Final version of the Highway Code

Tony Raven said:

The final wording of the new Highway Code has just been issued together
with a summary of the consultation response. Worth a read for
understanding how the wording is intended to be interpreted. It comes
across as a rather bowed author. They have also indicated an intention
to do research on cycle safety including infrastructure so maybe just
maybe the message is starting to get through.
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/issues/highwaycode/dft2007june.pdf

A collective sigh of relief and congrats all round. The new wording is
imperfect but in a different league of excellence to the dire original.

Power to the cyclists: how many other groups have got this government to
actually listen?

Peter

--
www.amey.org.uk

Quoted message said:

Power to the cyclists: how many other groups have got this government to
actually listen?

American neocons?

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:17:36 +0100 someone who may be Peter Amey
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Power to the cyclists: how many other groups have got this government to
actually listen?

Quite a lot, starting with Bernie Ecclestone, ranging through quite
a variety and there are probably some more things to come out after
the cash for peerages one is sorted out.

However, groups which do not have millions of pounds to give to the
Labour Party find it very difficult to get them to listen, even if
they can put over a million people on the streets.

--
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 said:

The final wording of the new Highway Code has just been issued
together with a summary of the consultation response. Worth a read
for understanding how the wording is intended to be interpreted.

Also worth ploughing through to the appendices - the AA support the
latest change but seem to think it's too complicated, the IAM support
it but think it's an unnecessary lengthening of the code.

I also note the interesting statement "where a cycle lane has been
provided in accordance with DfT guidelines, is well maintained and
unobstructed, it can be safer than the alternative". Does anyone have
a good idea what (and where) those DfT guidelines are? The statement
raises the interesting (that they've admitted it) implied converse
that if the facilities are not so constructed, then they cannot be
safer. Also intersteing that they admit that even when it is to DfT
guidelines, well maintained and unobstructed, it can still be more
dangerous than riding in teh road - does this not suggest their
guidelines require some attention?

There's also some horrific weaselling about the lethal roundabouts
rule: "It does not say that cyclists should use the left hand lane,
but simply gives advise to those that choose to do so". Presumably we
can look forward to future versions of the code recommending the
correct approach when ram-raiding or conducting a drive-by-shooting.

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

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:06:29 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

The final wording of the new Highway Code has just been issued together
with a summary of the consultation response. Worth a read for
understanding how the wording is intended to be interpreted. It comes
across as a rather bowed author. They have also indicated an intention
to do research on cycle safety including infrastructure so maybe just
maybe the message is starting to get through.
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/issues/highwaycode/dft2007june.pdf

I note from the document that the fools at Brake were trying to
undermine the safety of cyclists again, along with the insurance
lobby. At least some of the enemies of cycling have been revealed.

"Strengthen the advice to cyclists that they should use cycle
routes, cycle lanes and other facilities

"Most suggestions for change came from cyclists and cycling
organisations. However, both the ABI and Brake suggested changes
that would provide more encouragement to cyclists to use cycle
routes, cycle lanes and other facilities when it helps to keep
them safe. However, the proposed wording provides a better balance
between providing safety advice and recognising that in many
circumstances cyclists may choose not to use such facilities."

--
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 said:

The final wording of the new Highway Code has just been issued together
with a summary of the consultation response. Worth a read for
understanding how the wording is intended to be interpreted. It comes
across as a rather bowed author. They have also indicated an intention
to do research on cycle safety including infrastructure so maybe just
maybe the message is starting to get through.
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/issues/highwaycode/dft2007june.pdf

Interesting to read that "both the ABI and Brake suggested changes that
would provide more encouragement to cyclists to use cycle routes, cycle
lanes and other facilities when it helps to keep them safe" (also very
pleasing to see that the suggestions were rejected)

A brief look at Brake's scaremongering web site is enough to put them
off my Christmas card list, but I wonder about the basis on which the
ABI made that response. Do you think it's backed by actuarial data, or
are they just applying ill-researched "common sense"

-dan

Daniel Barlow said:

Tony Raven said:

The final wording of the new Highway Code has just been issued together
with a summary of the consultation response. Worth a read for
understanding how the wording is intended to be interpreted. It comes
across as a rather bowed author. They have also indicated an intention
to do research on cycle safety including infrastructure so maybe just
maybe the message is starting to get through.
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/issues/highwaycode/dft2007june...

Interesting to read that "both the ABI and Brake suggested changes that
would provide more encouragement to cyclists to use cycle routes, cycle
lanes and other facilities when it helps to keep them safe" (also very
pleasing to see that the suggestions were rejected)

A brief look at Brake's scaremongering web site is enough to put them
off my Christmas card list, but I wonder about the basis on which the
ABI made that response. Do you think it's backed by actuarial data, or
are they just applying ill-researched "common sense"

I thought almost exactly the same. ABI presumably have a financial
incentive to want to minimize accidents. (I had to scroll back up to
find out what ABI was - I thought it was something like ABD :-)

Tim.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:02:42 +0100 someone who may be Daniel Barlow
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

A brief look at Brake's scaremongering web site is enough to put them
off my Christmas card list,

I did ask about them a few years ago and someone said they were on
the right side. I didn't believe it then and this has confirmed my
opinion.

Quoted message said:

but I wonder about the basis on which the ABI made that response.

Presumably this why officials are trying to hide what they have been
told from the public. That in itself is interesting, as in every
"consultation" I have taken part in it has stated clearly that any
comment I make will be made available to the public (I have nothing
against that as I have nothing to hide in such "consultations"😉 but
if I wish to plead a case for not making my comments public they
will consider it.

ABI undoubtedly are looking for a way to weasel out of paying for
even more of the damage done by motorists whenever possible, as we
have seen in a number of cases where Huttons claim that cyclists
contributed to their injuries by being in the wrong place, wearing
the wrong clothes and so on.

--
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

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

Quoted message said:

I thought almost exactly the same. ABI presumably have a financial
incentive to want to minimize accidents. (I had to scroll back up to
find out what ABI was - I thought it was something like ABD :-)

To minimise accidents /for the people they insure/ - i.e. mainly
motorists, I guess.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I thought almost exactly the same. ABI presumably have a financial
incentive to want to minimize accidents. (I had to scroll back up to
find out what ABI was - I thought it was something like ABD :-)

To minimise accidents /for the people they insure/ - i.e. mainly
motorists, I guess.

ITYM to minimise payouts.

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

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:06:29 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

I note from the document that the fools at Brake were trying to
undermine the safety of cyclists again, along with the insurance
lobby. At least some of the enemies of cycling have been revealed.

Does anyone know if BRAKE are in receipt of public funding? If so, my MP
will be hearing from me. I suppose that, even if they are a charity
supposedly promoting road safety, they could be challenged that they most
certainly aren't doing that, so the grounds on which they are claiming
charitable status could be suspect?

[email hidden] wrote on 20/06/2007 14:22 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I thought almost exactly the same. ABI presumably have a financial
incentive to want to minimize accidents. (I had to scroll back up to
find out what ABI was - I thought it was something like ABD :-)

Silly boy. They have a financial incentive to try to minimise payouts
to cyclists by asserting contributory negligence.

--
Tony

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

Ian Smith said:

Also worth ploughing through to the appendices - the AA support the
latest change but seem to think it's too complicated, the IAM support
it but think it's an unnecessary lengthening of the code.

The IAM position is interesting, not least because they used to be an
independent and fairly innocuous body, but now they have taken on the
'work' of the notorious old AA Foundation / AA Motoring Trust. I don't
know the details of what went on, and whether the IAM is effectively
now the AA Motoring Trust in a different set of clothes, but the
change certainly happened. For example, see:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.aamotoringtrust.com

http://www.aatrust.com/

http://www.iam.org.uk/motoringtrust/

http://www.iam.org.uk/motoringtrust/reports/aafoundation/reportsaafoundationforroadsafetyresearch.htm

Ian Smith said:

I also note the interesting statement "where a cycle lane has been
provided in accordance with DfT guidelines, is well maintained and
unobstructed, it can be safer than the alternative". Does anyone have
a good idea what (and where) those DfT guidelines are?

They're hidden away in the "Design Manual for Roads and Bridges":

DMRB Volume 5 Section 2 Part 4 TA 91/05
"Provision for Non-motorised Users"
http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol5/section2/ta9105.pdf
Chapter 5 and Annex 3 are of particular relevance, as well as parts of
Chapters 7 and 8. The four documents listed in paragraph 5.1 are also
worth having a look at.

For 'Off Carriageway Routes':
DMRB Volume 6 Section 3 Part 5 TA 90/05
"The Geometric Design of Pedestrian, Cycle and Equestrian Routes"
http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol6/section3/ta9005.pdf

--
David D Miller
St Andrews