Propsed changes to HC published

Cab · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare
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.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yep. Every discussion on cycle safety with non-cyclists eventually comes down to 'but cyclists break the rules and go through red lights all the time' or 'they're always on the pavements' or some such drivel. Whether this new wording is anything to do with that is another matter.

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

dondare · May 2007

"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."

by the same person who had just said:

"My Lords, I ought to declare an interest as an occasional cyclist. The advice on using cycling facilities in the proposed Highway Code 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. The distinction between legal requirements and advisory rules is made clear in the introduction to the code."

How can people be so fuc-king ignorant?

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.

Cab · May 2007

I didn't believe that this was an inherently anti-cyclist ruling. I just didn't accept that the 'powers that be' hate cyclists.

Until now.

Reading through this:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id ... 512#g288.4

It is just incomprehensible that when given the fact that lawyers and courts think that the highway code is binding, that the insurers think it is binding and will try to enforce it, when cyclists see it as a problem and cyclist organisations think its a problem, that the change in wording is thus defended.

They hate cyclists. What else is there to say?

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

mjones · May 2007

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

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.

...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
[?] But taking cyclists out of the traffic and putting them on cycle paths (most of which seem to be on pavements) increases the risk to pedestrians! I despair! [V]

dondare · May 2007

Lord Barking:
Why can't these cyclists just shut up and do as they're told? No-one is saying that the law requires them to obey the Highway Code, just that they'll be in trouble if they don't.

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.

Brightsparkcp · May 2007

Another dumb question. I am sure that this has been asked before.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... g137924.r0

We pay for these idiots. [:(!]

Brightsparkcp · May 2007

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... g138293.q0

D‚j… vu...definatly.

Do they get the same civil servant to write the questions?
[:(!]

Brightsparkcp · May 2007

Correction to my last two posts.
The questions were indeed subtly different even though the answer was the same.
I have added comment onto the pages.

There are now 6 days left!

Regulator · May 2007

Brightspark

Both questions were raised in the form of a Written Question. Written Questions follow a particular style, dictated by parliamentary protocol. They may seem daft but they can be very effective - WQ's can be a good way of badgering a Minister without appearing to.

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!

Brightsparkcp · May 2007

Thank you R.[:)]

Badgered the Minister may be.
But I fear that we can all predict the result in 7 days time.

Does anyone know when something more positive will or even can be done?

Brightsparkcp · May 2007

More debate in the Commons specifically about Cycling.
Covering Cycles on Trains, Cycle lanes and of course the HC.

The debate was raised by Willie Rennie (Dunfermline & Fife West, Liberal Democrat).

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id ... ode#g499.1

Orbiter · May 2007

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

More debate in the Commons specifically about Cycling.
Covering Cycles on Trains, Cycle lanes and of course the HC.

The debate was raised by Willie Rennie (Dunfermline & Fife West, Liberal Democrat).

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id ... ode#g499.1
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

An excellent speech by Rennie. Why can't the ministers see the difference between advisory (Silly if you don't follow it) and discretionary??

We'll all have to carry a copy of Tom Harris's comment
"May I take this opportunity to emphasise that the advice on using cycle facilities in both the current and the proposed revised highway code is not a legal requirement? It places no compulsion on cyclists to use cycle facilities, and it remains their decision whether or not to follow this advice. 

Perhaps a lawyer on the Forum could comment on the value of this in court when faced by an insurance company claiming liability for being on the road.

Pete

magnatom · May 2007

It would also seem that the government is willing to change the wordind of the Highway Code,
"The hon. Gentleman may inform his constituents that the Department is confident that in the very near future we will arrive at a form of words that is less unacceptable to cycling interests than the current draft."(Tom Harris).

It will be interesting to see what changes are made and when.

Brightsparkcp · May 2007

I have received a copy of a letter from Chris Grayling (Shadow Secretary of Sate for Transport) that was sent to my MP.

It says (extracts)

"Thank you for forwarding me the letter from your constituent about the revised draft of the HC.

I recognise the concerns .raised about the wording of the new Code, and completely understand the widespread frustration that the impressive response from cyclists to the Governments consultation on the Code has not been reflected in the final version. It is of course, hugely important that the wording of the Code does not give raise to claims of contributory negligence, and I am extremely worried that the draft as it stands does exactly that. 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 the wording of the Code from "wherever practical" to "wherever possible".

On this basis, the Conservative Party will force a debate on the draft HC 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."

The Bosscp · May 2007

I actually saw a cyclist getting booked for riding on the pavement yesterday.
Well I don't know it was that as I was driving and didn't hear the actual words exchanged, but there was a bloke standing astride a bike, stopped, with two uniformed policemen standing in front of him blocking his path. The cyclist had an indignant look on his face, and the police officers looked stern and one of them was writing in a small pad.

dondare · May 2007

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

I have received a copy of a letter from Chris Grayling (Shadow Secretary of Sate for Transport) that was sent to my MP.

It says (extracts)

"Thank you for forwarding me the letter from your constituent about the revised draft of the HC.

I recognise the concerns .raised about the wording of the new Code, and completely understand the widespread frustration that the impressive response from cyclists to the Governments consultation on the Code has not been reflected in the final version. It is of course, hugely important that the wording of the Code does not give raise to claims of contributory negligence, and I am extremely worried that the draft as it stands does exactly that. 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 the wording of the Code from "wherever practical" to "wherever possible".

On this basis, the Conservative Party will force a debate on the draft HC 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."

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

Some of that is a lot like the letter I got from my (Conservative) MP.
I think that they may have been given a template.

Did your letter really say "practical" rather than the actual current wording: "practicable"?

And why wait until it gets debated in the Lords before challenging it? There can't be a single MP in the land who hasn't had letters from concerned cyclists, but are they just going to nod it through the Commons? No-one writes to their Lord.

Mmmmmmm... baby elephants.

Regulator · May 2007

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

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

I have received a copy of a letter from Chris Grayling (Shadow Secretary of Sate for Transport) that was sent to my MP.

It says (extracts)

"Thank you for forwarding me the letter from your constituent about the revised draft of the HC.

I recognise the concerns .raised about the wording of the new Code, and completely understand the widespread frustration that the impressive response from cyclists to the Governments consultation on the Code has not been reflected in the final version. It is of course, hugely important that the wording of the Code does not give raise to claims of contributory negligence, and I am extremely worried that the draft as it stands does exactly that. 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 the wording of the Code from "wherever practical" to "wherever possible".

On this basis, the Conservative Party will force a debate on the draft HC 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."

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

Some of that is a lot like the letter I got from my (Conservative) MP.
I think that they may have been given a template.

Did your letter really say "practical" rather than the actual current wording: "practicable"?

And why wait until it gets debated in the Lords before challenging it? There can't be a single MP in the land who hasn't had letters from concerned cyclists, but are they just going to nod it through the Commons? No-one writes to their Lord.

Mmmmmmm... baby elephants.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It's easier to get Government-backed matters amended or stopped in teh Lords than in the Commons.

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!

Brightsparkcp · May 2007

"Did your letter really say "practical" rather than the actual current wording: "practicable"?"

Yes.

Regulator, please would you explain why the Lords are so effective?
Also do you know what the next stages are?

If anything this whole exercise has shown me how little I know.

Regulator · May 2007

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

"Did your letter really say "practical" rather than the actual current wording: "practicable"?"

Yes.

Regulator, please would you explain why the Lords are so effective?
Also do you know what the next stages are?

If anything this whole exercise has shown me how little I know.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The Lords are more effective because they are harder to 'whip' and there is a significant number of 'cross benchers' (people who don't belong to any party). The Lords also tend have more time to think about things and don't find it necessary to indulge in 'yah, boo, sucks' politicing in the chamber. I have also tended to find the Lords simply more intelligent than those in the Commons...

If I recall rightly, the amendments (can someone please correct me if I'm wrong) have to be passed by both Houses. I believe this was done without a division in the Commons, so the Lords is the 'final hurdle'. However, as they have broken for Whitsun, the clock doesn't start ticking until they get back.

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!

dondare · May 2007

This isn't typical then?
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id ... ghway+code
If that's how the Lords are going to discuss it then we're in deep 5hit.
And why should any one party defend the Driving Standards Authority?

Baby elephants? Pah!!

mjones · May 2007

Given all the controversy over the revised HC wording, it was rather frustrating to see an article advocating segregation in the current edition of Transport Times. Adam Raphael argues for cycle paths: "not just lines on the road, but properly segregated cycle tracks. If that is rejected as too expensive then cyclists should be allowed to share pavements." [:0]

It's a shame that he hasn't noticed London achieving a whopping 70% increase in cycling achieved almost entirely on road; nor indeed that the same edition of TT reports on significant increases in the Sustainable Transport Demonstration Towns, also achieved without a massive, segregated infrastructure. Nor does he seem to be aware of all the guidance on cycling infrastructurethat advocates the Hierarchy of Measures etc etc. Very depressing to see such a subjective article in a journal intended for transport professionals. And as for sticking us on the pavements... [V]

robbiew · May 2007

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

This isn't typical then?
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id ... ghway+code
If that's how the Lords are going to discuss it then we're in deep 5hit.
And why should any one party defend the Driving Standards Authority?

Baby elephants? Pah!!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

"Lord Oxburgh (Crossbench) Link to this | Hansard source

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of both motoring and cycling organisations. Forgetting the legal points for the moment, is the Minister really comfortable that the department for which he speaks should appear to endorse wording which virtually all the cycling organisations feel will encourage cyclists to cycle in a way that is less safe than at present? It encourages them, under all circumstances, to use cycle ways which may not be fit for purpose through poor design or poor maintenance."

Where is Oxburgh? I want to go and live there because they have a sensible Lord.

wafflycat · May 2007

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

"Lord Oxburgh (Crossbench) Link to this | Hansard source

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of both motoring and cycling organisations. Forgetting the legal points for the moment, is the Minister really comfortable that the department for which he speaks should appear to endorse wording which virtually all the cycling organisations feel will encourage cyclists to cycle in a way that is less safe than at present? It encourages them, under all circumstances, to use cycle ways which may not be fit for purpose through poor design or poor maintenance."

Where is Oxburgh? I want to go and live there because they have a sensible Lord.

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

A bit on the lord..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3815151.stm

<center>~~~~~
Any problem can be solved by the application of duck tape,
copious use of cable ties
and the wearing of fluorescent yellow Lycra
~~~~~ </center>

Brightsparkcp · June 2007

A statement from Stephen Ladyman 5/6/07

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

In February 2006 we issued a draft of proposed revisions to the Highway Code for public consultation, which closed on 15 May 2006. Over 4,000 people offered a total of almost 27,000 comments.

Taking account of these comments, a new draft version of the Highway Code was laid before Parliament on 28 March 2007. A large number of responses to the consultation concerned the rules on cycling and more than 40 amendments were made to these and other rules to take account of comments from cyclists. However, since the code was laid before Parliament, further representations have been made by cyclists who remain concerned that the revised text of rules 61 and 63 on cycle facilities and cycle lanes is insufficiently clear.

Following informal discussions with the CTC, an organisation representing cyclists, we are proposing changes to draft rules 61 and 63 to make clearer the position regarding the advice in the code on the use of cycle facilities and cycle lanes. On 31 May the Department for Transport wrote to key road safety interests, including members of the Road Safety Advisory Panel, as well as cycling and walking representative bodies, concerning further changes to the Highway Code. A copy of the Department's letter has been placed in the Library of both Houses.

We have asked stakeholders to let us have their views by the end of Tuesday 12 June. The reason for this short timescale is so as not to unduly delay the publication of the new edition of the Highway Code. Any proposed changes have to be laid in Parliament for 40 days before they can come into effect, so will need to be laid by 15 June if the 40-day period is to be completed before summer recess. Views are requested by 12 June to allow time for them to be considered before laying the changes in Parliament. We would then expect to publish the revised edition of the Highway Code in September.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2 ... de#g14WS.4

Are these the only changes that we can get?
I know that this is what we and CTC et al concentrated on, but some of the other rules are objectionable.

I take it that this means get another 40 days to do something about the other rules if we are so minded.

magnatom · June 2007

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

Are these the only changes that we can get?
I know that this is what we and CTC et al concentrated on, but some of the other rules are objectionable.

I take it that this means get another 40 days to do something about the other rules if we are so minded.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes I was afraid of this. I would agree that these were the most important rules to change but what about the advice on roundabouts, the picture suggesting that not wearing a helmet is wrong (I wear a helmet but believe in choice) etc!

I fear there is probably little that we can do[V] unless anyone knows of a way?

Brightsparkcp · June 2007

Written Question from Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak, Labour)

The Ladymeister answers! (Stop sniggering at the back there...)

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... g137694.r0

So it was our fualt for wanting the words "Where they are provided" removed.

Brightsparkcp · June 2007

Another Question in the house.

Andrew Smith (Oxford East, Labour) | Hansard source

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has held with cycling organisations since the publication of the latest version of the Highway Code.

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

Ministers and officials of the Department for Transport regularly meet and discuss various issues informally with a number of cycling organisations. There have been many such discussions since the current version of the Highway Code was first published in 1999.

Since the proposed revisions to the Highway Code were laid before Parliament on 28 March, DfT officials met representatives of CTC to discuss their concerns about certain cycling rules within the Code on 9 May. There have also been discussions by telephone and e-mail between DfT officials and CTC representatives on this issue.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... g141116.r0

Is the CTC the only organisation being consulted on this?

I also wonder if everyone here is happy with the rest of the Highway code?

Orbiter · June 2007

The consultations have been running for over a year, involving many organisations, so most issues were stitched up months ago. CTC probably put forward the most comprehensive response to the proposals, at http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaig ... se_con.doc which argues for a multitude of changes. I've not checked to see which have been adopted but there are certainly quite a few references in the car driving sections of the new draft about cycle safety.

Most of the last-minute debate has been about the 'possible'/'practicable' change announced in the intended final draft and its effect on insurance liability. It would have been impossible at this stage to argue for other last-minute corrections. CTC seem to have been listened to about this, which has resulted in futher changes, referred to by brightspark on 7/6. The latest wording, though ludicrously complicated and still unsatisfactory (suggesting cycle facilities & lanes 'can' rather than 'may' be safer), at least seems to defuse the liability issue, if only by confusion!

The CTC campaign page at http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4568. it's a bit smug but sums up the current position and CTC's involvement.

It's by no means the ideal result but certainly better than it might have turned out, provided some idiot doesn't dream up another change.

Pete

dondare · June 2007

The current proposed wording is very cumbersome and is likely to be simplified. Probably it'll end up saying "use cycle lanes as these can make your journey safer" and neither Ladyman or anyone at the DSA will understand what is wrong with this simple piece of advice.

This sig is under construction.

Orbiter · June 2007

Ho Ho Ho Oh No! Could happen though.

I liked the CTC proposal

ƒ?oUsing cycle facilities such as cycle lanes, cycle tracks, advanced stop lines and toucan crossings may help your journey. However you are not obliged to use them and you will sometimes need to adopt other road positions e.g. to maximise your visibility (see Rule 58).ƒ??

Alternatively remove this Rule.


- especially the last bit. Couldn't get simpler than that [:D]

Pete

Propsed changes to HC published

Comments

Categories