Propsed changes to HC published

rothbook · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Perhaps that is what "they" want. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist but there does seem to be something fishy about this...

Why invite responses, then ignore them?

Where is the lobbying coming from?

mjones · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by DAG on a bike

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 height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
A cut'n paste of an earlier post, but have a read of 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."[/size=1]

Orbiter · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones Local Transport Note 2/04 LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

My favourite bit is
"
3.3 Checking the feasibility of on-road solutions for cyclists

3.3.1 Having identified potential corridors, the next stage is to consider the options for providing a cycle route within the carriageway. The evaluation should be exhaustive to ensure that all possible on-carriageway solutions have been thoroughly considered. Users should refer to LTN 1/04 and the design references contained therein for guidance on provision for cyclists within the carriageway.

3.3.2 Where an on-carriageway solution has been rejected, it is strongly recommended that the reasons for reaching this conclusion are recorded. If an adjacent or shared use solution is eventually found to be impracticable, there will be a need to re-examine the on-road solutions and the case for rejecting them therefore needs to be robust. (It should not, however, be inflexible - it may be that the on-carriageway solutions were originally compared with an attractive shared use proposal that ultimately could not be realised). It should be clearly demonstrated why an adjacent or shared use proposal is preferred over:

* removing motor traffic from the route;
* reducing the speed of motor traffic using the route; and
* meeting cyclists' needs by tackling problem sites at junctions, or reallocating road space including the provision of cycle lanes.

3.4 Demonstrating the case for an adjacent or shared use solution

3.4.1 It should not automatically be assumed that cyclists can be better served off the carriageway because an improved on-carriageway solution is not available. It is necessary to demonstrate that an adjacent or shared use route will be attractive to new cyclists and those already using the existing carriageway, while addressing the needs and concerns of non-cyclists. It should be shown that the proposed solution will:

* be safe for all users, including people with disabilities and especially those with visual impairment, in terms of both traffic safety and personal safety;
* be accessible from the carriageway at junctions and avoid frequent 'Give Ways';
"

I wish!

Pete

NervexProf · May 2007

NO more accidents then!
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 780041.ece

Common sense in an uncommon degree is what the world calls wisdom

rothbook · May 2007

But the Association of British Drivers defended the word, saying that it was very widely used and understood and reflected the reality that it was extremely rare for a motorist to set out deliberately to cause injury.

From nervex's link. Blatantly untrue.

habibi · May 2007

from the times article:

"some motoring groups have objected to the move, saying that it will foster a blame culture and encourage the prosecution of drivers for casualties that they had no intention of causing."

"We suspect there is an agenda behind this change in language, which is to ensure that motorists are always held responsible in collisions with pedestrians and cyclists."

Orbiter · May 2007

ABD:ƒ?oWe suspect there is an agenda behind this change in language, which is to ensure that motorists are always held responsible in collisions with pedestrians and cyclists.

YES! [:D]

rothbook · May 2007

The ABD claim that children killed in the road are at fault, or their parents are. They propose an abdication of responsibility by motorists, get out of my way, if you delay me you die:

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> The ABD want children to be self reliant and responsible, and to take pride in their skills in using the roads. We want them to carry this attitude forward into cycling and driving, as well as life in general. As children, ABD members would have found the "blame someone else" attitude shown by Transport 2000 demeaning and insulting. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/417.htm

That last semi-literate sentence is hilarious, and ignores the fact that 95% of accidents involve driver error. Drivers like to blame the wind, trees, the weather, speed cameras, bra adverts, the road or other road users, the reality is that the driver's error caused the accident.

habibi · May 2007

the poor lambs.. how long can we tolerate this war on motorists?

Tom Butcher · May 2007

My MP - Bob Laxton (Labour) has replied quoting the DSAs disingenuous words and finishing up by saying he is "relatively satisfied that the interests of cyclists will not be affected by the changes made to the Highway Code".

Clearly being the representative of a Cycle Demonstration town didn't sway his thinking - I'm pretty sure I saw him in a 4*4 the other day too !

Dave Hinde - probably the worst bike shop in the world.

Cab · May 2007

Eleven liberals and one labour so far signed the edm.

Not a bad start, but we desperately need more from all parties if this is to get off the ground.

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

notanotherusername · May 2007

Emailed my MP to sign the EDM.

One thing that puzzles me though... the Highway Code is produced by the Driving Standards Agency. Why should such an organisation be telling me how to ride my bike? I would suggest that with a name like that, there is no doubt an inbuilt bias against cyclists and other vulnerable roadusers and for motorists which seeps into the Highway Code.

Cheers

Stephen

Axel_Knutt · May 2007

The DSA argue that the cyclist has free choice as to whether he uses cycle paths or not. If this is the case there is no need to comment on it, any more than the highway code needs to point out that he can choose between tea or coffee with breakfast. The fact that the HC says 'use wherever possible' undermines the position of anyone choosing not to.
I notice that the HC makes no mention that cycle lamps must be approved and not just any old lamp.

rothbook · May 2007

Harry Cohen says he's signed.

habibi · May 2007

Willie Rennie says he's signed.

Cab · May 2007

George Galloway has signed. We're doomed.

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

magnatom · May 2007

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

George Galloway has signed. We're doomed.

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

I noticed that!! Would supporting cyclists not go against Georges normal instinct of wanting to sell more oil.......[:p][:D]

Orbiter · May 2007

In reply to a letter to my MP, complaining about the adverse effect on cyclists of the draft HC...

"The examples of poorly maintained and ill thought out cycle paths raised by the CTC clearly demonstrate that it is not a sensible move to change ... from 'wherever practicable' to 'wherever possible'

On this basis the Conservative Party will force a debate on the draft highway code in the House of Lords where we have a chance of stopping it being passed. I am hopeful that we will be able to persuade the government to think again on its proposed changes."

A glimmer of hope perhaps.

Pete

Pringlecp · May 2007

Just had three replies:

1 - Susan Kramer (Lib Dem) Richmond Park

2 - Vince Cable (Lib Dem) Twickenham

Both keen cyclists and both think that changes are daft and will be voting against them

3 - DoT on behalf of Dr Ladyman:

HC has advised cyclists to use paths since 1946

Advice is not a legal requirement

"It does not place any compulsion on cyclists to use cycle facilities and it remains their decision whether or not they follow this advice to improve their safety." - rather a loaded statement don't you think?

Have changed wording from possible to practical to "improve clarity"

I like this one - "The final version [of the HC] makes it clear that it is at the discretion of each cyclist to decide whether or not it is indeed possible for them to use any specific cycle facility." ?????

That the new code tells car and other drivers to be aware of and show more consideration for more venerable road users

and that:

"Cyclists themselves also have a responsibility to ensure their own safety where they can. The HC informs and advises them as to how they can do so"

Another year older, another Budweiser

Orbiter · May 2007

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

HC has advised cyclists to use paths since 1946

Advice is not a legal requirement

......

Have changed wording from possible to practical to ‹¨«improve clarity‹¨«

I like this one ‹¨« ‹¨«The final version [of the HC] makes it clear that it is at the discretion of each cyclist to decide whether or not it is indeed possible for them to use any specific cycle facility.‹¨« ?????

That the new code tells car and other drivers to be aware of and show more consideration for more venerable road users

and that:

‹¨«Cyclists themselves also have a responsibility to ensure their own safety where they can. The HC informs and advises them as to how they can do so‹¨«
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I assume that was supposed to be practicable to possible.

Improve clarity indeed! The whole code suffers from linguistic confusion about the advisory bits, like
"Use cycle routes..."
"You should...."
"You are recommended... "

All of which were probably innocently seen as advice (as compared to the legal MUST) but are nowadays fodder for blame apportionment.

Either the introduction should make clear that everything other than
MUST is just advice (so discretionary) or distinguish between the semi-obligatory "You should look all round before moving away from the curb." and the discretionary "You should consider wearing light clothes / helmet / using cycle routes / etc".

I just don't think the writers have thought about the increasingly nit-picking interpretations of the Code.

Pete

Pringlecp · May 2007

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

Originally posted by Pringle

I assume that was supposed to be practicable to possible.

Pete

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

it was - sorry - [:I]

Another year older, another Budweiser

Brightsparkcp · May 2007

Yesterdays debate in the Lords.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id ... ghway+code

rothbook · May 2007

Interesting stuff, thanks brightspark

rgisme · May 2007

Yes interesting. They seem to rely on alleged advice of lawyers that say 'whereever possible' has greater legal clarity than 'whereever practicable'. Wonder which lawyers they are, and what the basis for that assertion is? Worringly, they may well be right - 'whereever possible', does seem to have more certainty about it than 'whereever practicable' - certainty or 'clarity' in precisely the sense that we are concerned about and oppose, ie in implying a virtual compulsion to use the facility unless it is impossible and without regard for fitness for purpose etc. They have got this very wrong, and they just can't see it. They've consulted their lawyers without regard for what they actually wanted to say, it seems, if the intention was genuinely to leave it to cyclist discretion, which we might well doubt. They are in the grip of dogma which believes that cyclists are 'safer' on these facilities and wants them there, and this blinds them from seeing any other possibility.

Brightsparkcp · May 2007

A petition has now been laid before the house.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/? ... de#g948.18

magnatom · May 2007

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

A petition has now been laid before the house.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/? ... de#g948.18
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Sorry for my ignorance, but what does this petition mean? Does this force a debate on the issue?

Ste_S · May 2007

My parents saw on a TV news programme that cyclists will be prosecuted for not using cycle paths.

Did they miss hear, or is anyone reporting the change as this ?

Jon Howe · May 2007

Thanks to everyone's input on this subject. It has helped me to focus on the content of my own correspondence to Mr Ladyman et al
On the argument about the motorist impression that we should always be in the cycle lane. I tell them that the cycle lane is there for the cyclist convenience, not the motorists. With the new wording it seems that this is will no longer be the case,

dondare · May 2007

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes (Conservative)

My Lords, how many times have cyclists been prosecuted for going through red lights, which they do very frequently?

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lords in Waiting, HM Household)
My Lords, I am with the noble Baroness in this regard; as a driver, I sometimes get irritated by cyclists who do that. I do not have those statistics in front of me, but I am willing to try to research them. All road users should be obliged to stick to the Highway Code and obey the rules of the road because that is right, and by doing that we all understand exactly what we are doing on the roads.

It always boils down to this. It is impossible to present a case for cycling because the every bicycle and every cyclist is tainted with the foul stench of red-light-jumping.

If the HC is published with the new wording, Stegers and his ilk will be to blame.

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 buses won't stop at bus stops if there are people just waiting there.

dondare · May 2007

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lords in Waiting, HM Household)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. He is right and I support what he has said. Through local government, which by and large has a responsibility for cycle routes and so on, we have been investing in providing means whereby cyclists can be safely separated out from other traffic where they do not cause offence, annoyance or the potential for harm and injury to pedestrians.

God help us all.

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 buses won't stop at bus stops if there are people just waiting there.

Propsed changes to HC published

Comments

Categories