Propsed changes to HC published

magnatom · May 2007

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

Get your MP to sign up to this EDM:

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

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

I've just contacted my MP (John Robertson - Anniesland) via his online surgery and asked him to support this motion.

Please everyone contact your MP's quoting ERM 1433

mjones · May 2007

I'd really love to find out why the DfT has made this change. The new HC wording conflicts with their technical design guidance [see below] and the new National Standard for cycle training. There is clearly lots of opposition to the proposed new wording from cyclists. Civil servants don't like changing things if they don't have to, and certainly prefer to avoid controversy and questions in the House, so where is the pressure coming from to have forced this change?

I am very worried that the increased use of crappy on-pavement cycle routes (contradicting government guidance) has led to a growing perception amongst infrastructure providers that those ungrateful cyclists really ought to use those cycle paths so kindly provided for them; and that if we won't do it voluntarily then we'll be forced to do it. How long before there is pressure to revise the technical guidance in favour of off-carriageway provision?


Footnote:
e.g the Hierarchy of Measures etc as set out on the Cycling Englandwebsite and in Local Transport Note 2/04 LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists. In particular, note Annex

Code of Conduct Notice for Cyclists which states:

"Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."

rothbook · May 2007

Guys, this is a bit sinister:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... a.135682.h

mjones · May 2007

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

Guys, this is a bit sinister:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... a.135682.h
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Curious that the Minister (essentially repeating the consultation response) defends the revised HC position on cycle helmets, but doesn't say anything about the, more controversial, 'use cycle paths where possible' wording.

The cycle helmet position isn't in itself surprising- the HC already says you should wear one and DfT is pro helmet (to the point where it won't include pictures of unhelmeted cyclists in publications). So the revised HC is consistent with its current position. There is also a highly visible lobby group for helmets, from BHIT to road safety officers. So we know why the helmet stuff is in there.

In contrast, the 'cycle paths where possible' position is contrary to current guidance and involves a significant change in the HC wording. So why do it? Who is lobbying for it? There is no mention in the consultation response of anyone arguing in favour of it, but someone must be, and presumably doing so at a high level to circumvent the consultation process (i.e. minister or senior civil servant).

So who thinks cyclists shouldn't be on the road and is prepared to lobby for this at ministerial level, completely over-riding current cycling policy and guidance?

(edit for confusing typo)

rothbook · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> So who thinks cyclists shouldn't be on the road and is prepared to lobby for this at ministerial level, completing over-riding current cycling policy and guidance? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

70% of the respondants of 4000 who claim to be cyclists.

I honestly don't think that can be possible. This makes no sense, what's happening?

mjones · May 2007

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> So who thinks cyclists shouldn't be on the road and is prepared to lobby for this at ministerial level, completing over-riding current cycling policy and guidance? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

70% of the respondants of 4000 who claim to be cyclists.

I honestly don't think that can be possible. This makes no sense, what's happening?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Sorry rothbook, I'm confused by your response... there was clearly a very strong response from cyclists concerned about the proposed revised wording, yet in response the government chose an even more damaging form of words. The consultation response didn't appear to identify anyone in favour of making cyclists use cycle paths, but someone must have lobbied for it, so my question is, who?

Rhythm Thief · May 2007

I've signed that petition ... although to be honest, very few motorists seem to know what the highway code is these days anyway. Those who shout "get on the cyclepath!" will always do so, whether such advice is officially sanctioned or not. But I agree it's a backward step.

________________________
I'm the national treasure, and I hate noise.
My fixie
My two main modes of transport

mjones · May 2007

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

I've signed that petition ... although to be honest, very few motorists seem to know what the highway code is these days anyway. Those who shout "get on the cyclepath!" will always do so, whether such advice is officially sanctioned or not. But I agree it's a backward step.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Regardless of how many people actually read the HC themselves, word will still spread (by rumour, emails, the tabloids etc) that it now says that cyclists MUST use cycle paths... also insurance companies do read the HC, very carefully, and the new wording is going to be extremely detrimental in compensation cases.[:(!]

rothbook · May 2007

Sorry, I understood the wording was changed BECAUSE of the cyclist input, not in spite of it?

mjones · May 2007

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

Sorry, I understood the wording was changed BECAUSE of the cyclist input, not in spite of it?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I see what you mean- yes, they said they'd revised the wording in response to the cyclists' concerns, which they did by using even worse wording! I can't believe they wouldn't have understood the significance of that change, so why do it?

Rhythm Thief · May 2007

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

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

I've signed that petition ... although to be honest, very few motorists seem to know what the highway code is these days anyway. Those who shout "get on the cyclepath!" will always do so, whether such advice is officially sanctioned or not. But I agree it's a backward step.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Regardless of how many people actually read the HC themselves, word will still spread (by rumour, emails, the tabloids etc) that it now says that cyclists MUST use cycle paths... also insurance companies do read the HC, very carefully, and the new wording is going to be extremely detrimental in compensation cases.[:(!]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes, that's true. Forgive my flippancy, I do in fact take this quite seriously and think it's a Very Bad Thing.

________________________
I'm the national treasure, and I hate noise.
My fixie
My two main modes of transport

habibi · May 2007

I've asked my local MP to support the EDM, which i fully expect him to do, since he's a fellow libdem MP of Menzies Campbell.

rothbook · May 2007

So the wording was changed DESPITE the responses of cyclists, which makes you wonder why they invite responses in the first place!

Only 30 changes were made, the MP's answer does not say why the wording waschanged.

What's going on?

Can we use the FOI act to see who the respondees were?

I think this is very, very odd and perhaps a little sinister, we're being forced off the roads and the thugs who scream at cyclists to get on the fxxcking cycle path are being pandered to by the changes, to say nothing of the potential impact on civil claims or insurance payouts should a cyclist be killed or injured on the roads when a cycle lane exists nearby, no matter what the state of the cycle lane is!

rothbook · May 2007

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/consult ... _Draft.pdf

Rule 61:
"Use cycle routes and cycle facilities such as advanced
stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings whenever possible,
as they can make your journey safer."

As I read it it instructs me to head for the nearest
such device as soon as I get on my bike and, if complying,
I cannot see any way of subsequently leaving
without dismounting. This is due to it being "possible"
to use the device forever.

What the consequences are of not knowing where the
nearest may be is another worry.

# # # # # # #
Just in case anyone fancies any of it here is what I wrote:-

Dear Mister Cameron,

I am writing to you in your position as Leader of the Opposition and
prominent cyclist.

I was wondering if you had begun identifying the necessary route
changes that you may be required to make to your cycle-route to and
from work once the new Highway Code has come into force?

The existing document reads:-
Rule 47 - "Use cycle routes where practicable."
And that the new version will replace "practicable" with "possible".

In order to comply with this requirement to "Use cycle routes where
possible." any cyclist on the road will require to be either on a
cycle route, or taking the shortest path between two cycle routes, or
the shortest path between the start or finish of a journey and the
nearest cycle route.

This seems to me to effectively make the use of cycle routes
compulsory and to remove the right of cyclists to use other spaces
except in the special circumstance of heading directly to or from a
cycle route.

My understanding is that while the Highway Code is not in and of
itself The Law, courts often take a dim view of individuals who do not
follow the Code and that those violating the Code may for example
expect reduced compensation awards.

Do you think that perhaps some motorists may take the enforcement of
this new 'law' into their own hands and that one consequence of this
new wording will be that cyclists will face increased danger from
aggressive motorists?

Perhaps also you can let me know how much longer you would expect your
journey to take and whether this change will stop you from cycling to
work or if perhaps like many others you will violate the code and
accept the risks of that action (e.g. the risk of being maimed by a
self-righteous bus driver)?

There is a petition on the issue, will you please sign it and ask all
of your cyclist friends to sign it?
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/

From UK Rec Cycling Google Groups.

The petition is doing well.

Brightsparkcp · May 2007

Another question asked yesterday and response from Ladyboy.
I don't think he answered the question. His definition of possible makes me wonder if he has any comprehension of the English language.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... a.136480.h

I think that words Practicable was changed to Possible because we (cyclist) dared to challenge the views of the civil servants that drew the HC up. Was this done in retribution?

rothbook · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> The Highway Code states that "where possible" cyclists should use cycle lanes. This means that while they are encouraged to do so, they are not compelled. The difference between legal requirements and advisory rules is made clear in the introduction to the code. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But the old wording made this distinction clearer??!!!

habibi · May 2007

surely its obvious to Ladyman that "where possible" indicates far more than just a helpful encouragement to do so. it seems to me to be a wilful gesture toward legitimising a tiered hierarchy of road entitlement. the wording is subtle enough not to register as controversial with non cyclists, and i reckon that's quite deliberate.

Orbiter · May 2007

A letter to Ladyman which I felt impelled to write today, especially in reaction to his crass comment yesterday, quoted above. Not sure what good it can do but it's better than nothing. I hope I've got the facts about right. I've copied it to my own MP and to Emily Thornberry, who may be more understanding than Ladyman. At this stage getting MPs (and Lords) motivated to support the EDM seems to be the only way to head off the new HC.

Thanks to many previous contributors to the thread from whom I have collected references and thoughts.

Pete

I am confused and concerned by the new Highway Code proposals regarding cycling. Some of the changes are quite inconstent with other DfT advice to cyclists and seem to conflict with your own words about them. I hope you can clarify these inconsistencies and conflicts for me and the many other cyclists who feel the same.

On 8th May you said in a 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."

A major change to the Code wording was to replace 'practicable' with 'possible' in reference to the use of cycling facilities by cyclists in Rule 61.

On 10th May you said in a written answer
"The Highway Code states that "where possible" cyclists should use cycle lanes. This means that while they are encouraged to do so, they are not compelled. The difference between legal requirements and advisory rules is made clear in the introduction to the code."

The introduction to the code does not define 'practicable' or 'possible' but does say
"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, the Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording...'

* 'Practicable' implies discretion according to the type or condition of the 'facility', traffic volume, cycing speed, etc.
* 'Possible' implies an advisory obligation, regardless of practicability or need.

Thus the change clearly gives insurance companies and police the excuse to assign blame to a cyclist involved in an accident, if not using a nearby 'facility', regardless of its practicablity under the circumstances. I refer you to the prosecution of Daniel Caddon last year, a fast cyclist prosecuted for obstructing traffic by not using a short cyclepath on the opposite side of a three-lane road. While the new wording does not change the law, it clearly implies an obligation on cyclists to ride off the road wherever possible.
 Rule 61 - "Use cycle routes...wherever possible"

The DSA response to consultation document discusses this at lenght, concluding that the new wording is (at the least) contentious and claims the change of 'practicable' to 'possible' has been amended. No such amendment has been made.
"originally, the rule regarding these facilities stated "Use cycle routes where practicable. They can make your journey safer." New wording was inserted into the consultation document, which contained greater detail with regard to the use of cycle boxes and advanced stop lines where provided. This change was read by many to suggest that their use was mandatory. Many felt this was unfair and unsafe, as they considered the standard of cycle lanes in GB to be very poor and very dangerous, often filled with parked vehicles, debris, drain covers and pot holes.

A large number of respondents also felt that other road users believed cyclists were legally obliged to use these facilities at all times , and therefore expected cyclists to use them wherever available, rather than by free choice, dependent on conditions. This then raised the issue of liability if cyclists did not use the facilities and a road traffic incident occurred.
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. "

QUESTIONS

1) Why was the wording changed at all? Particularly in light of the DSA response.

2) It what way does the new code increase encouragement of everyday cycling, in furtherance of government policies on Health, Climate and Transport?

3) How do you reconcile the implication of the new wording that cyclists should not be on the road, with the following 'Cycling England' statement which puts segregated facilities at the lowest priority?

HIERARCHY OF PROVISION

Cycling England and the Department for Transport recommend adopting a hierarchical approach to establishing a cycle-friendly infrastructure. Measures should be selected according to the following preferred hierarchy:
1. Traffic reduction
2. Speed reduction
3. Tackle problem sites
4. Redistribute the carriageway
5. Provide segregated facilities

HIERARCHY OF USERS

Applying this "hierarchy of solutions" should be supported by the adoption of a 'hierarchy of users' which gives priority to measures that benefit the more vulnerable road users:
1. Pedestrians and disabled people
2. Cyclists
3. Public transport users
4. Motorcyclists and taxis
5. Commercial and business vehicles
6. Car borne shoppers
7. Car borne commuters and visitors

4) How do you reconcile the implication of the new wording with the advice in the Stationery Office publication Cyclecraft, which urges cyclists to position themselves where they can be seen and only be overtaken when it is safe? It specifically advises against using cycle lanes and other cycle facilities. [Many surveys suggest that cyclists are at more risk when using cycle paths than using the road, because of frequent road crossings. ]

5) How can the new wording be reconciled with the DfT's own guidline in Annex D of Local Transport Note 2/04 LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists? - "As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."

6) What is the evidence for increased safety (referred to in Rule 61) of using the recommended facilities? The majority of cycle fatalities in London recently have been to cyclists using left-hand lanes and advanced stop lines. Several surveys in countries with heavy cycle use have found cyclists to be more at risk on cycle-paths than when using the road, probably because of the frequent crossings causing cycle/car conflict. [ http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html]

I urgently ask you to reconsider the new proposed code in the light of these comments and references.

Peter Milne

habibi · May 2007

...or it might just mean that they all got round the table and realised that they couldnt just say (as i'm sure they wanted to) that "cyclists should use cycle lanes" because they are so often used for car parking etc. "where practical / possible" may just be intended to mean "cyclists should use cycle lanes, unless vehicles are parked there, in which case please weave around them until you can get back in the gutter where you belong". this neatly avoids any resultant fuss over the existing farcility infrastructure.

rothbook · May 2007

Cynical, habibi.

But persuasive...

Cab · May 2007

Orbiter, thats an excellent summary, the only problem is that a longer communication like that can far too easily be poorly answered.

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

Orbiter · May 2007

Cab, thanks. I know it's too long but I don't expect to get a sensible reply from Ladyman to anything on the subject! I really wanted to pull together some of the best concrete arguments I've read to clarify my own thoughts and maybe provide ammunition for other people to make use of. Rothbook's letter on the same lines in the Matt Seaton thread, is also a useful source for anyone writing a letter to their MP.

Pete

rgisme · May 2007

For me the issue is simply this: The DSA consultation document says: "A large number of respondents also felt that other road users believed cyclists were legally obliged to use these facilities at all times , and therefore expected cyclists to use them wherever available, rather than by free choice, dependent on conditions. This then raised the issue of liability if cyclists did not use the facilities and a road traffic incident occurred.
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. "

The question is: "In what way does the revised wording acheive the stated aim of the relevant paragraph in the consultation document above."? To the contrary, it seems to do precisely the opposite.

Cab · May 2007

Copy of email sent to the Leader of the Opposition:

---
Dear Mr Cameron,

I'm emailing you in the hope that as leader of the Opposition, and as a cyclist yourself, you may be able to help prevent a rather troublesome change in the wording of the highway code, specifically rule 47.

The current wording is simple and quite reasonable; cyclists are advised to use cycle lanes where 'practicable'. I understand that is to be changed to where 'possible'.

While it is true that this does not compel cyclists to use cycle lanes, it does change things quite radically for cyclists involved in accidents. There is another passage in the highway code that is quite telling:

"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, the Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording...'

At present, a cyclist may rationally choose not to ride on a cycle facility; it may be poorly designed, it may require a sizeable detour, it may be more dangerous to do so than to use the road. If it isn't 'practicable' then you are not expected to use it. I can name a few here in Cambridge that are very likely to get you killed if you use them, and some more that verge on the physically impossible to use. I can send you images of them if you like.

Currently if an accident occurs then a cyclist outside of the cycle lane is not held responsible merely for not using the lane, whereas the new wording changes that; in short, if a cyclist is not in a cycle lane, even if it is not safe or appropriate to use the lane, the change in this advisory passage in the highway code will be used by motorists insurers to get them off the hook in the event of an accident that is not the cyclists fault. The fact that a cyclist wasn't using a lane that increased risk will be used against the cyclist. I'm not wanting to come over all ranty, but thats lunacy.

I would also like to quote guidance from the department of transport:
"As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."
(see Annex D of Local Transport Note 2/04 LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists)

As the above advice implies, cycle lanes and paths are often not designed for the use of cyclists who are going above 18mph, and many cyclists routinely travel far faster than that. It would appear that in future, serious cycle commuting (usually done above 18mph!) and cycle training for sports are only going to be possible if the cyclist accepts an increase in liability for any accident that occurs, even if it is the fault of someone else.

You are no doubt aware that this change in wording has received an overwhelmingly negative response from cyclists, and you may also be aware of an early day motion asking MPs to reconsider this point:

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

It should be a priority to get more people out of their cars and onto bicycles; if you could throw the weight of the Conservative party behind this, if the Opposition were to make some noise on this issue, signing the above EDM or bringing this specific issue up with the Department of Transport, it might go some way to get this silly change reversed.

Yours Sincerely,

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

Cab · May 2007

And one sent to Ladyman; still longer than I wanted it to be, but my problem is always verbosity

----
Dear Dr. Ladyman,

I am deeply concerned about the proposed change to the highway code regarding use of cycle lanes.

The current wording is simple and quite reasonable; cyclists are advised to use cycle lanes where 'practicable'. I understand that is to be changed to where 'possible'.

While it is true that this does not compel cyclists to use cycle lanes, it does change things quite radically for cyclists involved in accidents. There is another passage in the highway code that is quite telling:

"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, the Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording...'

At present, a cyclist may rationally choose not to ride in a cycle lane; it may be poorly designed, it may require a sizeable detour, it may be more dangerous to do so than to use the road. Currently, if an accident occurs then a cyclist outside of the cycle lane is not held responsible merely for not using the lane, whereas the new wording changes that; in short, if a cyclist is not in a cycle lane, even if it is not safe or appropriate to use the lane, the change in this advisory passage in the highway code will be used by motorists insurers to get them off the hook in the event of an accident that is not the cyclists fault.

I would also like to quote your own departments guidance:
"As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."
(see Annex D of Local Transport Note 2/04 LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists)

As the above advice implies, cycle lanes and paths are often not designed for the use of cyclists who are going above 18mph, and many cyclists routinely travel far faster than that. Where do you expect such cyclists to ride?

You are no doubt aware that this change in wording has received an overwhelmingly negative response from cyclists, and you may also be aware of an early day motion asking you to reconsider this point:

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

Please, reconsider this. It should be a priority to get more people out of their cars and onto bicycles; how does removing the choice where to cycle most safely and conveniently (on pain of being held liable for any accident you may be involved in, even if it isn't your fault) going to help matters?

Yours Sincerely,

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

dag_on_a_bike · May 2007

Not entirely OT but is there a national policy concerning the design and implementation of cycle routes and/or cycle paths (whether shared or otherwise)?

There does not appear, in my experience, to be any uniformity and that in itself is going to aggravate the matter in discussion here and cause confusion to cyclists and other types of road users.

Anyone got the answer to this which has baffled me for a while?

<hr noshade size="1">Still old, Still here.

Brightsparkcp · May 2007

I have signed up to Hansard and can add comments.
I am thinking of adding this to the bottom of yesterdays reply.
Your comments please before 16:00hrs

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Possible, capable of existing, happening, being done etc. (OED)

The worry that many Cyclists have is that they may find themselves having to justify riding on the road (which at the moment is still a legal right) where a cycle lane/path exists if for instance they wish to avoid a charge of ridding inconsiderately and holding up traffic (Daniel Cudden case), or are in litigation for damages against say a motorist who has knocked them off and insists that they should not have been on the main highway.
The only argument left using this wording is to prove that it was impossible to use the facility. Previously the incumbent would only have had to have argued that it was impractical to use the facility because it was either unsuitable (broken glass, shared with pedestrians) or that they would have to go to extreme measure to reach it (having to dismount and cross lanes of busy traffic).

Although the Minister is correct in saying that the code is advisory the choice facing cyclists is very bleak. Either use the cycling facility no matter how poorly designed or face severely reduced damages if involved in a collision with a motor vehicle.

Orbiter · May 2007

Brightspark, Just after 16.00 but yes, I like it.

DAG, I don't believe there are any national standards, only guidance documents like Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure and Cycling England. Proper standards could be difficult to define due to varying situations. Some would say that the answer is to abolish the whole mess and make sure the roads are designed for all users. They may be right!

Pete

Lurkercp · May 2007

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

I have signed up to Hansard and can add comments.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Although the Minister is correct in saying that the code is advisory the choice facing cyclists is very bleak. Either use the cycling facility no matter how poorly designed or face severely reduced damages if involved in a collision with a motor vehicle.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Too late for your deadline, sorry, but there are other options - equally bleak. Such as abandoning cycling and driving instead.

Brightsparkcp · May 2007

"there are other options - equally bleak. Such as abandoning cycling and driving instead."
Perhaps that is what "they" want. I think that it is what the Government call an integrated transport policy.[;)]

Posted now but I can always amend or add further comments. I thought that a simple footnote might at least start to explain why 33 people have voted that Ladyboy did not answer question.

Propsed changes to HC published

Comments

Categories