French highway code - changes fo cyclists

[eddieo]

taken from my motorhome forum:

Look out for new highway code rules. November 19, 2010

CYCLISTS and pedestrians have been given new rights over cars in a series of changes to the highway code in France.

The rules, which take immediate effect, mean pedestrians now always have priority over cars when crossing a road. Until now, they had priority only at specially designated crossings.

They need to "show a clear intention to cross" a road - described as "an ostensible step forward or a hand gesture" - and vehicles are required to stop for them.

The only exception is where a designated pedestrian crossing is less than 50m away.

Drivers who ignore the rules face a fine of €135 or could lose four points from their licence.

The new rules also allow bicycles to skip red lights if they are turning right, but only at crossroads where there is a sign to that effect.

It will be up to individual mayors to decide where this should be allowed.

Also introduced in the code change is up to seven hours of obligatory training for scooter-owners who hold a Permis B driving licence, unless they have been using it for at least the past five years.

This last measure comes into force in January and will be accompanied by increased spot checks and on-the-spot fines of €135 for anyone who makes changes to their scooter's speed limiter.

 

[flecc]

I'd like to eventually see the stats on pedestrians in collision with cars, both existing and this next year.

Bet there's an increase.

Seems a bit daft that one, the untrained and untested pedestrian with no eyesight requirements is being left to make a judgement on speed and distance.

That surely is the province of the driver, trained, tested and with minimum eyesight requirements.
.

 

[Caph]

Very interesting turn of events eddieo especially about allowing right turns through traffic lights. I wonder if the UK will follow suit (left obviously before anyone comments!)?

 

[flecc]

about allowing right turns through traffic lights. I wonder if the UK will follow suit (left obviously before anyone comments!)?

Each time this has been raised by cycling organisations there's been a very firm thumbs down from the DfT.
.

 

[eddieo]

Very interesting turn of events eddieo especially about allowing right turns through traffic lights. I wonder if the UK will follow suit (left obviously before anyone comments!)?

and why I posted it here...we live in hope!

 

[Mussels]

I'd like to eventually see the stats on pedestrians in collision with cars, both existing and this next year.

Bet there's an increase.

Seems a bit daft that one, the untrained and untested pedestrian with no eyesight requirements is being left to make a judgement on speed and distance.

That surely is the province of the driver, trained, tested and with minimum eyesight requirements.
.

And I expect an encrease of cars running into the back of each other when the one in front stops for no apparent reason. Rather worse will be cyclists getting run over as they don't even have a brake light to wake up the driver behind.

 

[eddieo]

And I expect an encrease of cars running into the back of each other when the one in front stops for no apparent reason. Rather worse will be cyclists getting run over as they don't even have a brake light to wake up the driver behind.

My only "fault" accident ever was caused by a pedestrian in the west end. I went into the back of a cab after a tourist walked out when everyone was accelerating of as the lights turned green

 

[torquayite]

cycling France-wise

Does any-one know if it is true that in France, if a collision happens between a cyclist and a motor car, the car driver is assumed to be at fault ?
I have been told this is the case, and it would explain why drivers in France are so much more courteous than our own motorists, giving us good room when passing, and prepared to slow down and follow without obvious signs of dis-pleasure if we are in a very narrow area.
I am going to write to my MP and ask him to consider pushing for a similar rule to be introduced in the UK.
In Torquay, where I live, we can not have a cycle track on any part of the wide coast-side promenades because to do so would invalidate our Blue Flag rating. I was told by the Council that pedestrians must have unimpeded access from prom to beach for the Flag award. Strange. Almost every coastal resort in France or Spain provides a track where there is ample space !
I hope other forum readers may join in my quest.
Peter.

 

[eddieo]

Yes I think you are right re france...... but Brighton is blue flag I think? and has cycle routes all along the promenade

 

[AndyOfTheSouth]

Beach Criteria

No specific reference seems to be made to bicycles.

However, perhaps someone is interpreting this rule in a rather unhelpful way?

'There must be management of different users and uses of the beach so as to prevent conflicts and accidents.'

 

[rooel]

Does any-one know if it is true that in France, if a collision happens between a cyclist and a motor car, the car driver is assumed to be at fault ?
​

What you are referring to, torquayite, is known in the the UK (but never implemented) as "strict liability". Just insert these words in Google search and you will find plenty of information about it including campaigns for introduction of the principle to the UK, but every time there is even a rumour of this being introduced, the tabloids and motorists start fitting.

Yet motorists in the Netherlands, France, Germany, and many other continental countries seem to be content with the principle which does change attitudes to vulnerable road users, like cyclists and pedestrians, and yet does not interfere with motor vehicle use and (for those who think that way) "enjoyment" of their cars.

 

[flecc]

motorists in the Netherlands, France, Germany, and many other continental countries seem to be content with the principle which does change attitudes to vulnerable road users, like cyclists and pedestrians, and yet does not interfere with motor vehicle use and (for those who think that way) "enjoyment" of their cars.

I've enjoyed my cars for well over half a century and still do, just as I enjoy cycling, but I'm strongly in favour of strict liability. In any conflict where death or injury can result, any bias must be against the wielder of a vastly superior weapon.

I think that parliament unimpeded could be likely to think the same way and wish to protect the vulnerable, so maybe lobbying by the insurance industry is to blame for this lack of protection. Such a measure could seriously increase the number and size of cyclist claims.

This has no offset for the insurance industry since cyclists are not subject to compulsory insurance, and are also a very poor contributor to the industry's coffers.
.

 

[rooel]

flecc,

I agree that the UK insurance industry will not be keen on the introduction of strict liability, but their counterparts on the continent do seem able to live with it. I think I saw somewhere a suggestion that strict liability would add perhaps £50 per annum to motor premiums, ie £1.00 per week. However, in the longer term, if strict liability on the part of motorists helped to change attitudes every time there was a possibility of conflict with a vulnerable road user, perhaps there would be a reduction in collisions, and consequently claims.

 

[flecc]

I agree on the desirability rooel and would like to see the introduction. Maybe the constant moves to harmonisation with Europe will bring it to us eventually.

I view our insurance industry as having a character all of it's own though, due to it's long history, Lloyds of London worldwide status etc, unlike the continental counterparts.

That's partly why I feel the industry resistance might just be the impedance to parliamentary action on this, resulting in our non-conformity.
.

 

[HittheroadJ]

I just hope enough French road-users will be aware that not all foreigners are used to the rule.