Danny Colyer said:I received a copy from my MP this morning. The content is much the same
as the written statement at
<http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2007-06-05a.14WS.3&s=cycling#g14WS.4>
I might find time to type it in tomorrow, if no-one else does it first.
Good job I'm a demon typist. Here goes:
==Letter 1:====
Dear Colleague
I am writing to all MPs about cyclists' concerns regarding certain
aspects of rules 61 and 63 of the proposed revisions to the Highway
Code. You will be pleased to know that, having listened to the concerns
of cyclists, we are seeking views from key stakeholders on proposals for
further changes to these rules . A copy of the letter sent to
stakeholders is attached.
Following informal discussions with CTC, we are proposing changes to
draft rules 61 and 63 to make clearer the position regarding the advice
in the Code on the use of cycle facilities and cycle lanes, so as to
remove any possible doubt about their meaning.
We are seeking views on these two revised rules from key road safety
interests by the end of Tuesday 12 June, including members of the Road
Safety Advisory Panel, as well as cycling and walking representative
bodies. A full list of those invited to comment is included in the
letter. The reason for this very short timescale is so as not to unduly
delay the publication of the new edition of the Highway Code. Any
proposed changes have to be laid in Parliament for 40 days before they
can come into effect, so will need to be laid by 15 June at the latest
if the 40 day period is to be completed before summer recess. Subject
to consideration of any responses to this consultation, we would then
expect to publish the revised edition of the Highway Code in September.
A copy of this letter is also being sent to Lord Haskel, Lord Greaves,
Lord Hanningfield, Lord Bradshaw, Lord Bassam and Baroness Crawley
Stephen Ladyman
==Letter 2:====
FURTHER CHANGES TO DRAFT RULES 61 AD 63 OF THE PROPOSED REVISED HIGHWAY CODE
I am writing to seek your views on further revisions to two draft rules
of the proposed Highway Code concerning cycle facilities and cycle
lanes. For reasons set out below, I am seeking your views by no later
than the end of Tuesday 12 June.
*Background*
In February 2006 we issued a draft of proposed revisions to the Highway
Code for public consultation, which closed on 15 May 2006. Over 4,000
people offered a total of almost 27,000 comments.
Taking account of these comments, a new draft version of the Highway
Code was laid before Parliament on 28 March 2007. A large number of
responses to the consultation concerned the rules on cycling and more
than 40 amendments were made to these and other rules to take account of
comments from cyclists. However, since the Code was laid before
Parliament, further representations have been made by cyclists who
remain concerned that the revised text of rules 61 and 63 on cycle
facilities and cycle lanes is insufficiently clear.
*Proposed change*
Having considered these further representations carefully, we believe
that there is merit in amending and expanding rules 61 and 63, so as to
remove any possible doubt about their meaning. We are therefore now
proposing to include revised versions of rules 61 and 63. We have
discussed these changes informally with CTC, the cyclists' organisation.
The proposed revised versions are as follows:-
61 Cycle Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes
and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of
these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience
and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
63 Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken)
along the carriageway (see Rule 140). When using a cycle lane, keep
within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check
before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention
clearly to other road users. Use of these facilities is not compulsory
and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your
journey safer.
These changes make clearer the position regarding the advice in the Code
on the use of cycle facilities and cycle lanes. The purpose of the
Code is to help cyclists and all other road users to use the roads as
safely as possible. It does so in two ways. It explains the law and it
provides advice and guidance on safe behaviour in areas not covered by
legislation.
Rules 61 and 63 are part of the advice and guidance and do not set out
legal requirements, which, as explained in the Introduction to the Code,
are indicated by the words MUST or MUST NOT. The revised wording for
rules 61 and 63 makes it clearer that use of cycle facilities and cycle
lanes is not compulsory and that these rules do not introduce any legal
requirements.
Cycle facilities and cycle lanes are provided to help cyclists.
Cyclists are entitled to use their experience and judgment [sic] in
deciding when to use cycle facilities and cycle lanes. The proposed
changes also make this clearer.
*Timetable*
We are seeking views on these two revised rules by no later than the end
of Tuesday 12 June.
We are seeking views from key road safety interests, including members
of the Road safety Advisory Panel, as well as cycling and walking
representative bodies. A full list of those being asked to comment is
attached. Please let us know if you think we have omitted any
organisation that may have a view on these changes.
The reason for this very short timescale is to avoid unduly delaying
the publication of the new edition of the Highway Code. Any proposed
changes to the code have to be laid in Parliament for 40 days before
they can come into effect. The Parliamentary summer recess begins on 26
July 2007. This means that, subject to the views expressed in response
to this letter ,we would have to lay these changes by no later than 15
June in order to complete the laying period before the recess.
This would enable the publication of the new edition of the Highway code
by the end of September. If we are unable to lay changes by 15th June
this would mean the new edition could not be published until December at
the earliest. A delay in issuing the Code would mean delaying the
benefits of applying all the improved advice for all road users that it
contains, including advice to motorists to be more aware of vulnerable
road users such as cyclists.
Please send any comments by no later than the end of Tuesday 12 June.
If possible, it would be helpful to have your comments before the
deadline but there is no difficulty if you are not able to reply before
then - your comments will still be properly considered. Please respond
to me at:-
[e-mail address removed for posting to usenet]
If you do not have e-mail access, please contact me at the above address.
Yours faithfully,
Andrew Colski
Vulnerable Road Users Branch
Road User Safety Division.
============
There then follows a list of individuals who are invited to respond, and
the organisations that they represent, which I CBA to copy out. It
includes Roger Geffen, Kevin Mayne and John Grimshaw.
--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2
