Highway Code consultation

Quoted message said:

The version I've just downloaded says:

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
journeys safer.

which is a somewhat different meaning from your snipped version and its
interpretation IMO.

I think the interpretation can still be used to effectively erode our right
to be on the road. Why? Becuase it says "cycle facilities such as advanced
stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings where they are provided" The
"such as" is key IMO, as it gives *examples* and not a clear definition of
what a 'facility' is. What's the betting that in practical, day-to-day
interpetation, anywhere the man with the white paint has been will be deemd
to be a 'facility'.... This *has* to be stopped from getting into the HC.

Cheers, helen s

in message <[email hidden]>, Mark
Thompson

('pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com') said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Content.asp?id=SX1354-A7827478

When cycling
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
journeys safer.

The advice to use cycle tracks is often unsafe and is contrary to the
law.

Many cycle tracks are extremely unsafe. The most unsafe mode of cycling
is to cycle on a cycle track alongside a road, in a direction opposite
to the traffic in the adjacent lane. The increase in KSI in this case vs
cycling on the road in the traffic is 300%. Cycling on a cycle track
adjacent to a road in the same direction as traffic in the adjacent lane
is only very slightly safer (87%) than cycling normally in the traffic.

Junctions between cycle tracks and roads put cyclists in conflict with
motor vehicles whose drivers do not typically scan these junctions for
hazards, and are exceedingly dangerous places for cyclists.

The right place for cyclists is on the road, in the traffic. Every
proposal which suggests to motorists that cyclists ought not to be on
the roads increases the risk to cyclists.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; First they came for the asylum seekers,
;; and I did not speak out because I was not an asylum seeker.
;; Then they came for the gypsies,
;; and I did not speak out because I was not a gypsy...
;; Pastor Martin Niemöller, translated by Michael Howard.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The revision consultation for the Highway Code is now open. Closing
date is May 1, I think.

Thanks Guy, duly noted and passed along to all & sundry cyclists I know. As
for the 'confusion' about the actual wording of rule 58, I think the
interpretation can still be used to effectively erode our right to be on the
road, as I put in response to Tony's post (down/up there dependent on
newsreader settings...). Because it says "cycle facilities such as advanced
stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings where they are provided" The
"such as" is key IMO, as it gives *examples* and not a clear definition of
what a 'facility' is. What's the betting that in practical, day-to-day
interpetation, anywhere the man with the white paint has been will be deemed
to be a 'facility'.... This *has* to be stopped from getting into the HC.

Cheers, helen s

in message <[email hidden]>, Adrian Boliston

(') said:

I am wondering if the HC still carries the suicidal advice to cycle
round a
roundabout keeping to the far left the whole time. I will happily use
a cycle lane if it does not put me in greater danger, but I will never
use a lane that puts me in danger just to keep to HC "advice".

It does; rule 74. My comments:

There's no doubt that roundabouts are dangerous for cyclists,
particularly unconfident cyclists. Nevertheless the advice to cycle
round the perimeter of the roundabout is the worst possible advice and
should be removed. A more appropriate paragraph might read:

"Roundabouts can be dangerous. If you do not feel confident to negotiate
the roundabout on your cycle, dismount and walk your cycle round on the
pavement or the verge."

Keeping left on roundabouts puts the cyclist in conflict with fast moving
motor traffic at every exit.

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

The trouble with Simon is that he only opens his mouth to change feet.
;; of me, by a 'friend'

Quoted message said:

may be dangerous.

I want go on about that thing I've got for not calling less safe things
dangerous ;-)

Quoted message said:

The evidence on safety of cycle helmets is ambiguous and patchy. But in
every single territory where helmet use has increased, so has the the
KSI rate per billion cycle kilometers.

What about the UK?

Quoted message said:

While helmets undoubtedly
ameliorate injury in some accidents, they also clearly aggravate injury
in some

This is arguable as AFAIK there hasn't been research on this.

Quoted message said:

and increasing helmet use undoubtedly leads to a slight
increase in KSI rates.

This needs to be qualified, as increasing helmet use through mandation <--
is that a word? does the same, but massively so (yeah, I know it's equal to
the drop in cycling)

<snip>

Quoted message said:

So helmet wearing on the road at best does not improve cyclist safety,
and at worst actually reduces it.

It hasn't convinced me, and I'm one of the converted! I'm concerned that
the data gathered on cycling levels pre and post legislation is not good
enough to draw conclusions about any large or small increase in the rates
of injury per mile or hour or trip etc. I'm willing to have my mind
changed tho.

Following on from Just zis Guy, you know?'s message. . .

Another stinker:-

107. You MUST
• use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit
street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a
speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise
specified

So those mandatory retro-reflectors will work of their own accord then
will they? Err...I think not.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the bookshop idea was shelved
[email hidden]
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk>

More (hopefully constructive) wibblings:

Quoted message said:

Many cycle tracks are extremely unsafe.

I'd prefer something like 'less safe than the road', as "extremely unsafe"
is hyperbole.

Quoted message said:

The most unsafe mode of cycling
is to cycle on a cycle track alongside a road, in a direction opposite
to the traffic in the adjacent lane. The increase in KSI in this case vs
cycling on the road in the traffic is 300%.

Quoted message said:

Cycling on a cycle track
adjacent to a road in the same direction as traffic in the adjacent lane
is only very slightly safer (87%) than cycling normally in the traffic.

This is presumably the use that the writer of the HC meant, and seems to
show that, in general, cycle tracks (are these cycle lane or seperate
tracks or cycle paths?) are safer and so the advice should stand.

Quoted message said:

where do we find this?

<http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Content.asp?id=SX9C05-A7827478>

wafflycat said:

Quoted message said:

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
journeys safer.

Quoted message said:

I think the interpretation can still be used to effectively erode our
right to be on the road.

I agree. I've just sent in my suggestions and what I thought there was
that the "where practicable" needs to get moved to the start of the
sentence, so it is clear it applies to everything that follows,
including cycle lanes and also including their stated examples.

(I also commented extensively on the stinker that is 60, suggested that
the "you should wear a helmet" bit meets Mr. Bin and that pedal
reflector rules need rewording to take into account that some cycles
don't have pedals that you'll be able to see.)

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/

Following on from Just zis Guy, you know?'s message. . .

My statement of the obvious defect sent to the DSA is :

Comments:
YOU SHOULD HAVE A RULE ON ITS OWN THAT CLEARLY SAYS "DO NOT CYCLE CLOSER
THAN 2 FEET FROM THE KERB"

Reason:
READ THE BOOKS OR GET SOME PROPER ADVICE. YOU OBVIOUSLY NEED IT.

YOU ALSO NEED TO TAKE ADVICE ON HOW CYCLISTS SHOULD MOVE OUT AT ROAD
NARROWINGS CAUSED BY SAY CENTRAL BOLLARDS.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the bookshop idea was shelved
[email hidden]
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk>

Tony Raven said:

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
journeys safer.

The advice to use advanced stop lines and cycle boxes "where provided"
is also unsound. They can be useful but they can also be bloody
dangerous if you try to get into them at the wrong moment or if the
configuration of traffic around them is unfavourable. For example I
wouldn't go up the inside of a lorry to get to the ASL if I thought
there was the slightest chance of its moving off before I got there.
Sometimes too you have to thread between two lines of stopped motor
vehicles to get to the front. If that lot starts to move off before
you've got there things can get a bit tricky.

The combination of bad facilities and bad official advice is a powerful
one. I'm sure we were better off when we didn't have to deal with any
of this [censored].

--
Dave...

[email hidden] wrote:
| And the actual wording of rule 58 is
|
| When cycling
| 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
| journeys safer.

Ugh, does that mean I shouldn't stay behing the traffic in a
going-straight-ahead-and-left-turning queue at a light that I believe
is about to change, but must hare down the left-hand cycle lane to the
going-straight-ahead asl just because an asl has been provided? Or was
it meant to have been worded so that I should only use them when they
were provided and it was practicable? (Because it isn't.)

Peter Fox said:

Following on from Just zis Guy, you know?'s message. . .

Another stinker:-

107. You MUST
· use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit
street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a
speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise
specified

So those mandatory retro-reflectors will work of their own accord then
will they? Err...I think not.

It might have excaped your notice that there is street lighting
illuminating the road so any cyclist, pedestrian, stray dog or pet
moose will be clearly visible[1]

...d

[1] I use the word visible rather than seen as the former is an innate
property of teh object wheras the latter assumes some action on the
part of the other road users.

Following on from David Martin's message. . .

Quoted message said:

Peter Fox said:

Following on from Just zis Guy, you know?'s message. . .

Another stinker:-

107. You MUST
· use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit
street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a
speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise
specified

So those mandatory retro-reflectors will work of their own accord then
will they? Err...I think not.

It might have excaped your notice that there is street lighting
illuminating the road so any cyclist, pedestrian, stray dog or pet
moose will be clearly visible[1]

Duh - look up how RETRO reflectors work will you?

Quoted message said:

..d

[1] I use the word visible rather than seen as the former is an innate
property of teh object wheras the latter assumes some action on the
part of the other road users.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the bookshop idea was shelved
[email hidden]
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk>

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

Quoted message said:

Following on from Just zis Guy, you know?'s message. . .

Another stinker:-

107. You MUST
• use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit
street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a
speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise
specified

This rule has been there as long as I've known the HC. Since in practice
everybody uses headlights in street lit roads, complaining about it is a
little pointless.

(There is of course an argument that we should be persuading motorists to
use sidelights on street lit roads, since it makes cyclists more
conspicuous, not less)

cheers,
clive

Peter Fox said:

Duh - look up how RETRO reflectors work will you?

I think David meant that they would be visible under the street
lighting without the need for reflectors.

--
Dave...

Peter Fox said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

107. You MUST
· use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit
street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a
speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise
specified

So those mandatory retro-reflectors will work of their own accord then
will they? Err...I think not.

It might have excaped your notice that there is street lighting
illuminating the road so any cyclist, pedestrian, stray dog or pet
moose will be clearly visible[1]

Duh - look up how RETRO reflectors work will you?

Duh - look up how LIGHT is scattered will you? ;-)

If the street is *lit*, then (assuming the said cyclist, pedestrian, dog
or moose is not covered with Harry Potter's Invisibility cape), they
will be *visible* regardless of whether or not they are sporting reflectors.

R.

dkahn400 said:

Peter Fox said:

Duh - look up how RETRO reflectors work will you?

I think David meant that they would be visible under the street
lighting without the need for reflectors.

Precisely. Which was why I clearly mentioned road users which do not
require retro reflectives. I fail to see what the point of your
arguement was. Taken to the absurd, drivers should have headlights
powerful enough to make retro reflectors clearly visible in bright
daylight.

...d

I see it it proposed to change current rule 51 which includes:

You should not ride more than two abreast and
You should ride in single file on narrow or busy roads

to be in Rule 63 and amended to:

"You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on
narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"

It's the *never* bit that gets me more than anything. This could increase
danger to cyclists when there are a lot of cyclists on road e.g. club run...
audax... As this may effectively increase the *length* of road taken up by a
moving group of cyclists... figure in impatient motorist overtaking when not
okay and hey presto, increased the likelihood of cyclists being hit as all
of a sudden the sight of an oncoming vehicle means the overtaking motorist
is 'forced' to pull in when he's only halfway along the line of cyclists???

Cheers, helen s

Peter Fox <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Following on from Just zis Guy, you know?'s message. . .

Quoted message said:

Another stinker:-

Quoted message said:

107. You MUST
• use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit
street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a
speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise
specified

Quoted message said:

So those mandatory retro-reflectors will work of their own accord then
will they? Err...I think not.

Not all car lights are retina-ripping headlights.
Reflectors are quite effective with dipped headlights and even sidelights.

Headlights are *far* too bright for urban use.

The rule does *not* suggest cars should be totally unlit at night...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.