conveyances is modified to allow personal e-scooters (as those pose no more real risk than a bicycle but the drink-drive laws actually do apply to them). As for simplicity having the same laws for all low speed personal conveyances makes a lot of sense rather than different ones for each of pedal cycles, e-bikes and scooters as to some extent applies now.

 

[Ediswan]

For (1), from memory, there must be lights correctly mounted on the cycle itself (enforcement is another matter).

For (3), drinking and cycling going is common, not hidden. The current test is 'incapable of having proper control' (RTA 1960). Rarely prosecuted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For (3), drinking and cycling going is common, not hidden. The current test is 'incapable of having proper control' (RTA 1960). Rarely prosecuted.

To be fair drinking and driving is quite rarely prosecuted overall. While I've never driven when I'd be over the limit (to my knowledge) I have also never been breathalysed. The average annual prosecution rate is apparently somewhere around 50K but it must actually be far, far more common that people do it, particularly in rural areas.

For cycling it's even less common, it only comes up when someone cycles into something like a parked car and evidence is recorded of it.

 

[dcbwhaley]

Another anomaly is that pedal cycles are not subject to speed limits. Something increasingly pertinent with the introduction of 20mph limits.
There is, however, "wanton or furious cycling" which is a criminal offence under section 35 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861.
My father was fined 40 shillings for that in 1946.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another anomaly is that pedal cycles are not subject to speed limits. Something increasingly pertinent with the introduction of 20mph limits.

Yes, true, most people are incapable of exceeding 30mph on a pushbike aside from downhill, and e-bikes are governed below that (otherwise they're entirely illegal whatever speed they're being ridden at).

It's difficult to do, though, as it would mean needing the installation of a calibrated speedometer, which e-bikes have (in order to enforce the assistance drop out at 15.5mph) but pedal cycles mostly do not. You could apply it to e-bikes only, but personally I think bringing all three low-speed personal transport methods under one set of laws would be better (as it's simpler and easier to enforce) and so it'd be against that, plus e-bikes are less likely to be ridden in excess of 20 because they're so heavy that going above the assisted speed is for most considerable effort.

 

[JGurney]

It is worth bearing in mind that English law tends to work on an if-not-broken-don't-fix basis of addressing problems as they arise.
It is also worth noting that the legal system was around long before the car was common.

The law effectively recognises six classes of road user: pedestrians, herders, equestrians, carters, pedal cycles and motor vehicles. The first four date from time immemorial and the last two from different periods in the 19th century.

Under the Road Vehicle Lighting Regs 2017, cycles ridden at night must have lights which are attached to the vehicle no more than 1.5m above the ground. Provided a bike has those lights there is no rule against the rider having other auxiliary lights attached to clothing, helmets, etc, provided these are white if facing forward and red if rear facing.

There is no legal requirement for a bell to be attached to a bicycle in use, although one should be fitted to one sold as new.

Speed limits not applying to cyclists is not really an "anomaly", because they do not apply to most other classes of road user either, but apply specifically to motor vehicles, having been introduced in response to the public danger arising from fast motor vehicles in the early 20th century.
Cyclists are covered by the same rules which prohibit riding horses and driving horse-drawn carts at a dangerous speed on public roads. None of these may be ridden at a speed which, given the conditions at the time, amount to a danger to the public.

The law concerning drunken cycling is basically the same as that covering riding a horse or driving a cart while drunk (and indeed to herding cattle along a road while drunk). It is a crime to do any of these while incapable of doing them properly and safely due to the effects of alcohol. The standard for assessing this is the same common-sense test used for cases of being drunk and disorderly - that evidence establishes the defendant showed the common signs of being drunk.

 

[telstarbox]

I know London police occasionally pull over riders without lights, but I can't see them being too fussed if the light is on the person not the bike.

 

[Bald Rick]

Even in a 20mph zone, and a cyclist fit enough to reach 20mph, the cycle will stop more quickly than a car, and, more importantly, in a shorter distance.

Hmm. Not sure. As a road cyclist who is routinely rouleur-ing around at 20mph plus, on a bike with very good disc brakes, I have to hang back from cars because they can (and do) stop much more wuickly than I can. The difference is that my normal braking on a bike is fairly close to the maximum the bike will entertain before skidding. Whereas in the car, normal braking is at somewhat lower levels than emergency braking.

Therefore under normal conditions, when I brake on my bike, I will stop more quickly than a car braking normally, but if a car brakes hard in front, I am fairly quickly leaving skidmarks (in both senses).

There is, however, "wanton or furious cycling" which is a criminal offence under section 35 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861.

That is something I should have on my charge sheet. I was certainly more than furious with a couple of drivers out on the road this weekend nearly takign me off. Both Mercedes taxis of course…

 

[Magdalia]

Hmm. Not sure. As a road cyclist who is routinely rouleur-ing around at 20mph plus, on a bike with very good disc brakes, I have to hang back from cars because they can (and do) stop much more wuickly than I can.

But you are not comparing like with like. When you are following the car, and seeing it brake, the car driver has already been through the reaction time component of coming to a stop.

 

[Bald Rick]

But you are not comparing like with like. When you are following the car, and seeing it brake, the car driver has already been through the reaction time component of coming to a stop.

I‘m generally looking further up the road than just the car in front - I tend to brake before the car in front does. The issue is when they really step on it. And at (say) 20mph, my reaction time is well under the 10-15metres space I’m giving them.

 

[bramling]

But you are not comparing like with like. When you are following the car, and seeing it brake, the car driver has already been through the reaction time component of coming to a stop.

I’d tend to concur with that BR says though, realistically you probably need more time to stop than people might think, especially if you’re on a road bike with thin tyres and/or in wet conditions.

There’s two issues to contend with that don’t really affect car drivers to any great extent. Firstly that if the wheel rims are wet it can take a short time for the brakes to become effective (though there are ways this can be reduced), but secondly adhesion is always going to be an issue such that the limiting factor becomes going into a skid. Naturally this a lot more like with 2 wheels compared to 4. You also have to consider that you’re braking both wheels separately, so there’s decisions to make on that as well.

Really on a bike you shouldn’t be using the brake much at all. Especially at night when roads are clear, I can go for pretty long rides and at high speeds whilst barely using the brakes - only on descents and very occasionally at junctions or corners.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Pedal cycles - lighting

www.gov.uk

"Any cycle which is used between sunset and sunrise must be fitted with the following:

• white front light
• red rear light
• red rear reflector
• amber/yellow pedal reflectors – front and rear on each pedal"

Note .... cycle must be fitted..... (which I presume precludes the rider being fitted).

Highway code cycling

You should wear a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened

www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk

"You MUST NOT.....ride when under the influence of drink or drugs, including medicine."
and
"You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals."

 

[Bletchleyite]

With regard to helmets, "Shoulds" in the Highway Code do not constitute law. They are merely recommendations which one can disregard, though they may come into play when determining what level of compensation should be awarded in an accident, e.g. if an injury was worsened by not wearing a helmet there's plenty of precedent for the compensation paid only being at the level that would have been paid for the likely level of injury that would have occurred had one been worn rather than the one that did when one wasn't, i.e. contributory negligence.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

"You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals."

Thought this was entirely optional nowadays for cyclists!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thought this was entirely optional nowadays for cyclists!

One could certainly think so. One of the major disadvantages of a move away from on the ground beat policing.

 

[Meole]

The majority of bikes in cities appear to be electrically assisted these days, many have adapted the speed limiter to allow higher levels to be attained, this presumably would put them at jeopardy for 20 mph limits as the non mechanical exemption should not apply.

 

[JamesT]

The main limitation on braking distance is going to be the contact patch between the tyre and the road. So cars will be able to stop much quicker from the same speed than a bike.

The majority of bikes in cities appear to be electrically assisted these days, many have adapted the speed limiter to allow higher levels to be attained, this presumably would put them at jeopardy for 20 mph limits as the non mechanical exemption should not apply.

If the e-bike has been modified in that way then it becomes a motor vehicle and subject to all the relevant laws. If the police can be bothered they can seize the vehicle and prosecute the rider for driving without insurance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The majority of bikes in cities appear to be electrically assisted these days, many have adapted the speed limiter to allow higher levels to be attained, this presumably would put them at jeopardy for 20 mph limits as the non mechanical exemption should not apply.

They're illegal regardless of whether they are exceeding any speed limit or not. Simply seeing one is enough!

 

[Meole]

Police have little interest in e bikes, and prove evasive when challenged e.g. https://www.dyfed-powys.police.uk/f.../january/escooter--bike-prosecutions-9142023/
explaining its far too expensive to tell the public how many e bike prosecutions this typical force makes

 

[Bletchleyite]

Police have little interest in e bikes, and prove evasive when challenged e.g. https://www.dyfed-powys.police.uk/f.../january/escooter--bike-prosecutions-9142023/
explaining its far too expensive to tell the public how many e bike prosecutions this typical force makes

Which I find very odd, as they're very easy pickings - you can spot one a mile off.

One suspects they may fear accusations of racism etc, as most such "e-bikes" are ridden by the likes of Deliveroo couriers, and most Deliveroo couriers are not middle aged British white men.

 

[JamesT]

Which I find very odd, as they're very easy pickings - you can spot one a mile off.

One suspects they may fear accusations of racism etc, as most such "e-bikes" are ridden by the likes of Deliveroo couriers, and most Deliveroo couriers are not middle aged British white men.

Apparently some police forces are more proactive that others - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw4mx92w7zno

City of London Police says officers been seizing about five of the illegal e-bikes and e-scooters a week, with those caught riding them facing a £300 fine.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The City Police are certainly much more proactive than most with regard to enforcement of cycling laws generally. I've seen them out ticketing for pavement riding, I've not seen that anywhere else, ever.

 

[JamesT]

The City Police are certainly much more proactive than most with regard to enforcement of cycling laws generally. I've seen them out ticketing for pavement riding, I've not seen that anywhere else, ever.

Very very occasionally Oxford police have run crackdowns where they ticket cyclists on pedestrianised streets. Once they caught 85 in an hour. But it seems to be years between news stories saying they're doing it.

More regularly, they pick up unlit cyclists, usually setting up in the evening the week the clocks go back.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Apparently some police forces are more proactive that others - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw4mx92w7zno

It comes to something when 5 per week is proactive... There's probably more that many passing my house whilst Coronation Street is on

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Aug 2024 ==

Thirdly, I understand that although it's an offence to cycle under the influence of alcohol or drugs, cyclists are not subject to the same alcohol limits as motorists. Presumably the thinking is that a bike isn't such a complex piece of machinery as a car and doesn't take as long to stop (although it can still take a while to stop under certain conditions, such as in heavy rain when cycling downhill on a steep gradient), so cyclists are simply left to decide for themselves how much they can safely drink before cycling. In practice the safest bet is probably to stick to the same limits as you would before driving, though.

Even driving a motor vehicle, the police don't actually have to obtain a breath sample to pursue a drink driving offence. Whilst the usual path is to get a sample and prosecute for being "over the limit", you can still be prosecuted for "driving while unfit under the influence of drink or drugs" without the need for an evidentiary sample.

 

[The exile]

But you are not comparing like with like. When you are following the car, and seeing it brake, the car driver has already been through the reaction time component of coming to a stop.

That’s of little consolation as you crash into the back of them.

 

[Magdalia]

That’s of little consolation as you crash into the back of them.

Stopping quickly and being hit by a car from behind is what I'd be thinking about.