revised highway code available

Peter Amey wrote on 04/04/2007 09:47 +0100:

Quoted message said:

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

So you're the one to blame? ;-)

--
Tony

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

in message <[email hidden]>, Budstaff

(') said:

"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?

There are no 'current regulations'. Presumably the drafters of the Highway
Code expect that within the lifetime of the draft there will be, but at
present there are none. Therefore, it is impossible to comply with Rule
59; and, in logic, 'from an absurdity anything follows'.

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

Anagram: I'm soon broke.

Tony Raven said:

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

A few months ago when the question of cycling farcilities was being
aired in the press an unnamed civil servant was quoted as saying: "It
is best practice to ride in the cycle lane." I have wondered since how
"best practice" is arrived at, what determines it, and what it
actually means. Who decides it and how? I've not seen it stated
anywhere else that it is "best practice" to ride in the cycle lane,
and I'm wondering if it's something a civil servant makes up on the
spur of the moment in order to justify the appalling shambles.

--
Dave...

On 4 Apr 2007 03:30:10 -0700 someone who may be "dkahn400"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

A few months ago when the question of cycling farcilities was being
aired in the press an unnamed civil servant was quoted as saying: "It
is best practice to ride in the cycle lane." I have wondered since how
"best practice" is arrived at, what determines it, and what it
actually means. Who decides it and how? I've not seen it stated
anywhere else that it is "best practice" to ride in the cycle lane,
and I'm wondering if it's something a civil servant makes up on the
spur of the moment in order to justify the appalling shambles.

Undoubtedly.

The Department for Motoring has a mindset to get those dammed
cyclists out of the way, something it has had for decades. They use
every opportunity to push their agenda forward, no matter what the
claimed policy is.

--
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

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Budstaff

(') said:

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

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith wrote:
> 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?

There are no 'current regulations'. Presumably the drafters of the Highway
Code expect that within the lifetime of the draft there will be, but at
present there are none. Therefore, it is impossible to comply with Rule
59; and, in logic, 'from an absurdity anything follows'.

But it is exactly the same in the current (2004) edition. Rule 45:
"Clothing. You should wear
* a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations
...."

--
Matt B

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Budstaff

(') said:

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

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith wrote:
> 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?

There are no 'current regulations'. Presumably the drafters of the Highway
Code expect that within the lifetime of the draft there will be, but at
present there are none. Therefore, it is impossible to comply with Rule
59; and, in logic, 'from an absurdity anything follows'.

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

Anagram: I'm soon broke.

Ahh, I see. I'd read 'standards' for 'regulations' in that part of my brain
which tries to keep things logical...

Matt B said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Budstaff

(') said:

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

There are no 'current regulations'. Presumably the drafters of the
Highway
Code expect that within the lifetime of the draft there will be, but at
present there are none. Therefore, it is impossible to comply with Rule
59; and, in logic, 'from an absurdity anything follows'.

But it is exactly the same in the current (2004) edition. Rule 45:
"Clothing. You should wear
* a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations
..."

P.S.

And exactly the same in the 1999 edition.

In the 1996, and 1993 editions, rule 190 says: "Wear a cycle helmet
which conforms to recognised safety standards."

--
Matt B

In article <[email hidden]>,
Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> writes:
|>
|> >> Rule 59
|> >>
|> >> "Clothing. You should wear
|> >> * a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct
|> >> size and securely fastened ......
|>
|> There are no 'current regulations'. Presumably the drafters of the Highway
|> Code expect that within the lifetime of the draft there will be, but at
|> present there are none. Therefore, it is impossible to comply with Rule
|> 59; and, in logic, 'from an absurdity anything follows'.

English law does not recognise the concept of absurdity. God alone knows
how the courts would interpret that.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.