UK and Europe · Public discussion

Highway Code debacle - CTC

Started by David Damerell · · Last activity · 7 posts · 439 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
8 May 2007
Last activity
11 May 2007
Original author
David Damerell
Posts
7
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
439
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–7 of 7
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. The latest CTC newsnet, which I have not seen quoted here, says;

    ---
    A revised draft of the Highway Code has not properly addressed the
    concerns of 11,000 cyclists who last year joined our campaign to have
    the Code re-worded. The original draft told cyclists to 'use cycle
    facilities...where provided'. Following our campaigning efforts, the
    revised wording, issued on 28th March, reads: 'Use cycle routes and
    cycle facilities...wherever possible, as they can make your journey
    safer.' The new wording does not address our original concern that
    insurance companies will use the wording of the new Code as an excuse to
    reduce the amount of compensation they pay if a motorist hits a cyclist
    that has chosen to use a road rather than a nearby cycle facility. We
    very much hope that the Government will see sense and amend the wording
    to say "use cycle facilities where they help with your journey" - thus
    leaving the decision at the cyclist's discretion. If it does not, we
    will seek to persuade the Lords to vote it out, or may ultimately
    initiate a Judicial Review against it.

    We would like to hear about incidents where a cyclist has been injured
    while using a cycle facility, or has suffered verbal or physical abuse,
    or hassle from the police, as a result of using the road rather than a
    nearby cycle facility. Please email [email hidden]
    ---

    It is not clear to me why it has taken quite so long to obtain these
    jewels of wisdom...
    --
    OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
    e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:okonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
    5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
    rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

  2. David Damerell wrote on 08/05/2007 17:25 +0100:

    Quoted message said:


    We would like to hear about incidents where a cyclist has been injured
    while using a cycle facility, or has suffered verbal or physical abuse,
    or hassle from the police, as a result of using the road rather than a
    nearby cycle facility. Please email [email hidden]

    Perhaps we should send Adam the address of uk.tosspots &
    uk.wreck.driving ;-)

    --
    Tony

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

  3. On 8 May, 17:25, David Damerell <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    The latest CTC newsnet, which I have not seen quoted here, says;

    ---
    A revised draft of the Highway Code has not properly addressed the
    concerns of 11,000 cyclists who last year joined our campaign to have
    the Code re-worded. The original draft told cyclists to 'use cycle
    facilities...where provided'. Following our campaigning efforts, the
    revised wording, issued on 28th March, reads: 'Use cycle routes and
    cycle facilities...wherever possible, as they can make your journey
    safer.' The new wording does not address our original concern that
    insurance companies will use the wording of the new Code as an excuse to
    reduce the amount of compensation they pay if a motorist hits a cyclist
    that has chosen to use a road rather than a nearby cycle facility. We
    very much hope that the Government will see sense and amend the wording
    to say "use cycle facilities where they help with your journey" - thus
    leaving the decision at the cyclist's discretion. If it does not, we
    will seek to persuade the Lords to vote it out, or may ultimately
    initiate a Judicial Review against it.

    We would like to hear about incidents where a cyclist has been injured
    while using a cycle facility, or has suffered verbal or physical abuse,
    or hassle from the police, as a result of using the road rather than a
    nearby cycle facility. Please email [email hidden]
    ---

    It is not clear to me why it has taken quite so long to obtain these
    jewels of wisdom...
    --
    OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,h­ilit
    e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:okonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,sco­res:
    5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
    rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,show­race

    Do cyclist have to read the HC (Highway code), are they tested on it?

  4. in message <[email hidden]>, Dewi

    (') said:

    Do cyclist have to read the HC (Highway code),

    No, but you're an idiot if you don't.

    Quoted message said:

    are they tested on it?

    No.

    --
    [email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
    "The result is a language that... not even its mother could
    love. Like the camel, Common Lisp is a horse designed by
    committee. Camels do have their uses."
    ;; Scott Fahlman, 7 March 1995

  5. Simon Brooke said:

    in message <[email hidden]>, Dewi

    (') said:

    Do cyclist have to read the HC (Highway code),

    No, but you're an idiot if you don't.

    Quoted message said:

    are they tested on it?

    No.

    My point exactly...

  6. Simon Brooke twisted the electrons to say:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Do cyclist have to read the HC (Highway code),


    No, but you're an idiot if you don't.

    Of course motorists, in general, only have to provide proof that they've
    read the HC *once*!
    --
    These opinions might not even be mine ...
    Let alone connected with my employer ...

  7. Alistair Gunn wrote on 11/05/2007 17:13 +0100:

    Quoted message said:

    Simon Brooke twisted the electrons to say:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Do cyclist have to read the HC (Highway code),


    No, but you're an idiot if you don't.

    Of course motorists, in general, only have to provide proof that they've
    read the HC *once*!

    <pedant>

    Unless they offend and are required to be retested

    </pedant>

    --
    Tony

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

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.