revised highway code available

Ian Smith said:

Also the report on consultation:

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/consult/Responses/Response_to_Highway_Code_Consultation_report.pdf

Bad form, following up my own posting, but I've read more of this and
I'm livid!. About the roundabout rule, they say there were lots of
comments pointing out the HC advice is dangerous, but:

"the advice is still considered to be appropriate and has not been
changed".

So even though more cyclists responded than everyone else put
together, they decided to ignore them...

You really should read this report. As an example of doing
consultation and ignoring the overwhelming majority response it's a
classic.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

"Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Revised highway code is laid before parliament.

It looks like they've ignored many of the cyclist representations,
despite these being the majority of responses. "Use cycle routes and
cycle facilities ... wherever possible" is still in there.

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/consult/Responses/Highway_Code_Draft.pdf

Well, the 'wherever practicable' is gone and is replaced by 'wherever
possible' This is *bad* as there is a difference in emphasis. Something can
be 'possible' but entirely impractical. This is making things worse for
cyclists.

Proposed rule 61:-

"Use cycle routes and cycle facilities such as advanced stop lines, cycle
boxes and toucan crossings wherever possible, as they can make your journey
safer."

:-(

in message <[email hidden]>, Ian Smith

(') said:

Revised highway code is laid before parliament.

It looks like they've ignored many of the cyclist representations,
despite these being the majority of responses. "Use cycle routes and
cycle facilities ... wherever possible" is still in there.

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/consult/Responses/Highway_Code_Draft.pdf

Also the report on consultation:

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/consult/Responses/Response_to_Highway_Code_Consultation_report.pdf

Quoted message said:

However, apparently the CTC is asking members to hold fire for the
moment and will be saying more in due course.

So, in summary: 'we received more comment from cyclists than anyone else,
but we decided to ignore it all'.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

<p>Schroedinger's cat is <blink><strong>NOT</strong></blink> dead.</p>

Ian Smith wrote on 02/04/2007 08:15 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Revised highway code is laid before parliament.

It looks like they've ignored many of the cyclist representations,
despite these being the majority of responses. "Use cycle routes and
cycle facilities ... wherever possible" is still in there.

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/consult/Responses/Highway_Code_Draft.pdf

Also the report on consultation:

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/consult/Responses/Response_to_Highway_Code_Consultation_report.pdf

However, apparently the CTC is asking members to hold fire for the
moment and will be saying more in due course.

regards, Ian SMith

I see the helmet takes on another magic property - that of helping you
to be seen according to the proposed Highway Code picture.

What a waste of space. 70% of the comments came from cyclists telling
them they were wrong but they have decided that they know better. But
what can one expect from the *Driving* Standards Agency.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

wafflycat wrote on 02/04/2007 08:58 +0100:

Quoted message said:

"Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Revised highway code is laid before parliament.

It looks like they've ignored many of the cyclist representations,
despite these being the majority of responses. "Use cycle routes and
cycle facilities ... wherever possible" is still in there.

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/consult/Responses/Highway_Code_Draft.pdf

Well, the 'wherever practicable' is gone and is replaced by 'wherever
possible' This is *bad* as there is a difference in emphasis. Something
can be 'possible' but entirely impractical. This is making things worse
for cyclists.

Proposed rule 61:-

"Use cycle routes and cycle facilities such as advanced stop lines,
cycle boxes and toucan crossings wherever possible, as they can make
your journey safer."

I am saving a copy of the consultation response so that if it ever comes
up in Court it will be possible to point to the section that says:

"A large number of respondents also felt that other road users believed
cyclists were legally obliged to use these facilities at all times , and
therefore expected cyclists to use them wherever available, rather than
by free choice, dependent on conditions. This then raised the issue of
liability if cyclists did not use the facilities and a road traffic
incident occurred.

It was felt that other road users needed to be made aware that the
choice to use these facilities remains with the cyclist, and there is no
law forcing their use. The phrasing of the rule has therefore been
amended to take this into account."

This clearly shows that the words in the Highway Code do not mean what
they say and how they should be interpreted.

However I shall henceforth make all possible efforts to get to the front
of a traffic queue to the ASL ;-)

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Tony Raven said:

Ian Smith wrote on 02/04/2007 08:15 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Revised highway code is laid before parliament.

It looks like they've ignored many of the cyclist representations,
despite these being the majority of responses. "Use cycle routes and
cycle facilities ... wherever possible" is still in there.

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/consult/Responses/Highway_Code_Draft.pdf

Also the report on consultation:

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/consult/Responses/Response_to_Highway_Code_Consultation_report.pdf

What a waste of space. 70% of the comments came from cyclists

Given that there were 4000 respondents, that's about 2800 people - or
equivalent to about 4% of the membership of the CTC, or 0.005% of the UK
population.

Quoted message said:

telling
them they were wrong but they have decided that they know better.

If the tone was that of "telling them they were wrong" it probably got
their backs up. But anyway, they obviously decided that the opinions of
such a very small minority of road users didn't carry enough weight or
authority to justify taking much notice of them.

--
Matt B

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Proposed rule 61:-

"Use cycle routes and cycle facilities such as advanced stop lines, cycle
boxes and toucan crossings wherever possible, as they can make your
journey safer."

"Cycle Routes" seems too vague to me. A normal road could be described as a
"cycle route" if it's a route I choose to cycle along.

Adrian Boliston said:

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Proposed rule 61:-

"Use cycle routes and cycle facilities such as advanced stop
lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings wherever possible, as they
can make your journey safer."

"Cycle Routes" seems too vague to me. A normal road could be
described as a "cycle route" if it's a route I choose to cycle
along.

The 'route' bit is not so bad, it's the 'facility' bit that's the real
problem. I particularly don't understand the toucan reference - if
you're cycling on an off-carriageway path or lane and it comes to a
toucan to cross the road, _of_course_ you'll go across on the toucan.
So why tell you to use a toucan wherever possible? Presumably you're
not expected to use one if you don't want to cross the road in
question (even though it would be possible)? It really looks like
whoever wrote this was not thinking at all.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 02 Apr 2007 07:15:49 GMT someone who may be Ian Smith
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

However, apparently the CTC is asking members to hold fire for the
moment and will be saying more in due course.

ISTM that if they have enough money to afford the law they might
consider judicial review of this "consultation", on several grounds.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The 'route' bit is not so bad, it's the 'facility' bit that's the real
problem.

Facility, not farcility <g>
--
peter

Cheap train tickets database
http://www.petereverett.co.uk/tickets/

Email sent to this address is generally deleted upon arrival
Visit website if you want to contact me

Ian Smith said:

The 'route' bit is not so bad, it's the 'facility' bit that's the
real problem.

The route thing is pretty bad. After you've been maimed it gives scope
for the other side to claim you wer enot observing the Highway Code
because you were on that road. After all you ignored a marked cycle
route that would have enabled you to do the same journey at double the
distance and a third of the speed.

--
Dave...

David Hansen said:

On 02 Apr 2007 07:15:49 GMT someone who may be Ian Smith
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

However, apparently the CTC is asking members to hold fire for the
moment and will be saying more in due course.

ISTM that if they have enough money to afford the law they might
consider judicial review of this "consultation", on several grounds.

If so, I eagerly anticipate the confrontation between the DSAs "feelings"
and the best availabe evidence regarding the efficacy of helmets and
incidents on roundabouts (to pick two)

Regards,

-david

Tony Raven wrote:
[snip]

Quoted message said:

However I shall henceforth make all possible efforts to get to the front
of a traffic queue to the ASL ;-)

.... regardless of whether the cycle facility leading to it takes you up
the inside of an HGV!

Peter

--
www.amey.org.uk

Peter Amey wrote on 03/04/2007 09:54 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven wrote:
[snip]

Quoted message said:

However I shall henceforth make all possible efforts to get to the
front of a traffic queue to the ASL ;-)

.... regardless of whether the cycle facility leading to it takes you up
the inside of an HGV!

The new Highway Code is quite clear, if its possible I should do it.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

On 02 Apr 2007 22:01:28 GMT someone who may be David Nutter
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ISTM that if they have enough money to afford the law they might
consider judicial review of this "consultation", on several grounds.

If so, I eagerly anticipate the confrontation between the DSAs "feelings"
and the best availabe evidence regarding the efficacy of helmets and
incidents on roundabouts (to pick two)

What is interesting about the latter is that they have again toned
down the "go round the outside" option. Reading between the lines of
their report it appears that they are backing away from this slowly
in order that they don't get the blame. IIRC at one time the Highway
Code told cyclists to go round the outside of roundabouts.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Tony Raven wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

It was felt that other road users needed to be made aware that the
choice to use these facilities remains with the cyclist, and there is no
law forcing their use. The phrasing of the rule has therefore been
amended to take this into account."

Can anyone find where "the phrasing of the rule has therefore been
amended ...". I can't find any clear indication to motorized road users
that "pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders have a right to be on the
road". I proposed something along these lines in my original response:

http://ccgi.peteramey.plus.com/pages/bicycles/HighwayCodeComments.pdf

--
www.amey.org.uk

Ian Smith said:

Revised highway code is laid before parliament.

Rule 59

"Clothing. You should wear
* a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct
size and securely fastened ......

There are no regulations saying that I must wear a cycle helmet.
AIUI this means that I should buy a nice helmet and fasten the straps up
and leave it on my garage floor when I go out for a ride.

If I actually wear the helmet, then I am breaching this rule. Thus if I
have an accident and am wearing a helmet I could be done for
contributory negligence.

Martin.

"Martin Dann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith said:

Revised highway code is laid before parliament.

Rule 59

"Clothing. You should wear
* a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct
size and securely fastened ......

There are no regulations saying that I must wear a cycle helmet.
AIUI this means that I should buy a nice helmet and fasten the straps up
and leave it on my garage floor when I go out for a ride.

If I actually wear the helmet, then I am breaching this rule. Thus if I
have an accident and am wearing a helmet I could be done for contributory
negligence.

I'm agnostic on helmets, so not trying to start the _old_ debate off
again...

....but I don't quite follow your logic here?

If htrere's no law _compelling_ you to wear a helmet, and an advisory in the
HC saying your _should_ wear one, how could the pantomime you describe
satisfy either?

Martin Dann said:

Ian Smith said:

Revised highway code is laid before parliament.

Rule 59

"Clothing. You should wear
* a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct
size and securely fastened ......

my comments included: ...the clause “... a cycle helmet that conforms to
current regulations” is meaningless: there are no such regulations.

A much greater contribution to safety might be gained by stating
instead: “if you choose to wear a cycle helmet ensure that it is the
right size and correctly fitted in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions”.

It looks to me like they tried to construct a rule using the worst
possible combination of all the original and my proposed words :-)

Peter

--
www.amey.org.uk