Peter Clinch wrote on 20/04/2007 09:59 +0100:
Quoted message said:The Luggage said:I've just emailed my MP:
Me too last weekend:
Dear Mr Lansley
The new Highway Code has been laid before Parliament by the Secretary of
State for Transport on 28 March and I understand it will be approved
40 days later if not contested.
Along with many other cyclists and cyclist organisations I wrote in
response to the consultation to point out problems, some of them real
safety issues, for cyclists in the revised Code. I gather some 70% of
the 4,000 respondents were cyclists and there was a public debate in the
media about the problems for cyclists when the consultation was launched.
I was therefore very disappointed to read the Consultation Response on
the Driving Standards Agency website which essentially said "We hear
what you say but we know better and will ignore you".
For example, in response to concerns about the advice to use cycle
facilities "when practicable" the consultation response notes
"It was felt that other road users needed to be made aware that the
choice to use these facilities remains with the cyclist, and there is no
law forcing their use. The phrasing of the rule has therefore been
amended to take this into account."
But what does the new wording say? It says use cycle facilities
"wherever possible"! instead of "when practicable" - a nuance in meaning
I have difficulty distinguishing and which makes matters worse if
anything because their practicality is not longer a factor.
Why does this matter? Well first of all the Road Traffic Act says of
the Highway Code:
"A failure on the part of a person to observe any provision of The
Highway Code shall not of itself render that person to criminal
proceedings of any kind, but any such failure may in any proceedings
(whether civil or criminal and including proceedings for an offence
under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or
sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party
to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability
which is in question in those proceedings."
So not using cycle facilities "wherever possible" could lead to cyclists
being found as contributory negligent in any injuries or losses they
sustain on the road. This would go directly against the clear
assurances the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Derek Twigg, gave
to Parliament:
"Jo Swinson: Will the Minister give us an assurance that the new
highway code will not force cyclists off the road for fear of legal
consequences?
Derek Twigg: The simple answer is that it will not.
Hansard 2 May 2006
It also makes the Consultation Response above misleading because what it
is actually saying is that while it's the cyclist choice, there will now
be consequences of exercising that choice.
There are many other aspect particularly related to cyclist safety both
in this section and other parts of the draft Highway Code. The section
on roundabouts, for example, gives dangerous advice that goes against
National Cycling Standards training but in the interests of brevity I
will stop here. I would be happy to address the other issues later
should you wish
The draft Highway Code is ignoring the many validly expressed
concerns by cyclists in favour of motoring at a time when we need to
encourage more cycling to tackle both environment and health problem.
I hope I can encourage you and your Party, which has placed
environment and health high on its agenda, to contest this draft and
require its rewriting to properly address the concerns that cyclists
have raised in the Consultation.
Yours sincerely etc
--
Tony
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
