Propsed changes to HC published

graham_g · April 2007

Without wishing to join the legal bods and OED references, the thing which most riled me was the helmet and hi-viz with a huge tick next to it and no helmet and dark clothes with a cross on it.

Kevin Meaney · April 2007

I believe this will have the same effect as the current wording for wearing a helmet. That is if you are killed or suffer permanent brain damage as a result of being hit by a car any claim against the driver's insurance company will be challenged in court on the basis of you the cyclist not wearing a helmet (not using the cycling facility). By not following the instruction of the HC you leave yourself open to contributory negligence.

Currently this is the only reason I wear a helmet because I don't want to leave open the possibility that my partner is fighting a court battle while I am a gibbering idiot.

Considering I have had three cars overtake me in the last 2 days when I have had my hand out indicating that I am going to turn right and am about to do so it might not be long before this happens.

Kevin

Ravenbait · April 2007

FFS [:(!].

Let's just hope that they see sense before it goes from draft to final copy.

Sam

The cross product of Tank Girl and Ellen Ripley:

http://ravenfamily.org
"You might remember that 'annoyed' is my natural state!"

http://gentlemencyclists.org/clubhouse
"Ya'd think we could just attract ants, like normal people."

doug_steel · April 2007

Kevin - insurance companies will always try to reduce the compensation they pay out - thats their job, but as far as I am aware reducing compensation due to non-wearing of a helmet has never been upheld in court. Thats not to say some people haven't accepted reduced compensation because they didn't challenge it.

Here's a (long) but interesting article on helmets and contributory negligence

http://www.leighday.co.uk/upload/public ... igence.doc

Brightsparkcp · April 2007

Hmmm, interesting report.
It certainly demonstrates why we should keep the pressure on to get the changes to the HC that we require.

As for the Helmet debate. Well you have to wear a helmet becuase if you don't you renege 25% of any claim for compensation in a collision or fall. And this is simply becuase the HC says that you should wear a helmet and flouresent cloths.

Time to start writing to our MP's and get more dayglo designed into the club kit.[:(]

bof · April 2007

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

Kevin - insurance companies will always try to reduce the compensation they pay out - thats their job, but as far as I am aware reducing compensation due to non-wearing of a helmet has never been upheld in court. Thats not to say some people haven't accepted reduced compensation because they didn't challenge it.

Here's a (long) but interesting article on helmets and contributory negligence

http://www.leighday.co.uk/upload/public ... igence.doc
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The same used to be true of seat belts too - but even before they became required by law, compensation was cut back. I knew the first person who had this. She got her face cut to shreds in a crash and lost 50% of the compensation she otherwise would have done.

Kevin Meaney · April 2007

Doug,

Thanks for the info. I think it proves my point. I don't want my partner to even have to consider going to court if I have permanent brain damage to fight an insurance company over such a dubious point. Insurance companies will behave exactly as you say and by including wording in the HC saying that you should use the provided facility wherever possible because it is safer, they have another option to oppose. The previous wording left it up to your own judgement whether you considered it safer in relation to the type of cycling you do.

This is what leaves the door open for insurance companies to find a way to reduce what they have to pay out.

I don't like what the result has been for helmets and I don't like the way it is going in relation to using cycling facilities.

Kevin

Jaded · April 2007

The best way to avoid having to argue with Insurance Companies about the amount they have to pay out over a cycling injury is not to cycle in the first place.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Lurkercp · April 2007

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

The best way to avoid having to argue with Insurance Companies about the amount they have to pay out over a cycling injury is not to cycle in the first place.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Good point, Jaded. In other words, the proposed HC wording is a very effective way to _discourage_ cycling....

Brightsparkcp · April 2007

Has anyone written to their MP yet?

Also does anyone know when this gets voted on in the house?

Regulator · April 2007

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

Has anyone written to their MP yet?

Also does anyone know when this gets voted on in the house?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It doesn't get voted on, as such. It is 'laid' before Parliament for 'adverse prayer'. I think there is about another 3 weeks before the time runs out. It was laid on the 20 March and there are 40 days (not including Easter break and a few other days).

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!

Brightsparkcp · April 2007

Errrr what is an Adverse Prayer?
I can't find anything on the Parlimentary site.
Does this mean that we are stuffed?
[xx(]

Regulator · April 2007

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

Errrr what is an Adverse Prayer?
I can't find anything on the Parlimentary site.
Does this mean that we are stuffed?
[xx(]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Sorry - changes to the Highway Code are made by way of delegated powers (delegated under the primary legislation - in this case the Road Traffic Act). Proposed amendments have to be laid before Parliament so that any objections to the proposed changes (in Parliamentary speak 'adverse prayer' or 'negative resolution') can be raised.

You can find the reference to the proposed changes to the Highway Code on the Parliament web-site at this link at the bottom of the page.

There is still time for people to lobby their MPs. The procedure for negative resolution can be found at Section 17 (page 21) of the Standing Order of the House of Commons (Public Business). You might want to quote that last bit at your MP... [:D]

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!

Brightsparkcp · April 2007

Thanks. I have written a long letter with all the objections. But I guess it would be better if I actually said what I want the MP to do.

Yorkshireman · April 2007

There`s a petition :-
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/

Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat... but the wind is mostly in your face!

wafflycat · April 2007

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

There`s a petition :-
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/

Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat... but the wind is mostly in your face!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Duly signed.

dondare · April 2007

Ditto.

What's worse than raining cats and dogs?
Idiots who leap out into the road oblivious of their own safety and mine, flailing about with bags and umbrellas in the belief that busses won't stop at bus stops if there are people just waiting there.

Brightsparkcp · April 2007

Done.

ContrelaMontre · April 2007

Signed

Herd of gnus?

No! What's the news?

WANTED: rear track wheel clincher

frogcp · April 2007

Done

Simon L2 · April 2007

the best thing (for now) is to lobby your MP by going to his or her surgery, particularly if it's a Labour MP. The adverse prayer thing might not be a problem - there may well be a volunteer. The thing is this - short of a miracle, Mr (sorry, Dr) Ladyman is toast at the next general election. His only reason for being popular is that he might want to see out his parliamentary career in the job he has now, or a better job.....and there's about to be a re-shuffle, because there's about to be a new Prime Minister. So I'm going to see my MP and suggest there's been an almighty cock-up, that cycling, with its attendant carbon footprint and congestion busting virtues will be discouraged by this, and that it would be really nice if that clever Mr. (sorry, Dr.) Ladyman could sort it out - would he mind having a fraternal word?

It may be, of course, that the man is not for changing. He is, how shall we put this, famous for his intellectual self-confidence - and that's not all bad, because the spittle of Safespeed just bounces off him. But, even then, if there is an adverse prayer then it might give his successor (should he be shuffled off) something to think about.

it's your CTC - turn up and vote on 28th April to keep it that way

Brightsparkcp · May 2007

I got a letter from my MP saying that he is going to raise the matter with his front bench person(s) who are responsible for this area.
He will report back. The letter was dated last week (I was on hols).

So far no follow up.

Snail · May 2007

My MP (Tory) has also replied intending to raise it with his front bench team. So that makes 2 at least.

===============================

"I know my pace"

Cab · May 2007

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

My MP (Tory) has also replied intending to raise it with his front bench team. So that makes 2 at least.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Three. Quoting directly from the email I've received from my MPS assistant:

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The Liberal Democrats will be raising the issue in Parliament. David will write to you again shortly.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

Brightsparkcp · May 2007

20 days to go![:(!]

Brightsparkcp · May 2007

Written answers (Hansard)
Tuesday, 8 May 2007

Nick Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East & Wallsend, Labour) | Hansard source

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account was taken of the views of cyclists in the consultation process for the new Highway Code.

Stephen Ladyman (Minister of State, Department for Transport) | Hansard source

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.

The view expressed by some that the "Highway Code" should omit the non-mandatory advice to cyclists about wearing helmets or high visibility clothing, was considered to be inappropriate on the grounds of the safety of cyclists. All road users have some responsibility for their own safety.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-05-08a.135682.h&s=highway+code#g135682.r0

rgisme · May 2007

The original question was too vague anyway, and the answer certainly doesn't address the concerns over the instructions on the use of cyclelanes.

Brightsparkcp · May 2007

from the Times.

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/li ... 746923.ece

Only 19 days to go!

Cab · May 2007

Sent another prod to my MP's office about this.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
On behalf of David Howarth MP thank you for your e mail. I will draw this to David's attention.

As it happens the Leader of the Liberal Democrats Ming Campbell will today be submitting an EDM Prayer about the Highway Code following discussion with David. David will be writing to you about this.

I will e mail you later with a copy of the text.

Thank you for contacting David about this important issue.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

Cab · May 2007

Get your MP to sign up to this EDM:

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetai ... ESSION=885

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

Propsed changes to HC published

Comments

Categories