HW Code: Government see sense at last.

Howardcp · May 2007

Highway Code cracked: more than 40 rules changed!

Campaign Update

Following a high-profile campaign from CTC, the Government has agreed to amend the Highway Code to improve cyclists' safety and to encourage drivers to take more care around vulnerable road users.

In total over 40 rules have been changed to the benefit of cyclists.

The new version makes clear that cyclists have every right to cycle on the road. Rules 61 and 63 state that cycle lanes and cycle facilities, are "not compulsory" and the decision to use them "will depend on your experience and skills".

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4568

Unknown · May 2007

Cheers for the heads-up Howard, that's great news!

Fab Foodie · May 2007

Party Time!
Thanks for the update, well done CTC and other campaigners.

The pessimists of this world are rarely disappointed....
Fab's TCR1

stelvio · May 2007

tremendous news
thankyou everybody who campaigned for this.

Jokull · May 2007

Excellent news.

Cab · May 2007

Well, we're getting there... I still don't like rule 61

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Rule 61: Cycle Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Theres still the risk of being accused of contributory negligence there. It is valid not to use an off road facility at the moment if it is just badly laid out or inconvenient, this rule implies that even if it IS bad, we should still use it if it is safe. Thats naff.

This, however, is better:

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Rule 63: Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway. When using a cycle lane, keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That isn't just better, its bloody marvellous if thats what we get.

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

Tourist Tony · May 2007

Yes!!!!!!!Not perfect but so much better!

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

linfordlunchbox · May 2007

It sounds like a good result if it's the end product.

It makes you wonder how the decision making process works on the initial writeup !

Pringlecp · May 2007

Great News!!!!!

Another year older, another Budweiser

Regulator · May 2007

I hate to say it (as my head is likely to be bitten off by some people here) but I think we have the Lords to thank for this change in heart by the Department of Transport.

They may be old duffers but they are usually better informed than the Commons. And they know how to make the Government change their mind...

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!

zimzum42 · May 2007

The lords are always a damn sight more sensible than the commons mob!!!

Anyways, all we have to do now is get car drivers actually to read the HC, something much harder than the campaign ove rthe cycle lane rules!!!!!

[:D] www.addiscombe.org [8D] [8D] www.darhotwire.com [8D] [8D] www.muzikmedia.com [:D]
My Bikes My Commute

Regulator · May 2007

There is another explanation (please excuse the conspiracy theory)... [8D]

Tony Blair was pushing for the Highway Code changes to be anti-cycling because David Cameron is a cyclist. Now that Tony Bliar is off on his 'farewell tour of places he's patronised' perhaps the civil servants have felt that it is safe to get rid of his stupid changes. [:D]

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!

wafflycat · May 2007

I'm giving a cautious welcome. I'll finally believe it when I see it in print in the HC, so to speak. *Everyone* who has taken the time to publicise the proposed adverse changes to the HC, write to their MP, get other cyclists interested enough to do the same, will deserve a pat on the back if the adverse changes are not adopted into the final version of the HC.

<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>

magnatom · May 2007

Rule 61 contradicts itself a little. It says use the facilities unless it is unsafe. It then says it is not compulsory.

I suppose I will be ok, because I nearly always think the cycling facilities are unsafe![:0]

However, they are a vast improvement if finally implemented.

Well done everyone![:D]

Archcp · May 2007

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

Rule 61 contradicts itself a little. It says use the facilities unless it is unsafe. It then says it is not compulsory.

I suppose I will be ok, because I nearly always think the cycling facilities are unsafe![:0]

However, they are a vast improvement if finally implemented.

Well done everyone![:D]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yeah, but it doesn't say "you MUST use them unless it is unsafe", so I guess it's just advising, but giving you the option to not use them...

Good news, however, as zimzum says, now all we have to do is get Joe Average to actually read not just the parts of the HW Code he thinks will get him through his test, but ALL of it...

Or, once it's printed, all carry a copy and if abused, do a little education...

If I had a baby elephant, it could help me clean the car. If I had a car.

dondare · May 2007

I still don't like it. The vast majority of cycle facilities are crap so any suggestion that they can make your journey safer is misleading. It would be more helpful to advise all cyclists to ignore them and admit that there are specific dangers associated with cycle lanes, tracks &c. that can make your journey much more hazardous.
On the plus side, it's better than it was going to be.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

chewa · May 2007

better wording but as most drivers don't know about the "no more than two abreast" will it make a difference in day to day cycling? (Accident claims aside)

plus je vois les hommes, plus j'admire les chiens

Simon L2 · May 2007

I wouldn't have thought that it would make any difference to those of us who already cycle.

The underlying message is that the government is getting the message that spending money on cycling lanes may not be a good thing.

I think it was less a question of the Lords getting antsy (although we do have Law Lord members) and more a question of Young Geffen's strongarm tactics. Don't annoy Roger. He looks like a nice sort of chap. That's a front.

Anyway, the civil servants will take the rap. The next question is - who will replace Ladyman on, or after, the 27th June? And how do we get the point across to him or her.

on the road · May 2007

I'm with wafflycat on this one, although it's great news, I won't be happy until I see it in Black and White.

Flying_Monkey · May 2007

Excellent news - well done everyone!

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

mjones · May 2007

Well done CTC! What a campaign! This is what we pay our membership for, and there are few things cyclists have had better value for this year!

robbiew · May 2007

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

I wouldn't have thought that it would make any difference to those of us who already cycle.

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

It does make a difference to me. I can think of two particularly crap bits of cycle lane. One is round the outside of a roundabout and one is at a traffic island. The improved wording allows me to take the primary position with confidence. If any following driver doesn't like it, its because of their ignorance, not because I am transgressing any rules. The revised wording allows power of choosing the best road position to remain with the person who knows best (ie me) and that matters every day, not just after an accident. Well done CTC, an organisation I am proud to be a member of.

Asterixcp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by robbiew
Well done CTC, an organisation I am proud to be a member of.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Seconded.

Pour vivre heureux, vivons le v‚lo..

TomF · May 2007

I'd say I am broadly happy, save for the use of the word "can" in the context of "can make your journey safer".

The inference here is that the cycles lanes are still the safer option. I would prefer that "can" was replaced with "may"; "may/may not" is rather more balanced that "can/cannot".

However, being rather more cycnical, I guess those responsible for the roads and driving standards wouldn't like the suggestion that cycling facilities "may not" be safe to use!

dondare · May 2007

How about "cycle lanes can give an illusion of safety".
Better wording would be "Cycle-lanes and other facilties offer no protection whatsoever and are best ignored".

Baby elephants? Pah!!

Axel_Knutt · May 2007

Ok,so how long until the next revision of the HC is published, and the whole fiasco starts all over again?

Archcp · May 2007

But I think some lanes 'can' be the safer option. Or more pleasant perhaps. If a facility avoids me having to use a nasty multi-lane junction or a busy fast road, or gives me a crossing point, I'll use it. But the point about the difference between 'can' and 'may' is a good one. You could (might?) read 'can' as to mean 'will', but actually, in this context I think it takes on the 'may' meaning... So yes, maybe they might as well use may...

I've confused myself now...

Perhaps, wherever there is a sign denoting a cycle facility, there should be one underneath saying "Not compulsory" - might be the only way some drivers ever find out...

How often is the HC revised? I'd like to see a pamphlet with a print-out of changes sent to every registered driver (or every household!), which might avoid some of the situations where rules change or are added and people just don't find out. After all, I doubt many people ever buy a Highway Code again once they pass their test.

If I had a baby elephant, it could help me clean the car. If I had a car.

Brightsparkcp · May 2007

From the CTC statement
"There will be a short stakeholder-only consultation to confirm that all parties are happy with the final wording, and the new version will go into effect before the summer."

The stakeholders being I guess CYCLING ENGLAND, its aim is
"More people cycling more safely, more often".
This organisation includes Sustrans, who we know love cycle lanes and paths (even the bad ones) as well as CTC and BC. This body gets an annual budget of œ5 million. A sum that is peanuts in the world of cars and lorries but significant to the cycling bodies that make up CE. I wonder if this sum of money affects their judgement?
They also have the burden of their aim, which seems to direct any train of thought to cycle lanes and paths off the busy roads away from those nasty cars.

Rule 61. As far as I can see it is still telling me to use Cycle routes and facilities.Cycle routes are different to cycle lanes and are chosen on a criteria of the quietest route and have been risk assessed by local cycle user groups. How can I argue that they are not safe when my peers have already decided that they are?

As someone involved in cycle sport, I can still see that this may give me a problem when devising and approving courses. When creating a course (mainly for time trials) I have to consider not only the law but also the HC advice so as to avoid any future litigation. I cannot see how I can argue that it unsafe to use a facility "at the time", I will only run an event at times when the traffic is low, my problem is that it is unsuitable or diversionary.

Perhaps someone else can help me find a form of words to get me out of this muddle.
What happens if a cycle route is placed on a road next to a TT course or a cycle path is installed alongside a road that we currently use?

Rule 63: Cycle Lanes. Again I am not happy with this wording. It looks awful and confusing. How can the use of these depend on my experience and skills, do I have to be more skilled to use these so my journey is safer?
It also ignores the original objection in that cyclist should be further out from the kerb than most of these lanes are wide.

Further on the CTC site is

"CTC will be pressing for a couple of changes to tidy up the final version, and is asking cyclists to support us by signing an online petition."
I am nervous of this "tidying up". Bearing in mind that the original mess was a tidying up exercise, it means that wording can be changed again.

I am with Wafflecat. I want to see the final draft. In the meantime the whole thing is rotten.

It also does not address the many other problems with the cyclist section of the HC. Which are rules 59 helmets and clothing, 66 two abreast riding around bends and narrow roads, 70 how to park my bike, 77 riding around the outside of roundabouts, 82 cyclist dismount sign.

Sorry, but I don't think that this is good enough.

dondare · May 2007

"Rule 61: Cycle Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

Rule 63: Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway. When using a cycle lane, keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer."

This is using a lot of words to say that you don't have to use them.
It is an attempt to justify the existance of the infernal things.
Also, when you accidently stray into one you're expected to make a three-course meal of getting out of it again.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

davidmam · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Brightspark
[
Rule 61. As far as I can see it is still telling me to use Cycle routes and facilities.Cycle routes are different to cycle lanes and are chosen on a criteria of the quietest route and have been risk assessed by local cycle user groups. How can I argue that they are not safe when my peers have already decided that they are?

As someone involved in cycle sport, I can still see that this may give me a problem when devising and approving courses. When creating a course (mainly for time trials) I have to consider not only the law but also the HC advice so as to avoid any future litigation. I cannot see how I can argue that it unsafe to use a facility "at the time", I will only run an event at times when the traffic is low, my problem is that it is unsuitable or diversionary.

Perhaps someone else can help me find a form of words to get me out of this muddle.
What happens if a cycle route is placed on a road next to a TT course or a cycle path is installed alongside a road that we currently use?

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

DoT advice for cyclists is that they are safer on teh road if doing more than 18mph. I don't know many people who do less than 18mph during a TT. You have an instant get out.

You have risk assessed a course for travel by bike at a particular speed and purpose. You have similarly assessed the alternatives as being unsuitable for the purpose due to safety or other reasons.

Shouldn't be a problem. It is perfectly acceptable to expect a cyclist to be doing 30mph on the flat. On the road. It is entirely unacceptable to expect them to do that on a cycle path.

..d

Fat bloke on a bike

robbiew · May 2007

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

From the CTC statement
"
It also does not address the many other problems with the cyclist section of the HC. Which are rules 59 helmets and clothing, 66 two abreast riding around bends and narrow roads, 70 how to park my bike, 77 riding around the outside of roundabouts, 82 cyclist dismount sign.

Sorry, but I don't think that this is good enough.

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

sorry brightspark, but can you let me know which version you are getting that numbering from? Are you looking at the existing code or a draft?

HW Code: Government see sense at last.

Comments

Categories