Can You Ride a Bike on the Road

Is information technology legal to ride ii beside?

By Duncan Dollimore

Riding ii abreast, in the middle of the lane, with or without lights, reflectors and how-do-you-do-viz - what does the police force say, what does the Highway Code suggest, and what are just urban myths? Cycling UK's Senior Road Safe and Legal Campaigner Duncan Dollimore explains what'south legal on your bike.

The single file and culling facts

Road.cc recently reported the story of two cyclists pulled over by a police officer in Essex for cycling two abreast. Rather embarrassingly for the officeholder, not only was his knowledge of the Highway Code (HC) somewhat defective, merely the whole episode was captured on camera, including the moment when the officeholder decided that the words 'should not ride more than two abreast' mean 'must ride single file', insisting that by doing otherwise the 'Essex Two' were "causing other road users to drive carelessly".

Who needs to know the constabulary when y'all have alternative facts?

Sadly, the Essex single file rule is merely the latest example of the confusion amidst some motorists, cyclists, law officers and others regarding cycling and the law. I Cycling UK member, Steve Abraham, was stopped for the imaginary offence of cycling on an 'A' road, with London cyclist Evo Lucas asked to explain to the constabulary why he was "cycling in the middle of the road, making information technology difficult for vehicles to laissez passer", when cycling in the main position past parked cars along a 20 mph road.

With this in listen, it's perhaps timely to look at what's legal on a bike and what's non, including some of the common misconceptions.

Highway Code

Many people misunderstand the Highway Code, which is not of itself a statement of the police, merely a combination of both communication and mandatory rules which utilise to all road users in the UK, although there is a different version for Northern Ireland.

Where a HC rule is expressed as something yous 'must' or 'must not' practice, the rule reflects a legal requirement imposed by legislation, breach of which is a criminal offence.

Where a HC rule is expressed in advisory terms, using words such as 'should / should non', or 'do / do non', the rule doesn't reflect whatever legal requirement. A failure to comply with such a dominion can however exist used as evidence in both criminal and ceremonious proceedings. For case, a driver'south failure to comply with advisory overtaking rule 163 when overtaking a cyclist too shut is relevant to whether they have or accept not committed a careless driving offence. Similarly, in civil compensation claims, non-adherence to HC rules is frequently raised when liability (who is to arraign, and who should pay) is adamant.

Cyclists must

So, ignoring for a moment HC informational 'should' and 'should not' rules, what are the absolute must practice legal requirements?

Lights:

You must have approved front and rear lights, lit, clean and working properly, when cycling between sunset and sunrise. It'due south no defense force to say that information technology was by sunset just non all the same nighttime, the legal lighting obligations for cyclists are determined by sunset and sunrise times, not the 'hours of darkness', which offset xxx minutes later the former, end 30 minutes earlier the latter, and dictate when motorists must switch from sidelights to headlights.
Cycling Uk's guide to wheel lighting regulations explains the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations in particular, simply in summary you lot need a white light at the front and a red light at the rear, visible from the forepart and rear respectively and fixed to your bike. A lite obscured by a saddlebag isn't legal and neither is a torch on your head, though in that location'due south nothing to cease you using a head-torch as an optional or boosted light.
The regulations also now allow flashing lights, provided they wink between sixty and 240 times per minute.
Optional or additional lights do non need to comply with the minimum lighting requirements, although yous tin't have a ruddy low-cal at the front of your bicycle or a white calorie-free at the rear, and so red white and blue flashing lights, equally suggested to united states a couple of weeks ago, are non an option.
Dissimilar with other vehicles, lights are non a legal requirement for cyclists during the daytime when at that place is seriously reduced visibility, although we wouldn't recommend cycling through dense fog without lighting upwards.

Reflectors:

As with lights, the legal requirements for reflectors only use between dusk and sunrise, and include a red rear reflector and four amber pedal reflectors, 1 at the forepart and rear of each pedal. Common sense might suggest that replacing an amber pedal reflector with a reflective heel strip or ankle ring might suffice, merely unfortunately neither meets the legal requirements which pertain strictly to pedals, an annoying problem for those who utilize certain makes of clipless pedals not designed with reflectors in listen, and an surface area of legislation in need of review.

Brakes:

It's an offence to ride a bicycle on a public route without two efficient braking systems, operating independently on the front end and rear bike. Autonomously from saying that a restriction which operates directly on a pneumatic tyre is not efficient, the regulations are unhelpful equally to what is or is not efficient, nor do they define how the brakes must operate.
It is clear that a fixed wheel counts as a braking organisation operating on that bike, so a fixed wheel cycle with a front brake is legal (assuming both brakes are efficient!), but a fixed wheel cycle with only a rear brake isn't, as there's no independent front wheel brake.
There are various exceptions for tricycles, quadricycles, non-standard bikes and electric assist pedal cycles as summarised in this Cycling United kingdom construction and use article.
Information technology's worth remembering that the legislation and regulations in Northern Ireland are slightly different, then for instance it is actually a legal requirement to accept a bell on your bike in Northern Ireland and in the Isle of Homo, but not elsewhere in the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland.

Cyclists must non

Moving on to the legal prohibitions, what are things cyclists must not practise?

Alcohol and drugs:

Cycling on a road or other public identify (including a bridleway) whilst unfit through beverage or drugs carries a fine upwardly to £1000. There's no breath exam for this and no claret alcohol or other legal limits. The key question is simply whether yous are under the influence to the extent that you're incapable of having proper control of your bicycle.
Whilst it is true that you tin can't take your driving licence endorsed with penalty points because of an offence committed on a bicycle, information technology'due south frequently overlooked that the court does have a general power nether the Power of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 to disqualify anyone from driving, without imposing penalty points, for any offence, including a cycling offence.

Devil-may-care, dangerous and furious cycling - you must non:

Cycle carelessly, meaning without due intendance and attention or reasonable consideration for other route users (£1000 max fine), or dangerously £2500 max fine). The test for these offences replicates that for careless and dangerous driving, then careless is a standard beneath that of a competent and careful cyclist, and unsafe is far beneath that standard and it must also exist plainly dangerous to a competent and conscientious cyclist. It'southward the 'reasonable consideration for other route users' indicate which occasionally causes difficulty, with some police officers interpreting this incorrectly as a requirement for cyclists to move over to allow cars to overtake, forgetting that cyclists frequently assume the principal position to discourage unsafe overtaking.
Cause injury past cycling furiously (two yr max imprisonment). This goes back to legislation from 1861 which applies to drivers of vehicles or carriages who cause actual harm to anyone by wanton or furious driving. Cycles are legally carriages, so this is the offence which hits the headlines every couple of years following serious injury or fatal collisions between cyclists and pedestrians (though note that 98.5% of pedestrian fatalities and 96% of pedestrian serious injuries on a pavement / verge involve a motor vehicle non a bicycle - run into Cycling Uk briefing).
Bike furiously (no injury acquired). You can't exist prosecuted for speeding whilst cycling equally speeding offences are specific to motor vehicles, although at that place are exceptions where local byelaws use such every bit the Regal Parks. Under the 1847 Town and Police Clauses Deed you tin can nonetheless be fined up to £1000 for cycling furiously, hence cycling too fast for the conditions can potentially lead to either a furious cycling or careless cycling charge.

Cerise lights and avant-garde stop lines:

Crossing the terminate line when the traffic lights are red (jumping ruddy lights) is an offence which the police unremarkably deal with via a stock-still punishment observe fine (typically £50), as is riding across a cycle-only betoken crossing if the green cycle symbol isn't showing.
Where in that location is an advanced stop line (ASL) cyclists can of course position themselves ahead of the motorised traffic but backside the ASL, though crossing the ASL on ruby is still an offence.
Information technology's also an offence to ride through an amber calorie-free, unless y'all are so close to the stop line that to finish might cause a collision, although if the traffic lights aren't working all road users are permitted to treat the state of affairs as they would an unmarked junction, and "proceed with cracking intendance".
There is nonetheless a difference between vehicular control traffic lights and low-cal controlled crossings shared by pedestrians and cyclists such as Toucans, where the lights are there to advise when it's safety to cross but aren't a legal command non to cross.

Pavement cycling:

Firstly, the legislation doesn't refer to pavements, and neither does it refer to cyclists. That'southward important because there are tracks and shared utilise paths where cycling is not illegal.
It's an offence to drive a wagon on "whatsoever footpath or causeway by the side of whatever route made or set apart for the use or adaptation of foot passengers", essentially a footway adjacent to the highway (different only equivalent legislation applies in Scotland).
The law also applies to children, just as those nether ten are below the age of criminal responsibility they can't exist prosecuted (watch out in Scotland however, where criminal responsibility starts at eight, though the Scottish Government has appear plans to increase this to twelve). Being too immature to prosecute unfortunately didn't finish a policeman in Lincolnshire threatening to confiscate a four year-old'southward bike after he spotted her cycling along the pavement in 2015.
Fortunately, when FPNs were introduced for pavement cycling in 1999, Dwelling Office Minister Paul Boateng issued guidance proverb that: "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to employ the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing and then. Chief Police Officers who are responsible for enforcement, admit that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are agape to cycle on the road, sensitivity and conscientious use of police discretion is required".
The Home Office guidance was re-affirmed in 2022 by the then Cycling Government minister Robert Goodwill, who agreed that the police should use discretion in enforcing the constabulary and recommended that the thing be taken upwardly with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). ACPO welcomed the renewed guidance, circulated it to all forces, and issued a statement referring to "discretion in taking a reasonable and proportionate approach, with condom being a guiding principle".
To summarise, cycling on the pavement is still an offence, but there is articulate guidance that the law are supposed to exercise discretion.
And finally on pavements, remember that on segregated bike tracks the pedestrian side remains a footway, then if you cycle into the pedestrian side to laissez passer a pedestrian in the wheel lane you technically commit a pavement cycling offence. There'southward an bibelot because cyclists accept to ride on their side, merely pedestrians are merely brash to use theirs.

Miscellaneous 'must nots' include:

As Boris Johnson discovered, giving your wife a backie on your bicycle is a criminal offence as it'south illegal to carry more than ane person on a bike unless "it is constructed or adapted for the railroad vehicle of more than i person". Interestingly, the legislation doesn't refer to cycling, it simply limits the number of people allowed on an unadapted cycle (bike isn't defined, but presumably means two wheels, so what near tricycles?).
Holding onto a moving motor vehicle or trailer whilst cycling, although there is a " without reasonable cause" proviso which y'all would hope would allow a defence to anyone desperately grabbing hold of the side of a vehicle to avoid being knocked off.

Highway Code should and should nots

The beginning thing to say is that the HC is long overdue for a consummate review. It's usually reviewed every six or seven years merely, whilst there have been some amendments in recent years, nine years accept passed since the last total revision, and the confusion around some of the following 'should' and 'should not' rules demonstrates why that's too long.

Single file or two abreast:

Firstly, let'due south exist articulate, there is no law which prevents you from riding two, or even three or more abreast, merely advisory rule 66 of the HC.
Rule 66 is not well drafted, because it starts with the words "You lot should", and later says "never ride more than two abreast". 'Should' is advisory, only 'never' sounds like it'south directory, leading some drivers and constabulary officers to assume that riding more than two abreast is illegal when it isn't. Doing so is contrary to the HC and can be presented equally evidence in a prosecution for cycling without reasonable consideration for other road users, just the entire context would be relevant (was it a small road, was in that location a lack of consideration for another road user or was the route empty?).
Of itself however, cycling more than two abreast, though not recommended, is not illegal.
Dominion 66 further advises that cyclists should "ride in single file on narrow or decorated roads and when riding round bends", however the estimation of this rule undoubtedly causes problems. Cyclists often ride 2 abreast for safety reasons, whereas some drivers (and at least 1 Essex police officer), believe cyclists should single out to avoid delaying motorists, forgetting that motorised users don't have enhanced rights to the road over cyclists.
Cycling UK agrees that there are times when cyclists should unmarried out, only information technology's safety that should be the over-riding factor when making that determination and considering the dominion 66 advice, not whether the driver behind might have to expect a few seconds before overtaking.

Hullo-viz and helmets:

Rule 59 of the HC advises that cyclists should wear a bicycle helmet which conforms to electric current regulations, is the right size and securely fastened.
Cycling U.k.'southward views on helmets are prepare out in item within our briefing certificate, only very briefly we believe that whether or not to wear a helmet is a matter of personal choice. Attempts to either force or pressure level cyclists to clothing helmets elsewhere have led to reductions in cycle use, which is detrimental to public health given the substantial health benefits of cycling.
Rule 59 also advises cyclists to wear low-cal coloured or fluorescent clothing "which helps other people to see you" in daylight and poor low-cal, and "reflective clothing and / or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the night".
The merits of reflective clothing and hi-viz are dealt with in our x mutual questions about cycling briefing, but in essence the enquiry suggests that retroreflective accessories designed to make y'all more than conspicuous in the nighttime, especially talocrural joint straps that move when you pedal, are beneficial. Conversely there is very little evidence to advise that how-do-you-do-viz (as opposed to reflective strips and items) makes a significant impact on cyclists' safe. The enquiry suggests that it may help drivers to spot pedestrians and cyclists more readily, simply there was no evidence by how much and information technology was impossible to say whether that fabricated them safer, as spotting them was ane thing and driving safely around them another.
Unfortunately, whether or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet and hullo-viz appears to exist a priority within many press reports following collisions involving cyclists, a cistron which can influence whether or non the police decide to prosecute a driver, and an effect raised in evidence in court proceedings to decide either cause of decease, civil liability or criminal responsibleness.
Accordingly, whatsoever Cycling UK'southward views may be regarding helmets and clothing being personal choices, and whatever the safety merits of either may exist, the reality is that the dominion 59 advice is often sadly used to deflect arraign to the cyclist and, in relation to clothing, to effort to explain why a driver either failed to see or failed to avoid hitting a cyclist. Strangely, it does non seem to apply in reverse, so if you lot hit a black car you can't blame the possessor or manufacturer for their pigment colour pick. It's manifestly but cyclists in dark clothes who can't exist seen.

Things you don't have to practice

At present for the urban myths, the things some people believe cyclists must do, or if they don't do they should do.

Riding outside the cycle lane:

Apply of wheel lanes is not compulsory, largely due to Cycling Great britain'due south campaign in response to a proposed HC revision in 2007. What's more, the common conventionalities that cyclists are advised to use cycle lanes is also slightly overstated. Rule 63 of the HC describes cycle lanes, simply does not say that cyclists should utilize them, just that use of them "depends on your experience and skills, but they can brand your journey safer".
Most cyclists will choose to utilize skillful quality bike lanes where they exist, but where they are badly designed, littered with glass or badly maintained, they won't. You are entitled to make you own choice, and the HC rule merely reflects that.

Riding in the middle of the lane:

I accept referred to the eye of the lane rather than the master position, because the latter phrase means nothing to about motorists. Whatever yous call it, this means 'taking the lane', so you are cycling effectively in the middle of the lane, with the full general catamenia of traffic rather than to the left of the traffic.
Riding in this position can in some circumstances be your safest selection. If in that location are parked cars on your left it gives you sufficient space to avert whatsoever automobile doors unexpectedly opened in front of you. Information technology can discourage or prevent drivers from overtaking where in that location is bereft infinite or it would be unsafe to do and so, and it can be where y'all can most easily see and be seen.
You don't e'er have to ride in this position, and depending on the road and traffic conditions, y'all may cull to move further to the left of the lane into what is known as the secondary position. That does not however hateful hugging the kerb, which y'all are neither obliged or brash to do in whatsoever circumstances.
Some motorists labour under the urban myth, shared by the Metropolitan constabulary officer who stopped Evo Lucas, that cyclists have to keep to the left to allow vehicles to pass. Rule 169 of the HC, which applies to all road users, does advise that you should not "hold upwardly a long queue of traffic", earlier referring specifically to large or irksome moving vehicles with further advice to "if necessary, pull in where it is safety and allow traffic pass".
Rule 169 does not hateful that cyclists should immediately pull over to allow traffic past, but it could exist interpreted by some constabulary officers to suggest that a cyclist riding in the middle of the lane (or cyclists riding two abreast), should at some bespeak wait to motion to the left or unmarried out if there is a significant queue building up behind them, though a key question would however be whether in that location was an opportunity to do and then safely.

And finally

But for completeness, I should say that this is not a complete list of every legal requirement and HC rule that applies to cyclists, merely a review of some of the well-nigh common problems and questions. Farther information can exist establish in many of Cycling Uk'southward briefing documents, which are filtered into particular entrada themes.

Cycling UK'due south Cyclists' Defense Fund (CDF) also works to raise awareness of the law relating to cycling and provides information near the legal aspects of cycling in the UK. CDF tin't aid with every legal case concerning cycling or cyclists, merely if you have a particular legal issue you lot can contact CDF who might be able to assistance.