View Full Version : Highway Code Changes
Don't get your hopes up. These are my proposals only, and
unlikely to make it to the Code. Unless....
<url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documen-
ts/HC_Changes>
(too hard to post a summary).
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
On 1/5/04 10:26 pm, in article ed58901sdgfpichor2phb4s9j3sr1i3c3r@4ax.com,
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Don't get your hopes up. These are my proposals only, and
> unlikely to make it to the Code. Unless....
>
> <url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Docum-
> ents/HC_Changes>
>
> (too hard to post a summary).
One of your pictures doesn't work.. the overtaking path one.
>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle
> after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
>
> 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
> Washington University
Personally I'd like to see something in words of one
syllable to tell any clueless cager that cyclists do *not*
have to use any cycle lane, cycle path or any other form of
cycle farcility... and that cyclists can use the road if
they so wish (unless it's a motorway).
Cheers, helen s :-)
--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get
correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$
--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel
is switched off--
In message <BCB9DBB0.13D83%d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk>,
David Martin
<d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk> writes
>On 1/5/04 10:26 pm, in article
>ed58901sdgfpichor2phb4s9j3sr1i3c3r@4ax.com, "Just zis Guy,
>you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> Don't get your hopes up. These are my proposals only, and
>> unlikely to make it to the Code. Unless....
>>
>> <url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Docu-
>> ments/HC_Changes>
>>
>> (too hard to post a summary).
>
>One of your pictures doesn't work.. the overtaking
>path one.
>
Seems fine here.
--
Chris French, Leeds
"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <wafflycathcs@aol.comcomcom> wrote in
message news:20040501181903.24684.00000698@mb-m29.aol.com...
> Personally I'd like to see something in words of one
> syllable to tell any clueless cager that cyclists do *not*
> have to use any cycle lane, cycle
path or
> any other form of cycle farcility... and that cyclists can
> use the road if
they
> so wish (unless it's a motorway).
>
> Cheers, helen s :-)
>
> --This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get
> correct one remove fame & fortune
> h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$
>
> --Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the
> tunnel is switched
off--
>
Doesn't matter how many silly-bells you use Helen, they
still don't read it. I guess it's already in there, just
using bigger growed-up words... ;-) Dave ('course, I'm well
up on the H/C - ahem!)
Hi Guy,
Is the 'Code up for revision again? I haven't seen any
consultation papers on this. If so where are they and has
the deadline for comments passed yet? Last time around the
CTC put in plenty of recommendations but I haven't heard
anything from them either.
The Code certainly needs reviewing so as to put much more
responsibility for the safety of other road users onto
drivers. Unfortunately the motor lobby has always used the
code to promote its own car-centred view of 'road safety'.
For example, it was the motor lobby who got in the 'rule'
in that pedestrians should walk on the right hand side of
a road facing towards the traffic. Previously a driver
might well be held responsible for running someone down
from behind. However, this rule allowed drivers to evade
their responsibilities by claiming it was the pedestrians
fault for not looking out for a speeding car and jumping
out of the way!
Unfortunately it often seems that the 'Code is only quoted
when this allows the blame for any injury to be pushed
onto the cyclist ("they were not wearing a helmet" being a
favourite). In comparison the courts seems to make very
little of the fact that a driver may have killed or
injured a cyclist as a result of ingnoring the contents of
the code...
It would also be good to see some new advice such as "do
not fit 'bull bars' to your vehicle", "do not use
products to add tint or a reflective surface to your
windows" and so on...
Regards,
Howard.
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
> Personally I'd like to see something in words of one
> syllable to tell any clueless cager that cyclists do *not*
> have to use any cycle lane, cycle path or any other form
> of cycle farcility... and that cyclists can use the road
> if they so wish (unless it's a motorway).
>
The Highway Code's not the place to put it. Tattooed across
the windscreen is what's needed a bit like the Americans
have "Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear"
tattooed on their wing mirrors ;-)
Tony
On 2 May 2004 01:07:26 -0700, findaddress@thebikezone.org.uk (Howard)
wrote in message <8985d795.0405020007.5b33785f@posting.google.com>:
>Is the 'Code up for revision again? I haven't seen any
>consultation papers on this. If so where are they and has
>the deadline for comments passed yet? Last time around the
>CTC put in plenty of recommendations but I haven't heard
>anything from them either.
Not as far as I'm aware, but that's not going to stop me
from writing to them :-)
>Unfortunately it often seems that the 'Code is only quoted
>when this allows the blame for any injury to be pushed onto
>the cyclist ("they were not wearing a helmet" being a
>favourite).
Correct. Dr Bob wants that clause out :-)
Also the ABD want a clause to the effect that you must not
delay faster moving traffic, which is clearly intended to
help them bully people out of the way when ignoring the
sections on speeding.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> Also the ABD want a clause to the effect that you must not
> delay faster moving traffic, which is clearly intended to
> help them bully people out of the way when ignoring the
> sections on speeding.
>
I'd applaud that on my morning commute past the queues
of cars ;-)
Tony
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ed58901sdgfpichor2phb4s9j3sr1i3c3r@4ax.com...
> Don't get your hopes up. These are my proposals only, and
> unlikely to make it to the Code. Unless....
>
> <url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Docum-
> ents/HC_Changes>
>
> (too hard to post a summary).
Stationary is spelt as per the office stuff in rule 49 and
there's a "thier" in the next line ;-) Simon
>"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" wrote Personally I'd
>like to see something in words of one syllable to tell
any
> clueless cager that cyclists do *not* have to use any
> cycle lane, cycle
path or
> any other form of cycle farcility... and that cyclists can
> use the road
if they
> so wish (unless it's a motorway). Cheers, helen s :-)
As someone firmly in the middle on the facilities/no-
facilities debate I strongly agree with this and we
definately need to see this in the next HC revision.
I definately think facilities have a place when done well -
I've just done an across-York trip with my 3 children - the
7 year old simply couldn't have done the trip without an off
road link. All my children - including my 3 year old to
nursery - cycle to school on solos thanks to a well designed
Sustrans link.
So I support good facilities - but I take road alternatives
myself and have been on the receiving end of hassle when
there's a cyclepath next to the road. I totally agree that
the right to use roads without hassle needs firmly stating
in the next HC.
Paul D.
On Sat, 01 May 2004 22:26:15 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote this:-
><url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Docume-
>nts/HC_Changes>
>Rule 49 Amend as follows: Cycle Lanes. These are marked by
>a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway
>(see Rule 119). You should keep within the lane if it is
>safe to do so.
I would reverse this. You should only stay in the lane if it
the safest thing to do. Turning right from a cycle lane on
the left of a road is particularly dangerous.
>Rule 139 when passing pedestrians, motorcyclists, cyclists
>and horse riders, slow down and leave at least as much room
>as you would a car when overtaking, not less than four feet
>(see Rules 188, 189 and 191)
Two things. Firstly the "as much room as a car" bit was
presumably devised by the road lobby. I would simply give
a distance.
Secondly, having spoken about riding a metre out it would be
better to stick to real measurements for this rule.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Nice work, Guy! It is all so reasonable and sensible. But no
doubt some little jobsworth will have 100 reasons why it
can't be done.
--
Peter Headland
Of course, what would be really sensible would be if some MP
dedicated to the safety and wellbeing of cyclists would take
this up. And maybe a well-funded lobbying organisation could
help. Such a pity our friend Eric and the folks at BHIT are
all tied up with that H*lm*t business, ain't it?
--
Peter Headland
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote in message news:<ed58901sdgfpichor2phb4s9j3sr1i3c3r@4ax.com>...
> Don't get your hopes up. These are my proposals only, and
> unlikely to make it to the Code. Unless....
>
> <url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Docum-
> ents/HC_Changes>
I don't like the idea of defining a distance to ride out
from the kerb. 1. this is too prescriptive 2. the kerb is
not what you should be using to define your riding position.
Riding position should be relative to the road position of
other traffic. I would replace 1 metre with something like
"it is usually safest to ride somewhere between the inside
and outside wheel tracks of any cars in the same lane as you
unless the lane is wider than [ed. look up Jeremy Parker's
definition of a wide lane] metres"
best wishes james
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
