highway code rules 61 and 63
ScottDougall
Posts: 912
it seems that the NO 10 petition site does have an influence and that they have made positive changes to the proposed rules such that we will not be compelled to use rubbish cycle lanes...
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page12275.asp
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page12275.asp
...its the legs that count !
0
Comments
-
...excellent...common sense prevails it seems
...all the way...'til the wheels fall off and burn...0 -
Good news!
Around the London area many of the cycle lanes/routes are more of liability than a help and you are usually better off on the road, especially if you are experienced and confident.
It does makes a nice change to feel that people in positions of authority and power are actually listening to us though, rather than always seeming to 'know better'.
Well done for listening and deciding on the side of common sense!
Let's keep moving in the right direction.Now living happily at http://www.uk-mtb.com !!0 -
ScottDougall wrote:it seems that the NO 10 petition site does have an influence and that they have made positive changes to the proposed rules such that we will not be compelled to use rubbish cycle lanes...
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page12275.asp
Not just the petition, though, a lot of cyclists wrote to their MPs and the CTC was working hard to get the new wording changed. It all probably helped.This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
...yes of course, let's not forget the CTC ...I'm a member, have been for years. The more members they have the louder their voice. Join if you're not already a member... ...all the way...'til the wheels fall off and burn...0
-
I'm not sure it is such a victory, an improvement, yes, but the wording is loaded: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.
So it places the onus on the cyclist to demonstrate that it was unsafe to use ASL's etc in the event of an accident - the defaukt position will be the assumtion that it can make your journey safer0 -
Perhaps we should continue to fight. I'm not totally happy with the latest version; thewording is very clumsy and still includes the lie about cycling facilities being safe.This post contains traces of nuts.0
-
I don't see much of a problem now it contains the phrase "Use of these facilities is not compulsory".--
If I had a baby elephant signature, I\'d use that.0 -
Why does it have to say that they can make your journey safer? Most of the time they don't; it would be more accurate to say that they can make your journey less safe.This post contains traces of nuts.0
-
From "they can make your journey safer" I infer "but they can also make your journey less safe in certain circumstances". Whether they meant to imply this is another matter.
Being safe on the road (for cyclists at least) is not about following a strict set of rules. It's about knowing when to apply some rules (such as being assertive and using the primary position) and knowing when to let these go and simply let the traffic past you (even if it means pulling over and slowing down).--
If I had a baby elephant signature, I\'d use that.0 -
I can't imagine the govt ever changing that, because it would mean admitting that almost the entire green paint campaign has been an utter waste of money and effort.0
-
The Cycle Campaign Network is not happy about the changes. They say that the main basic objection still remains: that cyclists will be open to contributary negligence claims if they fail to use a cycle facility and are involved in a crash with another vehicle. See this:
http://www.cyclenetwork.org.uk/latest/latest.html#ccnhcFCN 7 (4 weekdays)
FCN 11 (1 weekday)
There is an old cyclist called Leigh (not me!)
Who's pedalling's a blur to see
So fast is his action
The Lorenz Contraction
Shortens his bike to a "T"0 -
OrbitRider wrote:The Cycle Campaign Network is not happy about the changes. They say that the main basic objection still remains: that cyclists will be open to contributary negligence claims if they fail to use a cycle facility and are involved in a crash with another vehicle. See this:
http://www.cyclenetwork.org.uk/latest/latest.html#ccnhc
My concern exactly!0 -
dondare wrote:Why does it have to say that they can make your journey safer?
That's one of those statements like "Your call is important to us" The very fact that they have to say it not only proves that it isn't true, but proves that they know it isn't true. The whole world will recognise this, so, in spite of the exact wording, it's a good thing the words are there.
Jeremy Parker0 -
I think the wording is tricksy and still leaves you open to be sued, you might have to explain why you weren't using the cycle lane
typical labour grey area that satisfies no-one and leaves it confused0 -
Personally, I agree that cycle lanes etc CAN make a journey safer in SOME circumstances and i think the wording is OK, and I would be happy to fight my corner in the event "something happens". That of course assumes I have the ability to fight after the "event". Fact is, it's about as good as it will ever get. What do people want? - The Highway Code to say "actually you can do what the hell you like, and you'll always be blameless" ??0
-
If I was ever asked why I don't use the cycle lanes on my commute, I would point to the numerous times I've had to email Streetcare about the fact they are often covered in glass for days on end, frequently strewn with pedestrians ignoring the markings, very often blocked by cars - and buses - dropping off passengers in town (anyone who knows Derby - Exeter Bridge near the Council House every single morning!) and never gritted in winter.
No 'reasonable' person would consider they were making my journey safer - I think they'd agree I was safer on the road!
Edited by beanzontoast looking ever so carefully for mistakes0
