Highway Code amendments

wafflycat said:

Petition against the new wording

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/

At 8:50 there are 134 signatures.

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

Quoted message said:

Petition against the new wording

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/

Whats going on!? Can this happen? It has seemingly come out of the blue - or
have I missed something? I am just reading the thread on CTC forum which is
answering some of my questions, however....what can be done to avert this
disaster? I'm not very up on campaigning, but I think it may be time to
start learning!

Thoughts??

Colin

Martin Dann said:

wafflycat said:

Petition against the new wording

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/

At 8:50 there are 134 signatures.

Sorry to reply to my own post, I have just sent off an email to my local
MP, Stephen Williams.

Martin.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Petition against the new wording

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/

Whats going on!? Can this happen? It has seemingly come out of the blue - or
have I missed something? I am just reading the thread on CTC forum which is
answering some of my questions, however....what can be done to avert this
disaster? I'm not very up on campaigning, but I think it may be time to
start learning!

Thoughts??

Colin

Sadly CTC is totally failing to respond --- too much government funding!!!!

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

Pinky said:

Sadly CTC is totally failing to respond --- too much government funding!!!!

A bit unfair, especially as they organised a lot of the feedback to
the "consultation" in the first place. Without the CTC's efforts
it wouldn't really allow anyone to point out that more cyclists
than everyone else put together responded to the call for feedback.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pinky said:

Sadly CTC is totally failing to respond --- too much government funding!!!!

A bit unfair, especially as they organised a lot of the feedback to the
"consultation" in the first place. Without the CTC's efforts it wouldn't
really allow anyone to point out that more cyclists than everyone else put
together responded to the call for feedback.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

What is unfair about that.

CTC is totally silent on the matter at this time. The consolation has had no
effect at all. I refute your response totally

Could it just be that CTC is holding its fire -- lots of new funding for its
prestigious new image! but very little improvement to the basic members
accessibility!

Just look at the imminent changes in the CTC set up.

I'll take a £5 bet with you that in a years time CTC will be a very different
organisation and be even more remote from its paying members -- after all the
funding from other sources will make members subscriptions of much less
import -- but will drastically alter the public and hidden face of CTC. And
therefore failing totally to appreciate the direction it should take

However --

I do think that in the long run -- say about 10 years ( I hope I am still
alive ) the glorious destructive era of the gas/petrol/fossil fuelled vehicle
will be well into its decline. I am 70 and I suppose I shall survive my
natural life but if I was 20 years younger I should be looking to move me and
my family to a northerly climate on the mainland to build a large element of
self sufficiency. And take our bikes with us.

my father is 100 and in his century I suspect he has had the worst and the
best of living over that time. I fear for my 10 year old grandson -- quite
seriously.

How can one understand that facts of the planet when we all go galloping
forward with total disregard for more then the next 5 years!

Sorry -- climbed on my high horse -- but ...................
but...................... but..................

and a tad of a rant! :-)

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

Pinky wrote on 18/04/2007 23:27 +0100:

Quoted message said:

my father is 100 and in his century I suspect he has had the worst and
the best of living over that time. I fear for my 10 year old grandson --
quite seriously.

As I said to someone the other day, I won't be around to be bothered
much by any global warming (medical miracles aside) but can I get my
kids to switch the lights off?

--
Tony

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

Pinky wrote on 18/04/2007 23:27 +0100:

Quoted message said:

my father is 100 and in his century I suspect he has had the worst and
the best of living over that time. I fear for my 10 year old grandson --
quite seriously.

As I said to someone the other day, I won't be around to be bothered
much by any global warming (medical miracles aside) but can I get my
kids to switch the lights off?

--
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]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

Pinky wrote on 18/04/2007 23:27 +0100:

Quoted message said:

my father is 100 and in his century I suspect he has had the worst and
the best of living over that time. I fear for my 10 year old grandson --
quite seriously.

As I said to someone the other day, I won't be around to be bothered
much by any global warming (medical miracles aside) but can I get my
kids to switch the lights off?

We have been the materially richest generation that has ever lived, and
it's looking increasingly probable that we have been the materially
richest generation that will ever live.

I don't have children or grand-children; but I fear for my nephew and
nieces. At some point the tension between rising expectations and
declining resources is going to topple into chaos and war.

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

;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundum variat.

Quoting Pinky <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Pinky said:

Sadly CTC is totally failing to respond --- too much government funding!!!!

A bit unfair, especially as they organised a lot of the feedback to the
"consultation" in the first place.

What is unfair about that.

That it ignores the massive response organised by the CTC.

Quoted message said:

CTC is totally silent on the matter at this time.

This is not true; I have read about it in two CTC "newsnet" emails
(although I wish they'd keep the advertising junk out of them) and ISTR
also in the most recent Cycletouring.

Obviously they might be a bit reluctant to try organising a massive
write-in campaign when that proved futile.

Quoted message said:

Could it just be that CTC is holding its fire -- lots of new funding for its
prestigious new image!

What prestigious new image? I've got news; "touring" was quietly
disappeared a good five years ago.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Leicesterday, April.

David Damerell said:

Quoting Pinky <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Pinky wrote:
> Sadly CTC is totally failing to respond --- too much government funding!!!!
A bit unfair, especially as they organised a lot of the feedback to the
"consultation" in the first place.

What is unfair about that.

That it ignores the massive response organised by the CTC.

How is it unfair, even if they /did/ "ignore" an input equivalent to
only about 4% of the membership of the CTC, or 0.005% of the UK
population as a whole?

--
Matt B

David Damerell said:

Quoting Pinky <[email hidden]>:

That it ignores the massive response organised by the CTC.

Quoted message said:

CTC is totally silent on the matter at this time.

This is not true; I have read about it in two CTC "newsnet" emails

I think it is true - the newsnet emails don't really count - they are
hardly advertised, and despite my endeavours I can't get them to send
them to me. There's nothing on teh website (last I looked). So,
outside of an email they won't send to people that ask (but do
occasionally send to people that don't ask), they have been silent.

It does look horribly like they've just given up - oh well, too late
now, mustn't rock the boat, etc etc.

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

Quoting Ian Smith <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

This is not true; I have read about it in two CTC "newsnet" emails

I think it is true - the newsnet emails don't really count

Well, what else? I don't know what the press date for Cycletouring is, but
it doesn't sound impossible that the most recent one was too early (it
does indeed have no mention).

Quoted message said:

them to me. There's nothing on teh website (last I looked).

Hmmm. I think you're right about that, although it's such a mess it's hard
to be sure. Perhaps you and Trevor Panther are right.

Quoted message said:

It does look horribly like they've just given up - oh well, too late
now, mustn't rock the boat, etc etc.

It's difficult to know what they _should_ do in the light of the fact that
mass letter-writing campaigns don't work.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Leicesterday, April.

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

Quoted message said:

Martin Dann said:

wafflycat said:

Petition against the new wording

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/

At 8:50 there are 134 signatures.

Sorry to reply to my own post, I have just sent off an email to my local
MP, Stephen Williams.

I've filled in the petition, e-mailed all my friends who own a bike, and
e-mailed my MP David Heath.

Dave.

In article <[email hidden]>, David Damerell
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoting Ian Smith <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

This is not true; I have read about it in two CTC "newsnet" emails

I think it is true - the newsnet emails don't really count

Well, what else? I don't know what the press date for Cycletouring is, but
it doesn't sound impossible that the most recent one was too early (it
does indeed have no mention).

Quoted message said:

them to me. There's nothing on teh website (last I looked).

Hmmm. I think you're right about that, although it's such a mess it's hard
to be sure. Perhaps you and Trevor Panther are right.

They do link to this, which I don't think has been posted here yet
http://motoring.independent.co.uk/comment/article2452860.ece

"Rob Morley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, David Damerell
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoting Ian Smith <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

On 19 Apr 2007, David Damerell <[email hidden]> wrote:
>This is not true; I have read about it in two CTC "newsnet" emails
I think it is true - the newsnet emails don't really count

Well, what else? I don't know what the press date for Cycletouring is,
but
it doesn't sound impossible that the most recent one was too early (it
does indeed have no mention).

Quoted message said:

them to me. There's nothing on teh website (last I looked).

Hmmm. I think you're right about that, although it's such a mess it's
hard
to be sure. Perhaps you and Trevor Panther are right.

They do link to this, which I don't think has been posted here yet
http://motoring.independent.co.uk/comment/article2452860.ece

I've had a look this morning at the CTC's website, and on the HC issue it's
still frozen at the state of affairs prior to the latest draft. This despite
stating that:

"In one important respect though, the rule about using cycle facilities is
even more insidious. With helmet-wearing, it seems that those cyclists who
have dared to resist the claim of "contributory negligence" (including the
Coombs family) have always managed to win the argument in court eventually.
It takes guts to do this, not to mention a strong-willed cycle-friendly
solicitor! However, to the best of CTC's knowledge, the courts have rejected
every helmet-related claim of "contributory negligence" brought before them,
ruling in every case that a helmet would probably not have prevented the
injuries which occurred.

By contrast, it will be almost impossible to argue against "contributory
negligence" claims based on non-use of a cycle facility. Challenging such a
claim would take not just guts, but downright foolhardiness. However
strongly the cyclist might argue that their decision not to use the facility
was a rational one, the court would be almost bound to conclude that the
collision would have been avoided if the cyclist had been in a different
place at the time."

In tghe latest issue of Cycle, Kevin Mayne was (rightly) triumphant about
winning the Daniel Cadden appeal, with the obvious appeal for more
contributions to the Cyclists Defence Fund, but here we have the CTC clearly
identifying a threat to such cases in future, yet being _extremely_ slow off
the mark to respond publicly. If they're working behind the scenes we need
to be reassured that this is so. If not then we need to know why not. Has
anybody asked them? (before I do)

On 20 Apr, 07:41, "Budstaff" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In tghe latest issue of Cycle, Kevin Mayne was (rightly) triumphant about
winning the Daniel Cadden appeal, with the obvious appeal for more
contributions to the Cyclists Defence Fund, but here we have the CTC clearly
identifying a threat to such cases in future, yet being _extremely_ slow off
the mark to respond publicly. If they're working behind the scenes we need
to be reassured that this is so. If not then we need to know why not. Has
anybody asked them? (before I do)-

The new wording is obviosuly bad. The Police, CPS, and Magistrates
already seem to be under the impression that cyclists shouldn't be
using the road (Daniel Cadden case), the new wording will reinforce
this and reinforce it in the eyes of some drivers.

I sent a mail to the CTC yesterday directing them at the petition
but have had no reply yet.

--
Dan

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:41:43 +0100 someone who may be "Budstaff"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

In tghe latest issue of Cycle, Kevin Mayne was (rightly) triumphant about
winning the Daniel Cadden appeal, with the obvious appeal for more
contributions to the Cyclists Defence Fund, but here we have the CTC clearly
identifying a threat to such cases in future, yet being _extremely_ slow off
the mark to respond publicly. If they're working behind the scenes we need
to be reassured that this is so. If not then we need to know why not.

AOL

Time is running out to try and influence the Westminster bods to
vote against this thing.

--
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

wafflycat' w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com said:

Petition against the new wording

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/

I've just emailed my MP:

Dear Paul Clark,

Further to my correspondance a few months ago regarding the
consultation on the revised Highway Code, I note that the DfT has
ignored the overwhelming majority of replies to its consultation. By
modifying various sections of the code, the safety and rights of
cyclists have been significantly endangered.

In particular, the new highway code requries cyclsits to use cycle
facilities 'wherever possible'. Many facilities are of poor standard,
or just plain dangerous. Cyclists should not be forced to use such
facilities against their better judgment. The Daniel Caddon case in
Telford showed how difficult it can be for cyclists to maintain their
right to use the road. Even though Mr Cadden eventually won, the new
wording of the Highway Code suggests that future cases might not be
succesful, despite the Appeal Court judgement.

I am disappointed that the rights of cyclists can be undermined this
way, and using such an undemocratic process. This change is being
brought about by simply changing a document which is unlikely to be
effectively scrutinised by Parliament.

I would be grateful if you could raise this concern with the Transport
Minister, and urge him not to continue with the publication of the new
Highway Code until this issue has been properly and democratically
addressed.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Alan Collier