It seems intuitive. If there is a cycle lane on a road or avenue, surely cyclists are required to use it, right?
Unfortunately, common sense has taken a wrong turn. Contrary to what many drivers assume, riding inside a cycle lane is closer to a recommendation than a legal obligation.
Cyclists may choose to ride on the main carriageway even when a perfectly visible cycle lane runs alongside it. This can understandably lead to frustration among drivers, particularly when traffic begins moving at roughly the speed of a leisurely Sunday picnic. Legally, however, the rider still has every right to be there.
That raises an important question after an accident. Could the decision to avoid an available cycle lane affect the cyclist’s right to compensation?
What the Highway Code actually says
Rule 61 of the Highway Code advises cyclists to use cycle lanes, tracks, and other facilities where these make the journey safer and easier. The wording leaves room for the rider to assess the situation based on their experience, ability, and the conditions at the time.
Rule 140 makes the position even clearer by confirming that cyclists retain the choice to use the road when a cycle lane or track is available.
The distinction between recommendation and legal requirement is crucial here. The Highway Code uses words such as “should” to describe recommended behaviour. Rules backed by legislation use “must”. The guidance on cycle lanes falls into the first category.
A cyclist riding beside an available cycle lane is therefore still a legitimate road user. Drivers must give them sufficient space, exercise patience, and overtake only when conditions allow a safe manoeuvre.
Why would anyone avoid a cycle lane?
To a driver, an empty cycle lane looks like a beautifully prepared red carpet that cyclists have inexplicably declined to use. From the saddle, its shortcomings may be considerably easier to spot.
Broken glass, potholes, fallen leaves, drain covers, and accumulated debris can make a cycle lane hazardous. Parked vehicles may block part of it, while opening car doors creates another serious danger. Some paths run through areas where drivers may struggle to see cyclists, while others end suddenly near busy junctions and force riders to merge with traffic.
A cycle lane may also lead somewhere entirely different from the cyclist’s intended route. Others require riders to stop repeatedly, cross side roads, or share limited space with pedestrians.
Moving onto the main carriageway can therefore represent a deliberate safety decision. Cyclists may also ride towards the centre of a lane to improve their visibility, avoid parked cars, or discourage unsafe overtaking where the road becomes narrow.
Can avoiding a cycle lane affect compensation?
The mere presence of a cycle lane leaves the cyclist’s right to claim compensation intact. The central issue is how the accident happened and which actions contributed to it.
Imagine a cyclist riding along the road beside an available cycle lane. A driver attempts to squeeze past, leaves insufficient space, and knocks the rider from the bike.
The driver still had a duty to complete the manoeuvre safely. Pointing towards the cycle lane afterwards provides little justification for a dangerous overtake.
The situation becomes more complicated when the cyclist’s choice of position played a direct part in the collision. An insurer could argue that a well-maintained, accessible cycle track offered a clearly safer route and that using it would have prevented the accident.
Such an argument requires evidence. The condition and design of the lane would matter, along with the cyclist’s road position, the driver’s behaviour, visibility, traffic conditions, and the precise sequence of events.
A line of paint running beside the road provides only part of the picture.
What is contributory negligence?
Sometimes an accident results from mistakes made by both parties. This is known as contributory negligence.
Under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, a court may reduce compensation to reflect the injured person’s share of responsibility. The cyclist can still receive damages, although the final amount may be lower.
Suppose a cycling accident claim is worth £20,000. If the cyclist receives 20 per cent of the responsibility, the award would be reduced by £4,000, leaving £16,000.
For this principle to apply, the cyclist’s conduct must have contributed to the accident or increased the severity of the injuries. An insurer would therefore need to show how using the cycle lane would probably have changed the outcome.
Where the lane contained debris, created another danger, or led away from the cyclist’s route, the decision to use the road may have been entirely reasonable.
A choice rather than a command
So, do cyclists always have to use cycle lanes?
The answer is simple. Cycle lanes offer a route rather than an instruction, and the main carriageway remains a lawful choice.
After an accident, the important question is whether the cyclist’s decision genuinely contributed to the collision. A line painted on the road may guide a journey, but it can hardly carry the blame when somebody else’s carelessness brings that ride to a sudden stop.