Highway Code amendments

The Luggage said:

I've just emailed my MP:

Good stuff, so have I. http://www.writetothem.com is a very good portal
for whingeing to your elected representatives, btw, for those still
thinking of doing this or hunting for Tuits.

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/

Budstaff said:

Sorry David, 'AOL'?

From the tendency of subscribers to Amercia Online to quote a very long
post in full and add a comment of "me too!" or similar. Thus, a sign of
agreement.

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/

I've started work on drafting a briefing document for MPs on the problems
with the Highway Code amendments. My current draft is as follows (outline
numbers will be simplified before the final draft, it just helps me keep
track of what's where for now):

1 Summary

1.1 The promotion of cycling, especially utility cycling, is important for
a number of critical public policy objectives over the coming years. The
proposed revision of the Highway Code is damaging to cycling generally,
and to utility cycling especially. If this draft is adopted, it will have
strongly negative consequences on cycling, and on wider public policy
objectives including carbon emissions and health.

2 Background

2.1 The highway code is reviewed and revised periodically under the terms
of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
2.2 As a routine part of this review and revision process a new draft of
the Highway Code was produced by the Driving Standards Agency early in
2006.
2.3 A public consultation exercise was carried out on this draft by the
Driving Standards Agency between February and May of 2006.
2.4 70% of all responses to the public consultation process were from
cyclists; these overwhelmingly made the same points.
2.5 A revised, and apparently final, draft has been published in March
2007 which does not remedy the problems for cyclists.

3 What the drafts change

3.1 The drafts make many minor changes throughout the document; this
document considers only those which have a negative impact on cyclists.
3.2 Use of cycling facilities
3.2.1 The current code says
3.2.1.1 47: Use cycle routes when practicable. They can make your journey
safer.
3.2.2 The February 2006 draft says
3.2.2.1 58: Use cycle routes when practicable, and cycle facilities such
as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings where they are
provided, as they can make your journey safer.
3.2.3 The March 2007 draft says
3.2.3.1 61: Use cycle routes and cycle facilities such as advanced stop
lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings wherever possible, as they can
make your journey safer.
3.3 Roundabouts
3.3.1 The current code says
3.3.1.1 62: You may feel safer either keeping to the left on the
roundabout or dismounting and walking your cycle round on the pavement or
verge. If you decide to keep to the left you should
* be aware that drivers may not easily see you
* take extra care when cycling across exits and you may need to signal
right to show you are not leaving the roundabout
* watch out for vehicles crossing your path to leave or join the
roundabout.
3.3.2 The February 2006 draft says
3.3.2.1 74: You may feel safer either keeping to the left on the
roundabout or dismounting and walking your cycle round on the pavement or
verge. If you decide to keep to the left you should
* be aware that drivers may not easily see you
* take extra care when cycling across exits. You may need to signal right
to show you are not leaving the roundabout
* watch out for vehicles crossing your path to leave or join the
roundabout.
3.3.3 The March 2007 draft says
3.3.3.1 77: You may feel safer walking your cycle round on the pavement or
verge. If you decide to ride round keeping to the left-hand lane you
should
* be aware that drivers may not easily see you
* take extra care when cycling across exits. You may need to signal right
to show you are not leaving the roundabout
* watch out for vehicles crossing your path to leave or join the
roundabout.
3.3.4 In all cases this is preceded by a paragraph indicating the correct
rules for negotiating a roundabout, later in the document.

4 The consultation exercise

4.1 A public consultation exercise was carried out by the Driving
Standards Agency between February and May of 2006; the report of this
exercise is reference 2.
4.2 During the public consultation exercise, over 4000 people made a total
of 27000 comments. 70% of the responses were from cyclists.
4.3 The consultation report notes that “the cycling rules proved the most
contentious during the public consultation...” [page 7] and goes on to
state that the areas of contention were
4.3.1 The wording on the use of cycle facilities
4.3.2 The advice on wearing cycle helmets and high visibility clothing
4.3.3 The advice on negotiating roundabouts
4.4 Nevertheless the Driving Standards Agency chose to
4.4.1 ignore the comments with regard to helmets and clothing
4.4.2 ignore the comments with regard to roundabouts
4.4.3 make the wording on the use of cycle facilities worse, not better

5 What is wrong with the draft

5.1 Overall public policy objectives
5.1.1 Consideration of the Highway Code as it impacts cycling needs
consideration of wider public policy objectives
5.1.2 Carbon emissions
5.1.2.1 Where a traveller switches a utility journey from car to cycle,
this has a double impact on carbon emissions. Not only are the emissions
of the car journey saved, but road congestion is eased allowing other
motor vehicles to flow more freely. If Britain could achieve the level of
utility cycling of (for example) the Netherlands, the saving in carbon
emissions would be [figure? reference?]
5.1.2.2 But this benefit occurs only when utility journeys are switched to
cycle. Leisure cycling saves no emissions; on the contrary, where leisure
cyclists transport their cycles by car to distant cycle paths, it has a
net carbon cost.
5.1.2.3 Utility cycling requires that, for the user, the cycle journey is
competitively efficient with alternative modes of transport
5.1.3 Health
5.1.3.1 [The health benefits of cycling... cost saving to economy?]
5.2 Cycle facilities
5.2.1 The quality of cycling facilities in the UK is highly variable; the
worst are very unsafe and very inconvenient
5.2.2 Shared use facilities are attractive to planners but effectively
limit cyclists to little more than pedestrian speed. Unless they represent
very significant short-cuts they are not competitive for utility cyclists
with adjacent roads. Requiring the use of shared facilities would have a
strong negative impact on utility cycling
5.2.3 Overall, many studies in many countries show the risk of serious
injury and death to cyclists using cycle paths exceeds the risk of using
adjacent roads, primarily because of unsighted conflicts with motorists at
junctions between cycle paths and roads [references]
5.2.4 There is a particular problem with advanced stop line cycle boxes
with an entry lane on the left, especially where there are railings or
barriers on the pavement edge. A very high proportion of urban cycle
fatalities involve long vehicles turning left at such junctions
[references]
5.2.5 The wording in the current Highway Code makes it clear that cyclists
may use facilities, or not, at their own discretion. This is also the law.
5.2.6 The wording of the revised draft says that cyclists should use
facilities 'wherever possible', implying that they have no such
discretion. It may be 'possible' to use a facility which it is either
extremely unsafe or extremely inconvenient to use
5.3 Roundabouts
5.3.1 The correct rules for negotiating roundabouts are given in all
drafts of the Highway Code
5.3.2 Roundabouts can be intimidating for relatively low speed and
unprotected road users
5.3.3 The suggestion that cyclists may /feel/ safer if they dismount and
walk around is not in itself contentious, although on many roundabouts it
would be either impractical or actively dangerous to do so.
5.3.4 Utility cyclists will not dismount and walk around roundabouts, and
must not be expected to do so; the promotion of utility cycling requires
that cycling be competitively simple and quick with other modes
5.3.5 Moreover, the suggestion that cyclists keep to the left hand lane on
roundabouts is actively dangerous, as it puts cyclists in conflict with
fast moving traffic at each exit.
5.3.6 Cyclists should follow the normal rules for negotiating roundabouts
like any other road user. There should be no special roundabout rule for
cyclists.
5.4 Helmets and clothing
5.4.1 The utility of cycle helmets is highly contentious. The evidence as
to their utility is incomplete and unclear, especially with regard to
accidents involving motor vehicles. It is not the case that it is clear
that wearing helmets makes cyclists safer. This is a complex issue,
outside the scope of the present document. The advice on this both in the
current Highway Code and the proposed draft is optimistic as to the
benefits of helmets beyond the current evidence.
5.4.2 Utility cycling is highest (and the risks of cycling lowest) in
countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark where helmet use is lowest
[references].
5.4.3 There is evidence from a number of countries that helmet promotion
has a negative impact on cycle use, and on the overall safety of cyclists
[references].
5.4.4 Promotion of utility cycling requires that people are able to cycle
in their ordinary, everyday clothes – again, as is normal in the
Netherlands and Denmark.

6 What should be done

6.1 The section regarding the use of cycle facilities should be replaced
with the following wording:
6.1.1 You may use cycle routes and cycle facilities such as advanced stop
lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings if they will make your journey
safer or more convenient.
6.1.2 You should avoid using a left hand entry lane to a cycle box if
there is a long vehicle waiting to turn left
6.2 The cycling-specific section regarding the use of roundabouts should
be removed altogether.
6.3 The section regarding the use of high-visibility clothing and helmets
should be replaced with the following wording:
6.3.1 you should wear appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which
may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
6.3.2 light-coloured or fluorescent clothing will help other road users to
see you in daylight and poor light
6.3.3 reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands)
will help other road users see you in the dark.

7 References

7.1
http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/consult/Responses/Highway_Code_Draft.pdf
7.2
http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/consult/Responses/Response_to_Highway_Code_Consultation_report.pdf

If anyone would like to co-operate with me on this document, much as the
co-operative childrens' cycling leaflet was produced, I'd welcome
collaborators. When it's finished I'll put it up on the web so that you
can print it off and send it to your MP as an attachment to your personal
letter.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Drivers in the UK kill more people every single year than
;; Al Qaeda have ever killed worldwide in any single year.

Simon Brooke said:

6.1.2 You should avoid using a left hand entry lane to a cycle box if
there is a long vehicle waiting to turn left

The following wording is not perfect but may be better.

6.1.2 Avoid filtering past the left hand side of a long vehicle at all
times, even if there is a cycle lane and even if there is a cycle box
ahead.

I like the idea and would be interested in working with you Simon. You
can mail me directly at [email hidden] if you remove the h*lm*t
first.

--
Dave...

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

Quoted message said:

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.

--

Sorry David, 'AOL'?

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

Quoted message said:

Budstaff said:

Sorry David, 'AOL'?

From the tendency of subscribers to Amercia Online to quote a very long
post in full and add a comment of "me too!" or similar. Thus, a sign of
agreement.

Ta v much

The Luggage said:

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

Petition against the new wording

Quoted message said:

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

I have also used this portal...one of the few gov systems that seems
to work well.

Dear ...

You may recall that I sent you a series of letters on the case of
Daniel Cadden the cyclist prosecuted for not using a cycle path. On
appeal the ruling that he should have used a cycle path was overturned
and the reply that you received from Douglas Alexander
(DA/TH/028083/06) stated that there had been 1) No offence and 2) That
the Government had no intention of introducing such compulsion.

The review of the highway code has now been published and requires
cyclists to use cycle facilities 'wherever possible'. This is a
marked
change from the previous wording and given the poor state and planning
of these facilities will do nothing to promote integration of road
users, encourage cycling or simplify the law relating to the use of
cycle lanes whilst the advice itself will expose cyclists to greater
dangers, cycle facilities are proven to be six times more dangerous
than normal roads.

I would ask that you again raise this matter with the Secretary of
State for Transport asking him why the wording has been altered and to
suggest that with reference to the above the proposed revision to this
wording be dropped.

Yours sincerely,

Sniper8052

Simon Brooke said:

2.4 70% of all responses to the public consultation process were from
cyclists; these overwhelmingly made the same points.

Can you support that? We expect they overwhelmingly made the same
points, and you could infer it from the commentary, but I don't think
the consultation report actually says that (might be wrong - haven't
checked).

Quoted message said:

2.5 A revised, and apparently final, draft has been published in March
2007 which does not remedy the problems for cyclists.

add "... and in some respects is actually worse than the previous
draft." ?

Quoted message said:

5.2.5 The wording in the current Highway Code makes it clear that cyclists
may use facilities, or not, at their own discretion. This is also the law.
5.2.6 The wording of the revised draft says that cyclists should use
facilities 'wherever possible', implying that they have no such
discretion. It may be 'possible' to use a facility which it is either
extremely unsafe or extremely inconvenient to use

Add something to the effect that some facilities contradict national
cycle training standards - thinking about on-carriageway lanes in door
zones, for example. Maybe "Some facilities are so badly designed or
implemented that they contradict official guidance on cycling safely,
but since it is physically possible to use them, the latest HC states
that a cyclist should use them, despite the significant risk of
serious injury." in place of your last sentence?

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

Simon Brooke said:

5.4 Helmets and clothing
5.4.1 The utility of cycle helmets is highly contentious. The evidence as
to their utility is incomplete and unclear, especially with regard to
accidents involving motor vehicles. It is not the case that it is clear
that wearing helmets makes cyclists safer. This is a complex issue,
outside the scope of the present document. The advice on this both in the
current Highway Code and the proposed draft is optimistic as to the
benefits of helmets beyond the current evidence.

Not wanting to start another helmet discussion, but I wonder if --
considering how contentious the issue is -- this paragraph would be better
toned down slightly? I'm thinking something along the lines of:

Head injuries amongst cyclists are comparatively rare [insert reference],
and the situations in which helmets may help are limited. The current rule
overemphasises the importance of cycle-helmets for safety.

[continue with stuff about helmet promotion discouraging cycling]

I know this is less strong than the viewpoint of many around here (myself
included), but I think the risk of stating the 'full' case is that you come
across as a 'crank' to those who have only previously heard the pro-helmet
propaganda.

Quoted message said:

If anyone would like to co-operate with me on this document, much as the
co-operative childrens' cycling leaflet was produced, I'd welcome
collaborators. When it's finished I'll put it up on the web so that you
can print it off and send it to your MP as an attachment to your personal
letter.

The rest of the document looks promising. Do you intend to keep discussion
about it on uk.rec.cycling?

Anthony

Quoted message said:

I have also used this portal...one of the few gov systems that seems
to work well.

If you mean www.writetothem.com it isn't a govt system. It was written
by mysociety.org without govt. funding or input.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Ian Smith said:

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:51:44 +0100,

Simon Brooke said:

Quoted message said:

2.4 70% of all responses to the public consultation process were from
cyclists; these overwhelmingly made the same points.

Can you support that? We expect they overwhelmingly made the same
points, and you could infer it from the commentary, but I don't think
the consultation report actually says that (might be wrong - haven't
checked).

Probably can't be supported without asking the DSA for figures. However
there were enough making the point that it was considered a significant
number in Parliament.

It might also be worth mentioning that MPs received something like
11,000 letters and emails from cyclists about these issues.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Andy Leighton said:

Quoted message said:

I have also used this portal...one of the few gov systems that seems
to work well.

If you mean www.writetothem.com it isn't a govt system. It was written
by mysociety.org without govt. funding or input.

That'll be why it works well and is remarkably easy to use... ;-/

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/

Anthony Jones said:

Simon Brooke said:

5.4 Helmets and clothing
5.4.1 The utility of cycle helmets is highly contentious. The evidence as
to their utility is incomplete and unclear, especially with regard to
accidents involving motor vehicles. It is not the case that it is clear
that wearing helmets makes cyclists safer. This is a complex issue,
outside the scope of the present document. The advice on this both in the
current Highway Code and the proposed draft is optimistic as to the
benefits of helmets beyond the current evidence.

Not wanting to start another helmet discussion, but I wonder if --
considering how contentious the issue is -- this paragraph would be better
toned down slightly? I'm thinking something along the lines of:

Head injuries amongst cyclists are comparatively rare [insert reference],

ROSPA say that of the 16,413 cyclist injured (but not killed) in 2005,
more than half had head injuries.

http://www.rospa.org.uk/roadsafety/advice/cycling/cycling_accidents.htm

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Anthony Jones said:

Simon Brooke said:

5.4 Helmets and clothing
5.4.1 The utility of cycle helmets is highly contentious. The
evidence as
to their utility is incomplete and unclear, especially with regard to
accidents involving motor vehicles. It is not the case that it is clear
that wearing helmets makes cyclists safer. This is a complex issue,
outside the scope of the present document. The advice on this both in
the
current Highway Code and the proposed draft is optimistic as to the
benefits of helmets beyond the current evidence.

Not wanting to start another helmet discussion, but I wonder if --
considering how contentious the issue is -- this paragraph would be
better
toned down slightly? I'm thinking something along the lines of:

Head injuries amongst cyclists are comparatively rare [insert
reference],

ROSPA say that of the 16,413 cyclist injured (but not killed) in 2005,
more than half had head injuries.

Oops, and that around 70% of those killed had "major head injuries".

Quoted message said:

http://www.rospa.org.uk/roadsafety/advice/cycling/cycling_accidents.htm

--
Matt B

Anthony Jones said:

Simon Brooke said:

5.4 Helmets and clothing
5.4.1 The utility of cycle helmets is highly contentious. The evidence as
to their utility is incomplete and unclear, especially with regard to
accidents involving motor vehicles. It is not the case that it is clear
that wearing helmets makes cyclists safer. This is a complex issue,
outside the scope of the present document. The advice on this both in the
current Highway Code and the proposed draft is optimistic as to the
benefits of helmets beyond the current evidence.

Not wanting to start another helmet discussion, but I wonder if --
considering how contentious the issue is -- this paragraph would be better
toned down slightly? I'm thinking something along the lines of:

Head injuries amongst cyclists are comparatively rare [insert reference],
and the situations in which helmets may help are limited. The current rule
overemphasises the importance of cycle-helmets for safety.

Perhaps:

"Serious head injuries among cyclists are extremely rare" as otherwise
you'd get pro-helmet zealots using the incidence of minor scrapes and cuts
as a argument for an MHL. The RoSPA report claims that some number of
those injured had head injuries, but does not give a proportion of such
injuries which are minor (which is likely to be an overwhelming
proportion).

_ said:

"Serious head injuries among cyclists are extremely rare"

Poor wording IMHO, as it can't be quantified properly and "extremely
rare" means different things to different folk. I'd be inclined to
compare the dangers of cycling to things MPs (think they) know about,
such as banging of one's heid walking and driving.

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/

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Matt B said:

Anthony Jones said:

Simon Brooke wrote:
> 5.4 Helmets and clothing
> 5.4.1 The utility of cycle helmets is highly contentious. The
> evidence as
> to their utility is incomplete and unclear, especially with regard to
> accidents involving motor vehicles. It is not the case that it is clear
> that wearing helmets makes cyclists safer. This is a complex issue,
> outside the scope of the present document. The advice on this both in
> the
> current Highway Code and the proposed draft is optimistic as to the
> benefits of helmets beyond the current evidence.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not wanting to start another helmet discussion, but I wonder if --
considering how contentious the issue is -- this paragraph would be
better
toned down slightly? I'm thinking something along the lines of:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Head injuries amongst cyclists are comparatively rare [insert
reference],

Quoted message said:

ROSPA say that of the 16,413 cyclist injured (but not killed) in 2005,
more than half had head injuries.

Oops, and that around 70% of those killed had "major head injuries".

I can't remember the study and can't be bothered to look it up as
someone else will have it at their fingertips but ISTR one hospital
who investigated all 22? head injury fatailities to cyclists they'd
seen in a 10 year period found that all bar one or two also had other
fatal injuries.

18 out of the 21 women cyclists fatalities in London between 1999 and
2004 were killed by HGVs.

Tim.

in message <[email hidden]>, Ian Smith

(') said:

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:51:44 +0100, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

2.4 70% of all responses to the public consultation process were from
cyclists; these overwhelmingly made the same points.

Can you support that? We expect they overwhelmingly made the same
points, and you could infer it from the commentary, but I don't think
the consultation report actually says that (might be wrong - haven't
checked).

The commentary strongly implies it. However, no, you're right, that
sentence as written suggests stronger evidence than I actually have.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2.5 A revised, and apparently final, draft has been published in March
2007 which does not remedy the problems for cyclists.

add "... and in some respects is actually worse than the previous
draft." ?

Possibly. I'm trying very to be neutral in tone, not to be seen to be doing
special pleading. I agree with your sentence and say something very
similar later in the document...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

5.2.5 The wording in the current Highway Code makes it clear that
cyclists
may use facilities, or not, at their own discretion. This is also the
law.
5.2.6 The wording of the revised draft says that cyclists should use
facilities 'wherever possible', implying that they have no such
discretion. It may be 'possible' to use a facility which it is either
extremely unsafe or extremely inconvenient to use

Add something to the effect that some facilities contradict national
cycle training standards - thinking about on-carriageway lanes in door
zones, for example. Maybe "Some facilities are so badly designed or
implemented that they contradict official guidance on cycling safely,
but since it is physically possible to use them, the latest HC states
that a cyclist should use them, despite the significant risk of
serious injury." in place of your last sentence?

Yes, I think it is certainly worth drawing attention to, e.g., door-zone
cycle lanes, and in-the-gutter cycle lanes.

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

;; An enamorata is for life, not just for weekends.

in message <[email hidden]>, Andy Leighton

(') said:

Ian Smith said:

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:51:44 +0100,

Simon Brooke said:

Quoted message said:

2.4 70% of all responses to the public consultation process were from
cyclists; these overwhelmingly made the same points.

Can you support that? We expect they overwhelmingly made the same
points, and you could infer it from the commentary, but I don't think
the consultation report actually says that (might be wrong - haven't
checked).

Probably can't be supported without asking the DSA for figures. However
there were enough making the point that it was considered a significant
number in Parliament.

It might also be worth mentioning that MPs received something like
11,000 letters and emails from cyclists about these issues.

Source?

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

;; 'I think we should trust our president in every decision
;; that he makes and we should just support that'
;; Britney Spears of George W Bush, CNN 04:09:03

in message <[email hidden]>, Anthony

Jones (') said:

Simon Brooke said:

5.4 Helmets and clothing
5.4.1 The utility of cycle helmets is highly contentious. The evidence
as
to their utility is incomplete and unclear, especially with regard to
accidents involving motor vehicles. It is not the case that it is clear
that wearing helmets makes cyclists safer. This is a complex issue,
outside the scope of the present document. The advice on this both in
the current Highway Code and the proposed draft is optimistic as to the
benefits of helmets beyond the current evidence.

Not wanting to start another helmet discussion, but I wonder if --
considering how contentious the issue is -- this paragraph would be
better toned down slightly? I'm thinking something along the lines of:

Head injuries amongst cyclists are comparatively rare [insert
reference], and the situations in which helmets may help are limited.
The current rule overemphasises the importance of cycle-helmets for
safety.

While I personally believe that helmets are not useful in road safety, that
isn't an argument I'm trying to have here, so certainly I'd consider
toning it down. 'The current rule overemphasises the importance of
cycle-helmets for safety' is good.

Quoted message said:

The rest of the document looks promising. Do you intend to keep
discussion about it on uk.rec.cycling?

No, I thought I'd set up a Wiki - easier for us to work collaboratively on
a single document. Unless someone else has a better idea?

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

There are no messages. The above is just a random stream of
bytes. Any opinion or meaning you find in it is your own creation.