Highway Code amendments

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

Simon Brooke wrote on 20/04/2007 22:23 +0100:

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

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.

Tony, I've tried to add these points into my briefing document as point
5.5. Do you remember what paragraph of the RTA you're quoting above?

s38 (7) Road Traffic Act 1988
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880052_en_2.htm#mdiv38

Many thanks

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

;; For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth
;; knowledge increaseth sorrow.." - Ecclesiastes 1:18

Simon Brooke said:

OK, help me, guys!

What is the original source of the figure about 85% of women killed in
London killed by left-turning long vehicles? I believe it's TfL, but
where?

Some data about accidents here:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/Pedal-Cyclist-Casualties-04-05.pdf

but not the eyecatching figure you are looking for.

This post gives a bit more background:

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/chinese-whispers-female-cyclists-killed-by-hgvlgvs-in-london-1999-2004

I guess asking Emily Thornberry about provenance might be the way forward
since she could have the figures from asking TfL directly rather than the
figures being a "standard" published statistic.

Quoted message said:

What proportion of utility journeys are by bicycle in (i) UK (ii)
Netherlands (and what is the source for this data)?

Best I could find for the UK figure (3% of commuting journeys which may be
considered a proxy for utility journeys I suppose) is:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/personal/factsheets/2005/cyclefactsheet

combined with the modal data also available from DfT.

HTH.

Regards,

-david

in message <[email hidden]>, Ian Smith

(') said:

But the main gist of what response I've had it is that CTC is working
to see what it can do to prevent the HC laid before parliament being
adopted.  However, it doesn't want to make announcements until it
knows exactly what it must do.  I don't feel this argument is entirely
convincing - it could at least put something on the web site saying
"CTC believes the HC laid before parliament is bollocks and we're
trying to get it stopped" (or words to that effect).

The problem with this is that if it doesn't get 'prayed against' in 28 days
after it was laid - which is already three weeks ago - we've lost the
battle, so we have literally one week left to persuade MPs to take action.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
There's nae Gods, an there's precious few heroes
but there's plenty on the dole in th Land o th Leal;
And it's time now, tae sweep the future clear o
th lies o a past that we know wis never real.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, AndyMorris

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

Yup. I don't think this is the right document to do that in. We're
fighting a rearguard action here, and if the section on helmets in
the new Highway Code is no worse than in the old I can live with
that. What we /have/ to fix is the 'facilities... whenever possible'
rule. I'd like to fix roundabouts as well, but even that's a lower
priority. The facilities rule has to be the highest priority.

Absolutely, compulsory facilities would be disastrous, everything else is
minor in comparison.

OK, help me, guys!

What is the original source of the figure about 85% of women killed in
London killed by left-turning long vehicles?

I think they were "made up", or at best a misinterpretation of the
figure that 85% of those killed in collisions with goods vehicles were
women (Islington Tribune).[1]

[1] http://www.thecnj.co.uk/islington/031607/news031607_01.html

--
Matt B

Simon Brooke wrote on 21/04/2007 10:05 +0100:

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, AndyMorris

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

Yup. I don't think this is the right document to do that in. We're
fighting a rearguard action here, and if the section on helmets in
the new Highway Code is no worse than in the old I can live with
that. What we /have/ to fix is the 'facilities... whenever possible'
rule. I'd like to fix roundabouts as well, but even that's a lower
priority. The facilities rule has to be the highest priority.

Absolutely, compulsory facilities would be disastrous, everything else is
minor in comparison.

OK, help me, guys!

What is the original source of the figure about 85% of women killed in
London killed by left-turning long vehicles? I believe it's TfL, but
where?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2039596,00.html

However be wary. He got his figures I believe from
http://www.thecnj.co.uk/islington/031607/news031607_01.html
who quote the figures from the Islington South MP Emily Thornbury.

However the following is from someone in the know on one of the London
lists which casts doubt on those figures:

"Between 1999 and 2004 in London women accounted for 37% of cyclist
fatalities involving HGVs, while accounting for only 24% of all cyclist
fatalities, that is they were only 8% of all the non-HGV cyclist
fatalities. There have been several speculations about why this is so
but no one has come up with a convincing argument. This data has been
available to TfL since 2004 but is not yet 'published'."

You could probably get it by a FoI to TfL

In addition on another list a Cambridge Councillor has just stated that
the last two cyclist deaths in Cambridge were a) women and b) killed by
a left turning HCVs (Heavy Commercial Vehicles in case you were wondering)

Quoted message said:

What proportion of utility journeys are by bicycle in (i) UK (ii)
Netherlands (and what is the source for this data)?

The Dutch figures are, IIRC, in "Passenger Transport in the Netherlands
Key Figures 2004" at http://www.rws-avv.nl

--
Tony

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

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:05:54 +0100,

Simon Brooke said:

OK, help me, guys!

What is the original source of the figure about 85% of women killed in
London killed by left-turning long vehicles? I believe it's TfL, but
where?

Aparently it's in a TfL report that hasn't been published yet. See the
link to the independent article I put on the comment page.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

in message <[email hidden]>, Simon Brooke

(') said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Ian Smith

(') said:

But the main gist of what response I've had it is that CTC is working
to see what it can do to prevent the HC laid before parliament being
adopted.  However, it doesn't want to make announcements until it
knows exactly what it must do.  I don't feel this argument is entirely
convincing - it could at least put something on the web site saying
"CTC believes the HC laid before parliament is bollocks and we're
trying to get it stopped" (or words to that effect).

The problem with this is that if it doesn't get 'prayed against' in 28
days after it was laid - which is already three weeks ago - we've lost
the battle, so we have literally one week left to persuade MPs to take
action.

Errr... sorry... in case anyone's panicking, it's 40 'parliamentary days'
from when it's laid to when it is set in stone, so I think there are
probably still five weeks to lobby your MP. But that still isn't long,
considering how persuasive we need to be.

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

'You cannot put "The Internet" into the Recycle Bin.'

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:10:37 +0100,

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Simon Brooke

(') said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Ian Smith

(') said:

But the main gist of what response I've had it is that CTC is working
to see what it can do to prevent the HC laid before parliament being
adopted.  However, it doesn't want to make announcements until it
knows exactly what it must do.  I don't feel this argument is entirely
convincing - it could at least put something on the web site saying
"CTC believes the HC laid before parliament is bollocks and we're
trying to get it stopped" (or words to that effect).

The problem with this is that if it doesn't get 'prayed against' in 28
days after it was laid - which is already three weeks ago - we've lost
the battle, so we have literally one week left to persuade MPs to take
action.

Errr... sorry... in case anyone's panicking, it's 40 'parliamentary days'
from when it's laid to when it is set in stone, so I think there are
probably still five weeks to lobby your MP. But that still isn't long,
considering how persuasive we need to be.

Letter sent to my MP, both constituency office and HoC. Copy to
Secretary of state for Transport and Ken Livingstone (with a handwritten
comment that I'm a daily commuter in central London)

(Some formatting lost here - the quotes are in italics)

Tim.

I am writing as a recreational and daily commuter cyclist to express my
concerns about the draft highway code published March 2007.

While there are a number of rules in the highway code that could be
improved to the benefit and safety of cyclists, I feel that the new
regulation 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 is completely unacceptable and no longer
accurately represents either recognised best practice or the road
traffic law with regards to cycling facilities.

In my own experience, and as has been recognised by researchers1, it is
often safer to cycle on the road rather than use provided cycle
facilities.

The wording of the original Feb 2006 draft 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 was already contentious. According to the DSA2
response to consultation, many cyclists said this appeared to imply that
cyclists must use facilities when provided. The DSA response says 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. I would argue that, contrary to its
intention, the new wording more strongly implies cyclists must use these
facilities.

My personal concerns are as follows: regardless of the law, if I am
forced onto cycle facilities3 due to the obvious interpretation of this
highway code rule, this will make my journeys both slower and less safe;
in the event of my being involved in an accident, I am concerned that
this highway code rule could be used to justify a claim of contributory
negligence if an alternative cycle facility exists regardless of its
convenience or safety. These concerns would make me reluctant to
commute by bicycle at all. This is clearly contrary to the government's
stated desire to increase cycle use.

I urge you to ensure that this draft highway code is rejected and sent
back for amendment. At the minimum I suggest replacing this rule with
the existing 47: Use cycle routes when practicable. They can make your
journey safer but ideally the rule should be removed completely.

[1] http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html (enc)
[2] http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/consult/Responses/Response_to_Highway_Code_Consultation_report.pdf
[3] http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4516 (enc) Case won at appeal.

cc Claire Ward, MP
The Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP, Secretary of State for Transport
Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

Simon Brooke wrote on 21/04/2007 10:05 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

OK, help me, guys!

What proportion of utility journeys are by bicycle in (i) UK (ii)
Netherlands (and what is the source for this data)?

The Dutch figures are, IIRC, in "Passenger Transport in the Netherlands
Key Figures 2004" at http://www.rws-avv.nl

H'mmm... not as good as one would think
Actual URL (English)
Microsoft Excel: http://www.rws-avv.nl/pls/portal30/docs/10198.XLS
PDF: http://www.rws-avv.nl/pls/portal30/docs/10197.PDF

Bicycles make 26% of all trips (table 2.2)

But the total distance travelled by car by the Dutch population is 92.9
billion kilometers as driver + 53.2 as passenger = 146.1 total, as against
13.9 billion Km by bicycle; so bicycles are less than 10% of passenger
kilometers for private transport and only 7.28% if public transport is
included.

Expressed comparatively to the UK figures below:

Car 146.1 billion Km 76.53% of all passenger Km
Bicycle 13.9 billion Km 7.28% of all passenger Km

Dutch bicycle usage is rising slowly (up from 12.2Bn Km in 1985) but Dutch
car usage is rising much more quickly (up from 107Bn passenger Km in
1985), so public transport, flat in terms of passenger Km, is
proportionately losing out.

However the equivalent figures for the UK are
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/tsgb/2006edition/sectiononemodalcomparisons
Table 1.1

Car 678 billion Km 85% of all passenger Km
Bicycle 4 billion Km 1% of all passenger Km

What's interesting and depressing is that in 1952 the UK figures were

Car 58 billion Km 27% of all passenger Km
Bicycle 23 billion Km 11% of all passenger Km

Still, if you could save 9% of all car km, the carbon savings for the UK
would be...

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_environment/transport_report.pdf
Table 2

'UK Household's vehicles' 62.8MtC 9% of UK total

(MtC = 'Million tons of C02 equivalent'😉

(I assume from context that 'UK Household's vehicles' means all cars,
motorcycles, etc which are the private transport of a household). So if
you switch 9% of car kilometres to bicycle you'd save 5.65MtC or slightly
less than 1% (actually 0.8115%) of total UK emissions.

But, to express this more positively, the Government is committed under the
Kyoyo protocol to saving 12.5% of our CO2 emissions, using 1990 as a basis
for comparison, by 2012. 1990 production was 777.3MtC, so 12.5% of that is
99.16MtC, so switching to Dutch levels of cycling would contribute 5.8% of
our commitment under the Kyoto protocol.

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

;; Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

I've just got round to drafting a letter to my MP:

Dear Dr Berry

Proposed Highway Code changes

On 28 March a proposed new draft of the Highway Code was laid before
Parliament. Despite 70% of responses to last year’s consultation on the
document having come from cyclists, the Driving Standards Agency appears
to have decided that it knows better than experienced cyclists how to
cycle safely and responsibly.

Of particular concern is the proposed new rule 61:
“Use cycle routes and cycle facilities … wherever possible, as they can
make your journey safer.”

This would replace the current rule 47:
“Use cycle routes when practicable. They can make your journey safer”.

The change is significant. The old wording gives the option of avoiding
a cycle facility if it is felt to be unsafe or if its use would cause
undue delay. The new wording effectively tells cyclists to sacrifice
their rightful place on the road if an alternative route, regardless of
safety or practicality, exists.

Likely results of the proposed new wording are that cyclists riding
correctly and legally on the road would be subject to increased
aggression from motorists and that courts would be more likely to
support an insurance company’s claims of contributory negligence if a
cyclist is injured by a motorist when riding correctly on the road.

I must therefore ask that you oppose the new document. I must also
question whether the Driving Standards Agency is the appropriate body to
compose the “Rules for Cyclists” in the Highway Code. Surely it would
make more sense for these rules to be written by a body composed largely
of experienced cyclists and whose top priorities are the rights,
responsibilities and safety of cyclists.

Yours sincerely

Danny Colyer BSc(Hons)

--
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

Simon Brooke wrote on 22/04/2007 12:32 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Bicycles make 26% of all trips (table 2.2)

But the total distance travelled by car by the Dutch population is
92.9 billion kilometers as driver + 53.2 as passenger = 146.1 total,
as against 13.9 billion Km by bicycle; so bicycles are less than 10%
of passenger kilometers for private transport and only 7.28% if
public transport is included.

Expressed comparatively to the UK figures below:

Car 146.1 billion Km 76.53% of all passenger Km
Bicycle 13.9 billion Km 7.28% of all passenger Km

Dutch bicycle usage is rising slowly (up from 12.2Bn Km in 1985) but
Dutch car usage is rising much more quickly (up from 107Bn passenger
Km in 1985), so public transport, flat in terms of passenger Km, is
proportionately losing out.

Figures which counter the oft cited "fact" that the Dutch cycle more
because of their cycle facilities. Over the above period that cycling
went up 14%, the population increased by 10.4% and the Dutch doubled the
mileage of cycle facilities. So a massive investment in cycle
facilities produced negligible increase in cycling. The same happened
in Germany where the network was tripled with no discernible increase in
cycling.

The figures you give are slightly misleading though as cars will tend to
be used for longer journeys and bicycles for shorter journeys. Hence
the large difference in percentages on whether you count trips or km.

--
Tony

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

My letter to Parliament today!

Fred

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Jones,

MP Clwyd West

After reading the draft copy of the new Highway Code, I noticed changes
which appear to endanger cyclists.

Namely rule 61 which states: "Use cycle routes and cycle facilities …
wherever possible, as they can make your journey safer."

This rule seems to replace rule 47: "Use cycle routes when practicable. They
can make your journey safer".

This wording appears to force cyclists to use cycle path irrespective of
suitability and deny cyclists an optional, rightful place on the road.

This rule would encourage motorists to adopt an even more aggressive
attitude towards cyclists then is already the case and in case of an
accident a court might support an insurers claim of contributory negligence
if a cyclist suffers injury or damage, even when riding responsibly and
correctly on the road.

There are many cycle paths around the Colwyn Bay area totally unsuitable for
"Utility cyclists" some of which, in my opinion, are even dangerous to
cyclists and pedestrians ie. Colwyn Bay Promenade from Rhos to Old Colwyn
and shared use foot path facilities (Penrhyn Bay).

No doubt many facilities have been provided with the best of intentions, but
if cycling is to be encouraged a more inclusive road sharing should be
encouraged.

Perhaps you are already aware of this controversy which has aroused the
cycling fraternity, but if not, may I request that you might give this
matter some serious consideration.

Yours sincerely

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

Simon Brooke wrote on 22/04/2007 12:32 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Bicycles make 26% of all trips (table 2.2)

But the total distance travelled by car by the Dutch population is
92.9 billion kilometers as driver + 53.2 as passenger = 146.1 total,
as against 13.9 billion Km by bicycle; so bicycles are less than 10%
of passenger kilometers for private transport and only 7.28% if
public transport is included.

Expressed comparatively to the UK figures below:

Car 146.1 billion Km 76.53% of all passenger Km
Bicycle 13.9 billion Km 7.28% of all passenger Km

Dutch bicycle usage is rising slowly (up from 12.2Bn Km in 1985) but
Dutch car usage is rising much more quickly (up from 107Bn passenger
Km in 1985), so public transport, flat in terms of passenger Km, is
proportionately losing out.

Figures which counter the oft cited "fact" that the Dutch cycle more
because of their cycle facilities. Over the above period that cycling
went up 14%, the population increased by 10.4% and the Dutch doubled the
mileage of cycle facilities. So a massive investment in cycle
facilities produced negligible increase in cycling. The same happened
in Germany where the network was tripled with no discernible increase in
cycling.

The figures you give are slightly misleading though as cars will tend to
be used for longer journeys and bicycles for shorter journeys. Hence
the large difference in percentages on whether you count trips or km.

Frankly that's why I counted passenger kilometres, not trips. If you're
wanting to talk about CO2 emissions saved, while short, start-stop trips
on congested roads are likely to be more polluting per Km than long clear
trips on open roads, but the essential measure of how much pollution is
created is distance.

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

... a mild, inoffensive sadist...

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:09:48 +0100,

Danny Colyer said:

I've just got round to drafting a letter to my MP:

Dear Dr Berry

Proposed Highway Code changes

On 28 March a proposed new draft of the Highway Code was laid before
Parliament. Despite 70% of responses to last year’s consultation on the
document having come from cyclists, the Driving Standards Agency appears
to have decided that it knows better than experienced cyclists how to
cycle safely and responsibly.

Of particular concern is the proposed new rule 61:
“Use cycle routes and cycle facilities … wherever possible, as they can
make your journey safer.”

My partner did suggest that this new wording might have been what was
intended all along. They put in the wording into the draft in order to
get the comments they did and then "in order to make it clear that
cyclists have the option whether to use the facitilies" they revised the
wording.

I hope this isn't the case but it's hard to imagine how the new wording
could have been arrived at given the justification for the change over
the original draft even allowing for utter incompetence unless the
reviser didn't actually speak English.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

Reply from my MP:

Thank you. I'll look into this and reply by post as soon as I can
although experience of these orders is that once laid they're likely to
be successful.
Best wishes,
Andrew [Murrison - Westbury]

regards

Peter

--
www.amey.org.uk

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

Quoted message said:

Reply from my MP:

Thank you. I'll look into this and reply by post as soon as I can
although experience of these orders is that once laid they're likely to
be successful.
Best wishes,
Andrew [Murrison - Westbury]

regards

Peter

--
www.amey.org.uk

I've just read your excellent letter and noted the date April 2006!
Do you mean to say, it took a year to get a reply?
Fred

fred2 said:

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

Quoted message said:

Reply from my MP:

Thank you. I'll look into this and reply by post as soon as I can
although experience of these orders is that once laid they're likely to
be successful.
Best wishes,
Andrew [Murrison - Westbury]

regards

Peter

--
www.amey.org.uk

I've just read your excellent letter and noted the date April 2006!
Do you mean to say, it took a year to get a reply?
Fred

No, no! The letter (if you mean the one on the web site) was response
to the original consultation document. The MP's reply was to a very
recent email concerning the tabling of the "revised" document.

Peter

--
www.amey.org.uk

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:25:23 +0000 (UTC),

Tim Woodall said:

Letter sent to my MP, both constituency office and HoC. Copy to
Secretary of state for Transport and Ken Livingstone (with a handwritten
comment that I'm a daily commuter in central London)

And just had a reply from my MP - very quick!

Dear Mr Woodall

Thankyou for your letter of 21st April

I was surprised to learn that there is a school of thought amongst
cyclists that believes that cycle lanes are more dangerous for them than
the main road network.

I have asked Tom Harris MP, the relevant minister at the Department for
Transport for his comments in response and will report back to you as
soon as I have his response.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely

Claire Ward MP.

It's about as good a response as I could have hoped for. This is my
number one priority at the moment but I think I need to make sure she's
aware of cyclehelmets.org as well once the highway code issues are
behind us.

A special thank you to John Franklin and
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html which I included in my
letter with the relevant bits highlighted.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:44:24 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Tim
Woodall <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

And just had a reply from my MP - very quick!

Dear Mr Woodall

Thankyou for your letter of 21st April

I was surprised to learn that there is a school of thought amongst
cyclists that believes that cycle lanes are more dangerous for them than
the main road network.

If only other MPs were as quick to acknowledge that they don't know
everything.

--
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

Martin Dann said:

wafflycat said:

Petition against the new wording

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/

At 8:50 there are 134 signatures.

Sigs have got to 1003