The Cycling Column: We need a simple highway code

A couple of weeks ago, I took part in a radio debate about redesigning the Highway Code. I was sticking up for the rights of cyclists on Britain's roads. It was a rather brief affair, and there wasn't time to get stuck into the detail of the upgrade to the Code that has been going on for several months. Instead, the 20 minutes were filled with cabbies ranting about banning cyclists from the roads and pedestrians complaining about drivers who fail to indicate.

Nevertheless, one point that was made by another of the studio guests stuck in my mind: that the Highway Code should not be a 150-200 page document, as it is today. Instead, it should be about 100 words long and bring together the "principles" of good road use, not a pernickety and lengthy document that few people will read more than once in their lives (if that).

Don't get me wrong; I would not do away with a rule book altogether. Some things need to be written down in plain English. But many of the individual rules could be consigned to the recycle bin, as they would become implicit if we moved to a more principles-based form of regulation.

If I was to write it, the main thrust of my new code would go something like this: "All wheeled vehicles have a right to use the roads of Britain, and all road users should treat each other with due respect and care. The priority of all road users should be to maintain the safety of all fellow users. Motoring recklessly – be it by going too fast, too slow or not paying due care and attention to your fellow road users – will be a punishable offence in law. Drivers, motorcyclists and cyclists alike must ensure that they make themselves clearly visible at night, and when weather conditions are poor. All road users must also treat pedestrians with the same care and respect that they treat other road users."

This 110-word paragraph would be the backbone of all road law, and would be enforced by the police with discretion. Drivers would no longer be given three penalty points for going 10 or 20mph over the limit on an empty country road or motorway. Likewise, cyclists would not be fined for nipping up on to the pavement if they treated pedestrians with the utmost respect.

Last year, a cyclist was reprimanded in court for not riding in the cycle lane when one was available – something which the national cyclists' organisation CTC successfully campaigned to have clarified in the Highway Code update. Such a travesty couldn't happen under a principles-based regulatory system, given that the cyclist was only riding outside the cycle lane to preserve his own safety.

For me, it's always obvious when someone should be reprimanded for bad behaviour on the road. Often, it is simply aggressive and thoughtless behaviour (rather than an obvious violation of rule 76, part 3, paragraph 4b) that sets them apart.

I'm sure there's as much chance of all this happening as there is of Ken Livingstone getting on a bike. But tell me what you think; post your comments on The Independent's cycling blog, Cyclotherapy (www.independent.co.uk/blogs).

cycling@independent.co.uk

Compare over 65 car insurers and get £35 Cash back through Independent Compare