HW Code: Government see sense at last.

2»

Comments

  • Brightsparkcp
    Brightsparkcp Posts: 135
    robbiew,
    The draft. (I just hope that I have the correct numbers)

    davidmam,
    As I see it, if the HC says that we have to use a Cycle lane if it is provided, then we would be in a difficult position to approve a course that ran along the main carrigeway. As the course will then run along a cycle path we would have abandon the course as riders would be going over the recommended speed limit.

    At the moment we will have to stick to staus quo and see what happens. But some of us in CTT still have very bad memories of 2003. My mind is concentrated on what I would be saying in the witness box if it all goes wrong.
  • Pete Owens
    Pete Owens Posts: 62
    A good result, but dreadful wording. Probably the result of officials needing to save face.

    It would have been much better to use the form of words:
    "You May use...."
    that the HC uses for all other things that are optional.


    Pete
    Pete
  • robbiew
    robbiew Posts: 68
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Brightspark</i>

    robbiew,
    The draft. (I just hope that I have the correct numbers)

    davidmam,
    As I see it, if the HC says that we have to use a Cycle lane if it is provided, then we would be in a difficult position to approve a course that ran along the main carrigeway. As the course will then run along a cycle path we would have abandon the course as riders would be going over the recommended speed limit.

    At the moment we will have to stick to staus quo and see what happens. But some of us in CTT still have very bad memories of 2003. My mind is concentrated on what I would be saying in the witness box if it all goes wrong.

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

    I agree with David, hat under the new wording:

    "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....."

    you have no problem. Patently it will be unsafe to use these facilities if at the time you are going in excess of 18mph.

    Think you have nubmers wrong on the other rules you have problems with, but perhaps broadening it out is best left for another thread.
  • gad
    gad Posts: 82
    The new wording is far better than the original proposal. We'll not get perfection in a car centric world.

    Gad lays back and pedals slowly away, poor old soul. Elephants are people too! Arch for PM. 'Every home fit for baby elephants!'
    Gad lays back and pedals slowly away, poor old soul. Elephants are people too! Arch for PM. \'Every home fit for baby elephants!\'
  • Brightsparkcp
    Brightsparkcp Posts: 135
    I just checked. The numbers are correct to the current draft. The problems have been raised on other threads now long forgotten as we seem to have been putting all our efforts into these two rules. Perhaps becuase these are the worst.

    As for TT and other courses, as I said, we will carry on until National give guidance that changes the situation.

    I would prefer the words that Pete Owens suggests; "You may use..." the current proposal "Use..." is very specific, even with that nonsense at the end.
  • Simon L2
    Simon L2 Posts: 2,908
    this change of heart has put the responsibility where it belongs - on us. If we're grown up enough to ride on the road then we're grown up enough to decide, on the basis of our experience, whether we should be on the carriageway or on the parallel path.
  • dondare
    dondare Posts: 2,113
    Up til now, the HC has used a kind of "Janet and John" format which is very patronizing. These paragraphs read like something translated into Enlgish and it is unlikely that the final draft will use these exact words:-

    "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."

    It would be a lot better for all concerned if the advice was simply:-

    "Rule 61: Cycle Facilities. The use of cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings is optional."

    "Rule 63: Cycle lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway. Their use is entirely optional. Do not expect them to make your journey any safer."


    Ideally, the HC would differentiate between cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings and explain how they should be used correctly and what advantages they provide. It would also explain how to recognize poorly-designed cycle-lane and advise against their use; for example:
    "Do not use cycle-lanes which are less than the width of a car; do not use cycle-lanes which are too close to parked cars; when approaching junctions do not use a cycle-lane next to the kerb if you are going straight ahead"; and so on.



    Baby elephants? Pah!!
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • magnatom
    magnatom Posts: 492
    There is a press release with regards to these changes from the Department of Transport.
    http://tinyurl.com/yvh8er

    Look carefully further down
    <i>Following the public consultation on proposed changes to the Highway Code in 2006, more than 40 changes were made to the cycling rules and elsewhere in the Code to improve cyclists' safety. These were included in the proposed new Code laid before Parliament in March 2007. We are now proposing 2 further changes.</i>

    According to this it would appear that they are <b>only</b> going to make changes to these two rules and not to any of the other issues that cyclists had with the draft (i.e. rule 77).

    There is no way I will cycle around the the outside of the left lane on roundabouts. That is downright dangerous!

    (edited with correct rule number)
  • wafflycat
    wafflycat Posts: 359
    From The Daily Wail

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=458746&in_page_id=1770

    "Highway code changed to aid cyclists"



    <font size="1"><center><b><i>~~~~~
    Any problem can be solved by the application of duck tape,
    copious use of cable ties
    and the wearing of fluorescent yellow Lycra
    ~~~~~ </i></b></center></font id="size1">
    ~~~~~
    Any problem can be solved by the application of duck tape,
    copious use of cable ties
    and the wearing of fluorescent yellow Lycra
    ~~~~~
  • magnatom
    magnatom Posts: 492
    That looks more promising than the DfT's own press release. Maybe, just maybe the Daily Wail got something right for a change...[:0]
  • magnatom
    magnatom Posts: 492
    Actually it's still not clear from the Wail
    <i>The CTC identified two rules which cover cycle facilities and cycle lanes as causing particular controversy, which it said have been amended.

    The DfT said that the amendment of these two rules was a new development and that other amendments relating to cyclists had been dealt with previously. </i>

    The other rules hadn't been dealt with previously. We will just have to wait until the next draft is published. Does anyone know when that will be?
  • Brightsparkcp
    Brightsparkcp Posts: 135
    I have noticed that the link on the CTC site to the Highway code points to the original draft.

    This the one lying the House of Commons.
    http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/consult ... _Draft.pdf

Categories