The problem is not being arrested for being on the road, but comes in two ways:
a) Already drivers intimidate cyclists who use the road "when there's a perfectly good cyclepath on the pavement". With the re-phrasing this intimidation will only get worse, as those drivers who have read the new code feel more justified in objecting to cyclists choosing not to use the cycle facilities provided.
b) There is a danger that any cyclist involved in an accident on the road will have any compensation reduced on the grounds of "contributory negligence" for not using a facility. This has been fought against successfully where the use of cycle helmets has been concerned, since so far it has been unclear that in the cases involved a helmet would have actually helped significantly. It's not so clear what happens when you're run over on the road - since if you'd been on the path the accident couldn't have happened.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 08:15 am (UTC)a) Already drivers intimidate cyclists who use the road "when there's a perfectly good cyclepath on the pavement". With the re-phrasing this intimidation will only get worse, as those drivers who have read the new code feel more justified in objecting to cyclists choosing not to use the cycle facilities provided.
b) There is a danger that any cyclist involved in an accident on the road will have any compensation reduced on the grounds of "contributory negligence" for not using a facility. This has been fought against successfully where the use of cycle helmets has been concerned, since so far it has been unclear that in the cases involved a helmet would have actually helped significantly. It's not so clear what happens when you're run over on the road - since if you'd been on the path the accident couldn't have happened.