Propsed changes to HC published

wafflycat · April 2007

And it's bad news for cyclists IMO, even though 70% of the responses to the consultation were from cyclists. [:(!]

Well, the 'wherever practicable' is gone and is replaced by 'wherever possible' This is *bad* as there is a difference in emphasis. Something can be 'possible' but entirely impractical. This is making things worse for cyclists.

Proposed rule 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."

See

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/consult/Responses/Highway_Code_Draft.pdf
and

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

[:(!][:(!][:(!]

Jon G · April 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by wafflycat

And it's bad news for cyclists IMO, even though 70% of the responses to the consultation were from cyclists. [:(!]

Proposed rule 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."
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So, as presumably "use cycle routes" includes using things signposted or mapped as being such, will I be able to sue the DSA for injuries resulting from following their advice and riding on the route Redcar and Cleveland Council have marked on their cycling map, leading straight into a bog on Waupley Moor. Or if I and others follow the cycle route signpost into a cornfield at Boulby, will the DSA, not the cyclists, pay the farmer for the ruined wheat? After all, we were only following official instructions.

Jon

Spikey_David · April 2007

[:(!]

marinyork · April 2007

I love the rather pointless (what appears to be a completely) new one about parking my bicycle.

oddsos · April 2007

Everything added to the cycling section seems either pointless or dangerous. The photo in the car section showing the amount of room to leave when overtaking cyclists is good though.

Actually the photo would seem to imply that cars will not be permitted to overtake a cyclist who is within a cycle lane as the car will not be able to leave sufficient room for the cyclist...

RichardD · April 2007

Very depressing. Suddenly I am really glad that there are almost no cycle facilities on my normal route.

Also the line about going single file round a bend is still in (rule 66):
<hr noshade size="1">
never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads, and when riding round bends.
<hr noshade size="1">
Going single file looks like an invitation to overtake- it shouldn't be done on a bend.

On the plus side one of the rules about overtaking, 163, now includes a picture of a car taking something like a decent amount of space to overtake a bike.

Spikey_David · April 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by oddsos

The photo in the car section showing the amount of room to leave when overtaking cyclists is good though.

Actually the photo would seem to imply that cars will not be permitted to overtake a cyclist who is within a cycle lane as the car will not be able to leave sufficient room for the cyclist...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
If there was a cycle lane there. The cylist would be obliged, because its possible, to cyle nearer the kerb (in the cycle lane), and the car wouldn't think about pulling out to overtake. Thus the cylist would then have less room on both left and right. This is why many cycle lanes are more dangerous.

rgisme · April 2007

I would say it's not merely a change in emphasis, it makes a substantive difference. 'Practicable' leaves scope for discretion and judgement about the practicality of using a facility ie is it a 'facility' or a 'farcility'? 'Possible' leaves only scope for arguing that it was 'impossible', to use - a much harder bar to cross. Althoug the HC is not a precise statement of law, a failure to comply with its guidance may be taken as some indication of culpability in the event of any accident. This would be something to be concerned about if a cyclist is involved in an accident where there is a cycling facility adjacent - even if the cyclist had done nothing wrong there is every possibility that weasel insurers might try to argue the mere fact of not having used the cycling facility, no matter how unsuitable, as contributory negligence.

I don't necessarily think all cycling facilities are bad for all cyclists all of the time. But they are often far from being the 'safe' option that the HC suggests, and it should be up to the individual cyclist to consider whether their use is appropriate to their journey or not. The HC should not be telling them to do it 'whereever possible'.

Brightsparkcp · April 2007

Another letter to our MPs then?

Pete White · April 2007

Huh! I wrote to my MP on the subject, still have the letter from him and the reply from the Department of Transport...

What a waste of effort!

Mind you, I should have expected that from a Tory MP!

Pete Owens · April 2007

Its almost as if, having noticed the huge response to the consultation, they have decided to take the p***s.

One thing that has improved is the advice on roundabouts. The wording doesn't imply that it is a good idea to keep to the left any more.

Pete

Sheddy · April 2007

I guess we might have to print out and carry the Responses Document to show to an over zealous Copper that riding on the road or cycle path is at the discretion of the cyclist (Page 7)

frogcp · April 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Well, the 'wherever practicable' is gone and is replaced by 'wherever possible' This is *bad* as there is a difference in emphasis. Something can be 'possible' but entirely impractical. This is making things worse for cyclists.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I'm not really sure how this changes things for us. However, I looked at the OP's second refrerence and page 7, para 4 defines their reason behind the change. It's a reference which should be kept for future use when challenged on this point later. That way they have to defend their wording rather than we try to defend our reasons for not using the cycle paths.

rgisme · April 2007

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.

In what way does the changed wording take this into account? It seems to me to do the opposite!

greenmarkcp · April 2007

This HC is still "draft". So maybe it can be changed back if practicable (or should I say if possible)?

habibi · April 2007

dress like a christmas tree and wear an overpriced piece of polystyrene on your head.

oh, and you might consider not using the roads at all. where possible. there's a good chap.

more and more, with every passing day, i grow to loathe this country.

ContrelaMontre · April 2007

Maybe we're getting carried away with the difference between practicable and possible. And maybe possible is actually better.

Practicable means "able to be used"
Possible means "able to happen although not certain to"

From the OED.

Much ado about nothing methinks. And the supporting statement is very helpful.

Herd of gnus?

No! What's the news?

WANTED: rear track wheel clincher

Brightsparkcp · April 2007

I see that "NOT ride more than two abrest" has been changed to "NEVER ride...."
Is this a softening of the language?

I also not the section on drinking coffee to stay awake (in the consultation doc) has gone.

I wonder what the BHS were thinking about with the amendments made in that section. It is certainly very different to the views expressed to me by some of their members.
I am especially minded that some horse riders claim that our bright clothing upsets the horses. Yet here is a picture of a horse with a dayglo sail tied to its....

Equally I am surprised by some respondants asking for helmets for riders and passengers of motortrikes etc. I wonder how many of these were from motorcyclists and how many from the various Helmet inititive trusts. (not to turn this into yet another helmet debate, but these people do have an agenda and a sales target).

I am not going to give up on my MP. I have written to him on several other issues and his response is more human. I would suggest Pete and others that a steady constant stream of letters will get your view across. I note that 35 MPs wrote in to the consultation on their constituants behalf.

Jeremy Parker · April 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ContrelaMontre

Maybe we're getting carried away with the difference between practicable and possible. And maybe possible is actually better.

[snip]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well, in legal contexts words tend to have failrly precise meanings. I never have found anyone who could understand why the HC sometimes uses "practicable" and sometimes "possible".

And what normal human being uses "practicable" rather than "practical".

I do know, though, what "practicable" means in the context of US traffic law. It means possible AND safe AND reasonable.

If the Highway Code uses the word similarly, then "possible" means that you should do it, even if it is unsafe, or unreasonable, or both.

Jeremy Parker

Tourist Tony · April 2007

Exactly. I read the new phrasing as "Get orf moi road!!"

ContrelaMontre · April 2007

I think really you need the advice of counsel before getting carried away. Practicable does not mean practical and neither you nor I know for certain that the proposed wording makes things worse.

Personally, I wish they said something like "The use of cycling facilities is entirely at the riders discretion, but is encouraged as they are sometimes safer." I just came up with that so it might not be ideal, but you get what I mean.

If that's not possible(pun not intended) then I don't really see this new wording being any better or worse than previously - though the supporting statement is useful.

The twunts who beep and shout "get orf moi road" don't know the highway code anyway!

Warning: This post may contain sweeping generalisations

Herd of gnus?

No! What's the news?

WANTED: rear track wheel clincher

nortones2 · April 2007

Practicable for all intents and purposes means the same as possible. The term "reasonably practicable" introduces the concept of balancing the cost of remedying a "mischief" with the benefit that could flow from it. Edwards v NCB for those who like a source. Thus, unqualified, the word practicable could imply use of something, like a cycle lane, without limitation by cost, convenience or even the safety of the cyclist. If my argument holds water. the use of possible, which is unqualified, imports a compulsion to use said "cycle route" etc. Is a cycle path (the innane scribblings of the council on the road) the same as a cycle route? I hope not!

Unknown · April 2007

Let's not kid ourselves though, drivers will seize upon this wording with pleasure and will dictate to us that we should be off the road "if possible". Which of course, it is. All the time. Regardless of the state of the provision. Prepare to be bullied.

The Gingerbreadhouse

Simon L2 · April 2007

It's fair to say that the CTC is cheesed off. M'learned friends are being consulted...

Hackney Carriage · April 2007

"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."

Well there are certainly a lot of motorists out there happy to comply fully with this one.

rgisme · April 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by nortones2

Practicable for all intents and purposes means the same as possible. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think you'll find that most people think it does not. I think you'll find most people consider 'practicable' to involve considerations of reasonable convenience and practicality having regard to all the circumstances. The revised wording seems to amount to an instruction to use the facilities unless it is impossible to do so. Not only does it do this, but it does it with the stated intention - in the consultation response - of achieving the opposite, that is to say to make it clear that it is at the cyclists discretion whether to use them or not. If that was the genuine intention then it is a completely absurd and pointless change which fails miserably. It's ridiculous even.

penugent · April 2007

It will be interesting to see counsels opinion on this.

'Practicable' is a word often used in H&S legislation and its meaning can differ with context. EG, 'reasonably practicable' means that one can strike a balance between cost & benefit and use discretion, whereas 'best practicable means' means that the balance goes out the window and the only limitation on strict enforcement is current technical impossibility. I wouldn't see a lot of difference between 'where practicable' and 'where possible', but I ain't an expert.

Pete
(Not reckless, just fast)

Sheddy · April 2007

Had a reply from the CTC -
'We certainly are aware of this "token gesture" change of wording to the revised draft of the Highway Code - and not at all happy either. It clearly does not address the concerns of the 11,000 cyclists who wrote to their MPs in protest at the original wording!

All I can say at this stage, is that we are exploring what scope there is, both politically and legally, for getting this changed'

rgisme · April 2007

It certainly doesn't. It will be interesting to have a counsel's opinion on whether there is any caselaw to suggest a difference between the meaning of 'practicable' and 'possible', but the normal rule of law is that if the meaning of a word is not specifically defined in legislation then it takes its normal English meaning. In that respect it seems that on the face of it those who have said they see no difference between 'practicable' and 'possible' may be right: the online Compact OED defines 'practicable' as 'able to be done or put into practice successfully. and 'possible' as capable of existing, happening, or being achieved. It also particularly makes the point, in respect of 'practicable' that Although they are related, practicable and practical do not mean exactly the same thing: practicable means 'able to be done successfully', whereas the closest senses of practical are 'likely to be effective, feasible' and 'suitable for a particular purpose'.

So I can see no meaningful difference between 'praticable' and 'possible' in the way that the OED defines them. I still find this unsatisfactory though - I can't escape the feeling that 'practicable' implicitly involves consideration of the 'practical' and I think most people would do.

Anyway it seems the wording should have been better changed to 'whereever practical'...!

hevipedal · April 2007

practicable
able to be done or put into practice successfully.
USAGE Although they are related, practicable and practical do not mean exactly the same thing: practicable means 'able to be done successfully', whereas the closest senses of practical are 'likely to be effective, feasible' and 'suitable for a particular purpose'.

possible
 adjective 1 capable of existing, happening, or being achieved. 2 that may be so, but that is not certain or probable. 
noun 1 a possible candidate for a job or member of a team. 2 (the possible) that which is likely or achievable.
From the Oxford English Dictionary- online

I don't think the differences here are worth losing sleep over. The HC still gives us the right to ride on the road and I shall continue to do so.
As far as I am concerned the HC is guidance that I am free to accept or ignore, except where it has a law applying. It is all part of the nanny state that makes rules so that you can't sue the for letting you get hurt.
Cycling has an inherent danger - if you fall off it hurts - I accept that risk and don't look to blame anyone else. The HC is as annoying as those comments found on bikes, hammers, ladders etc pointing out dangers that are blatantly obvious.

 Hevipedal 
Phrase of the week - "If you don't answer this call I'm going to come over to all your house and stamp on all your toys..Got it?" 
51yrs old and Proud of it - Now just 89kg
Pedal to Paris Sept 2007

And may you never lay your head down
Without a hand to hold
May you never make your bed out in the cold.

RR · April 2007

Just reading the definitions of practicable in Redgrave's Health and Safety Law:
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Reasonably practicable; practicable. 'Reasonably practicable', as traditionally interpreted, is a narrower term than 'physically possible' and implies that a computation must be made in which the quantum of risk is placed in one scale and the sacrifice, whether in money, time or trouble, involved in the measures necessary to avert the risk is placed in the other; and that, if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them, the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice, the person upon whom the duty is laid discharges the burden of proving that compliance was not reasonably practicable. This computation falls to be made at a point of time anterior to the happening of the incident complained of (Coltness Iron Co v Sharp [1938] AC 90 per Lord Atkin at 93-4; Edwards v National Coal Board [1949] 1 All ER 743 at 747, CA, per Asquith LJ; McCarthy v Coldair Ltd [1951] 2 TLR 1226, CA; Marshall v Gotham Co Ltd [1954] 1 All ER 937 at 942, per Lord Reid and per Lord Oaksey). Reasonable foreseeability is not the test: see Edwards v National Coal Board (above) and Neil v Greater Glasgow Health Board 1996 SLT 1260, OH. But if an employer does not know, and has no reason to be aware, of a risk it may not be reasonably practicable to take precautions against it: see eg McLean v Remploy 1994 SLT 687n, OH (practical joke played). It follows that reliance upon the advice or expertise of others, even if reasonable, is largely irrelevant to the issue of compliance (see Lockhart v Kevin Oliphant 1993 SLT 179, High Court). <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

and

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Where an obligation is qualified solely by the word 'practicable' a stricter standard is imposed. What this term connotes, however, is not an easy matter to decide (Cartwright v GKN Sankey Ltd (1973) 14 KIR 349 at 363, CA). Measures may be practicable which are not reasonably practicable (Marshall v Gotham Co Ltd [1954] 1 All ER 937 at 942, per Lord Reid) but, nonetheless, 'practicable' means something other than physically possible. The measures must be possible in the light of current knowledge and invention (Adsett v K and L Steelfounders and Engineers Ltd [1953] 1 All ER 97n at 98, per Parker J; affd [1953] 2 All ER 320, CA; McLeod v Rolls Royce Ltd 1956 Sh Ct Rep 214. See also Moorcroft v Thomas Powles & Sons Ltd [1962] 3 All ER 741, DC and Lee v Nursery Furnishings [1945] 1 All ER 387, CA. Thus it is impracticable to take precautions against a danger which cannot be known to be in existence or to take precautions which have not yet been invented, so that the concept of practicability introduces at all events some degree of reason and involves at all events some regard for practice (Jayne v National Coal Board [1963] 2 All ER 220). If a precaution can be taken without practical difficulty, then it is a practicable precaution, notwithstanding that it may occasion some risk to those who take it and even though that risk far outweighs the benefits to be achieved (Boyton v Willment Bros Ltd [1971] 3 All ER 624, CA). <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

To sum up practicable means weighing up costs and benefits and only doing it if it is worth it, to my mind possible means doing it if it can be done so this is much worse.

My bike produces less greenhouse gases than a Baby Elephant

Propsed changes to HC published

Comments

Categories