Quoted message said:
Has anyone tried a FoI request yet to try and see where/how this
change was lobbied for? I'm going to wait until after the 40 days
before I try anything like that but maybe someone else has already
tried?
Tim.
Dear Patrick Hall,
In response to a question about the proposed new edition of the Highway
Code, Stephen Ladyman MP gave the following written answer :
"Over 4,000 individuals responded to the consultation. About 70 per
cent. of the responses were from cyclists. In view of the level of
interest from cyclists I met with Emily Thornberry MP, chair of the
All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group on 7 September 2006.
In response to the views raised by respondents to the consultation, the
rules for cyclists were amended. Some 30 other rules throughout the
"Highway Code" were revised to add emphasis to the need for
consideration of cyclists by other road users.
(etc.)"
Although I cannot know all the views expressed by the 3000 cyclists, I
do know that many were concerned by the advice introduced into the Code
that cyclists should, wherever practicable, use the cycling facilities
provided. This advice may seem so obvious as to be unnecessary, but in
fact many such facilities are of a very poor standard : the relevant
highway authorities do have guidelines for their introduction but these
are often disobeyed.
Even when comparatively well-designed, cycle facilities can expose the
cyclist to considerable extra danger due to creating additional road
junctions and bringing the cyclist into conflict with pedestrians :
there is much evidence to suggest that cycle paths and on-road lanes
can be counterproductive to cyclist safety.
It is therefore extremely important that cyclists are able to consider
the facilities freely and use them only when, in their view, it would
be safer and more convenient to do so than to use the alternatives.
Enshrining pressure to use the facilities in the Code, although not
changing the law, will influence the outcome of insurance claims and
similar disagreements. The 'response to consultation' document written
as a result of publishing the draft Code acknowledged this fact.
However, the result of the consultation and of Mr. Ladyman's discussion
with Ms. Thornberry was that the wording of the relevant section of the
Code was changed from 'practicable' to 'possible'. This is completely
wrong : 'Practicable' was already far too strong a recommendation and
'Possible' surely implies that the facilities should be used unless
that would be 'Impossible'.
In the light of this I would like to know the substance of Mr.
Ladyman's discussion with Ms Thornberry, and the reasons why this
caused the wording to be changed to something even less satisfactory.
Yours sincerely,
Adrian Godwin
