Propsed changes to HC published

dondare · June 2007

My proposal:
"Avoid using cycling facilities as they can make your journey hazardous."

Alternatively remove the facilities.

This sig is under construction.

Brightsparkcp · June 2007

All the changes and the links on the CTC site still refer to the January 2006 edition which is the consultation document. The current version of the HC, the one that it is intended to published, is on the first page of this Topic as posted by Wafflycat.

It is different from the draft and has new items in it as well as some of the original rubbish.
I don't like the advice about not riding two abreast around corners and narrow roads and the dismount sign at Level crossings also seems to be making someone else's life very easy when it comes to maintainance and road planning.

There seems to be some people here who have great faith in CTC and other bodies. After all we pay our subscriptions for them to represent us. However I am deeply suspicious that the CTC statement and the Governments look very similar making me wonder that perhaps the CTC may be too cosy.
Dare I mention that CTC, with Sustrans (who seem to want to get us off the road) form part of "Cycling-England" a government formed quango that gets œ5 million a year. Not enough to change the world ruled by cars, but enough to ensure that any organization involved would not want to take their hand out of the pot. Or even worse have it removed, say should they disagree with the benefactor.

I wonder if the position that CTC find themselves in at the moment with the Dft is a comfortable one. I wonder if they really would have taken the initiative about removing the word possible if it was not for the likes of us making such a fuss.
Governments (especially this one) who want to bring in bad news leak even worse news first before backtracking a little and then tell us how wonderful it all is, when we still have something that is rotten. Is what we have that here? We have a new HC on our hands and we have spent a huge amount of time and effort on two rules to the exclusion of everything else.

Now we have manage to almost change the HC once, (almost because we still don't know what the final wording will be on rules 61 & 63) perhaps we can do the same with the others. Or are we so overwhelmed by <s>our</s> (sorry) the CTC's "victory" that we can ignore the rest.

Brightsparkcp · June 2007

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/? ... de#g1351.9

Ordered,

That the alterations in the provisions of the Highway Code proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for Transport, dated 28th March 2007, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.- [ Mr. Roy. ]

Does anyone know more about this?

Simon L2 · June 2007

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

Dare I mention that CTC, with Sustrans (who seem to want to get us off the road) form part of "Cycling-England"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

the high point in a trail of silliness. CTC is independent. Whatever its faults the people who govern the CTC owe nothing to nobody, except the members. We send people to represent us on Cycling England bodies, but CE does not, and will never, dictate CTC policy. The HC code changes came about because we organised a campaign, got all kinds of parliamentarians on board and threatened a judicial review.

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

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

Dare I mention that CTC, with Sustrans (who seem to want to get us off the road) form part of "Cycling-England"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

the high point in a trail of silliness. CTC is independent. Whatever its faults the people who govern the CTC owe nothing to nobody, except the members. We send people to represent us on Cycling England bodies, but CE does not, and will never, dictate CTC policy. The HC code changes came about because we organised a campaign, got all kinds of parliamentarians on board and threatened a judicial review.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It is also wrong to regard CE as an organisation devoted to getting cyclists off the road. Its biggest funding initiatives are the Bikeability National Standard Cycle Training scheme, which is all about giving children the skills needed to cycle in traffic; and the demonstration towns, which are trying out a range of different approaches to cycling of which infrastructure is only a part.

http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/training.php

http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/demotowns.php

Also see CE's Design Checklist, which emphasises the Hierarchy of Measures:

http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/engineering2e.php

Brightsparkcp · June 2007

So I take it that you are happy with the rest of the HC and that you have complete faith in the CTC and for that matter CE.

BTW I did not say (or certainly did not intend to say) that CE or CTC want to get us off the road. That is just my opinion of Sustrans, who do sterling work building off road cycle facilities that motorists insist that we must use.

I still maintain though that having ones hand on a large purse can affect the way that you treat your benefactor. In this case the DfT.

My point was not that these organisations are working against our interests but that we should not rely on them alone to stand up for our rights or believe that they are going to represent our true views or interests. Their decision may be based on a different set of criteria tempered by how they get their funding and the direction of their member's activities.

Simon L2 · June 2007

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

I still maintain though that having ones hand on a large purse can affect the way that you treat your benefactor. In this case the DfT.

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

you have evidence to back this up? Seriously.

Brightsparkcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

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

I still maintain though that having ones hand on a large purse can affect the way that you treat your benefactor. In this case the DfT.

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

you have evidence to back this up? Seriously.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

What do you mean, back this up? Back up what? Read the sentence and the context.
I am not saying that the CTC are corrupt, if that is what you are reading. I am just pointing out that they get money from the Government œ5 million for CE and œ300,000 for promoting green issues.

The CTC do some valuable work, along with BC and CTT and I am sure a few other organizations.

However they all have to compromise.
They have to compromise when they negotiate, they have to compromise if they want to be invited back to the negotiating table, they have to compromise if they want to ensure that more money is available for cycling. Either through CE or CTC or whatever.

If you can live with that compromise then that is ok. But if you are unhappy with that, and we were with those two rules, then we have to put pressure on both the organizations and the Government.
My only beef is that there seems to be no further pressure to get the other rules in the HC changed. We just have a press release telling us that they have done a very good job.

So I ask the question again.
Are you happy with the new version of the HC?

Simon L2 · June 2007

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

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

I still maintain though that having ones hand on a large purse can affect the way that you treat your benefactor. In this case the DfT.

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

you have evidence to back this up? Seriously.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

What do you mean, back this up? Back up what? Read the sentence and the context.
I am not saying that the CTC are corrupt, if that is what you are reading. I am just pointing out that they get money from the Government œ5 million for CE and œ300,000 for promoting green issues.

The CTC do some valuable work, along with BC and CTT and I am sure a few other organizations.

However they all have to compromise.
They have to compromise when they negotiate, they have to compromise if they want to be invited back to the negotiating table, they have to compromise if they want to ensure that more money is available for cycling. Either through CE or CTC or whatever.

If you can live with that compromise then that is ok. But if you are unhappy with that, and we were with those two rules, then we have to put pressure on both the organizations and the Government.
My only beef is that there seems to be no further pressure to get the other rules in the HC changed. We just have a press release telling us that they have done a very good job.

So I ask the question again.
Are you happy with the new version of the HC?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
so

in answer to your question - given where we were a year ago, very happy. 40 amendments is pretty good going. And, yes, we are pleased with ourselves.

now - setting aside your smutty little insinuation that the CTC would amend it's position in the hope of getting cash from the DfT (*) who exactly, is this 'we' that will bring pressure on the cycling organisations? Because, in case you haven't noticed, there is a 'we' already in the substantial shape of our members, who pay their dues, organise our rides, respond in their thousands to our campaigns, get on the phone to their Councillors when they're not happy, contribute to the mag..... those are the people that the CTC has to listen to. We hold the interests of all cyclists dear, but our members tell us what they expect, and have a right to expect because they've signed up.

If you prefer to just sit on the sidelines and carp, or even to insinuate that we trim for cash, you can be sure that your Councillors will treat your putting 'pressure on the organisations' with the seriousness it deserves.[:D] So, answer me this - are you a member?

(*) and, since you're completely ignorant, let me tell you that the CTC went in to the highway code thing knowing full well that it would provoke in Stephen Ladyman a spitting fury, which it duly did. And how on earth threatening a judicial review, which would have parked the entire code for a year, can be seen as cosying up to your paymasters is beyond me.

Brightsparkcp · June 2007

Are you saying that one has to be a member of an organisation to question its values?
I will remember that whenever I read anything about _____-_____.

I feel that you have totally misunderstood the point of what I was trying to say and have happily waved the wrong end of the stick about, and that is a shame.

Perhaps we can get back to the subject in hand now.
What is the progress of the HC?
Does anybody know what the final wording is going to be?
Is there going to be any change to Rule 59 re helmets.
And 66 riding two abreast.
Has anyone seriously (oh sorry I forgot that I am a [:o)]) looked at the implications of rule 82?

What, for the benefit of us smutty Ignoramuses', does the link posted by me on 20/6/07 mean?

Jeremy Parker · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

[snip]

So I ask the question again.
Are you happy with the new version of the HC?

so

in answer to your question - given where we were a year ago, very happy. 40 amendments is pretty good going. And, yes, we are pleased with ourselves.

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

Well, so you should be. Churchill would probably have said something about a "brief moment of rejoicing" in similar cirumstances.

But this is only a battle won, only a breathing space, and not a complete victory - they never are - at that. The war isn't won yet, and won't be for a long time.

The enemies of cycling underestimated us this time, but they will not do that again.

I've seen what their next move will be. I saw it a quarter of a century ago, and it was old then, buried in an unvisited filing cabinet three and a half thousand miles from London. It was an international treaty of Ministers of Transport.

I warn everybody to watch for, and head off, an EU directive requiring us to use facilities. What does this new not-a-consitution EU treaty say about the EU's powers regarding transport?

And it's not too soon to start planning, quietly, for the next Highway Code, eight or ten years from now.

Jeremy Parker

Tourist Tony · June 2007

In summary, I am a member of the CTC and have watched events carefully. I have made comments, joined lobbying groups, and but for work reasons would have been at the agm with friends to put my point of view.
I am very happy with the way they have influenced the HC changes, but still not satisfied. The problem is with HMG and others.
To say they must be in some form of covertly corrupt relationship because they have arrived at a negotiated settlement is daft.

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Yorkshireman · July 2007

A reply from No 10 regarding the petition to change the Highway Code Rules etc.
via email this afternoon http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page12275.asp :roll: .

dondare · July 2007

" Any delay in issuing the Code would mean delaying the benefits of applying all the improved advice for all road users that it contains, including advice to motorists to be more aware of vulnerable road users such as cyclists."

Bolllox. They should concentrate on getting it right then it won't be giving cyclists dangerous advice, there won't be any more objections and they can get the thing into print without any further delays.

skut · July 2007

I like the new wording, because it says quite clearly that use of cycle lanes is not compulsory.

dondare · July 2007

It still says that they can make your journey safer. Since such evidence as there is indicates that they are much more likely to make your jouney more hazardous, this is misleading.

Bugcp · July 2007

I think that saying they can make your journey safer is fine. In some cases, I'm sure they can. If had said will make it safer, then I would have had a problem.

Yorkshireman · July 2007

Thinking of this subject (HC). I am wondering how many road users (in the widest meaning of the term term) have a fairly recent copy - and look at it sometimes (my copy is a couple of years old, but I have it on line in Favourites). I understand why its important that we are aware of what`s in there from a legal point, but despite the recent hooha re the rule changes, how many `normal` road users actually know/understand how they are supposed to `conduct` themselves on the roads. Apart from the legal/insurance liability how much use is the HC if not too many are up to date on it... Does it need a higher profile ie advertising?
Comments welcome :roll: .

Propsed changes to HC published

Comments

Categories