Advance notice: HC revision

Just zis Guy said:

HMG are about to consider a major revision of the Highway Code. Now
is the time to start getting your thoughts in order.

3 specific things I would want are:

1) An explicit statement that, unless otherwise prohibited, cyclists
are allowed to use public highways *even when there are cycle paths or
lanes nearby*. 'The prescence of cycle oaths or lanes in the vicinity
does NOT reduce the rights of cyclists to use the highway or the care
that should be shown to them by other road users'.

2) This needs care, but I think on balance, cyclists would benefit from
a specific statement about speed and clearance of motor vehicles
passing cyclists.

3) A specific statement about the role of ASLs as a pro-safety feature
and hence the risks that motorists (including PTW's) may pose by
ingnoring their stop line and invading them.

I'm sure there will be many others. I hope that cycling, perhaps led by
CTC, will devise some specific worded amendments to increase the chance
of them being taken up by HMG.
Paul

Just zis Guy said:

The reason for this is that, at present, rule 139
(http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.htm#139) has exactly the same weight
as rule 47 (http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm#47, notwithstanding
the fact that this rule is actually contradicted by some research).

The do not have the same weight:

139: Overtake only when it is safe to do so. You should (list snipped)

47: Use cycle routes when practicable. They can make your journey safer.

The "must" vs "should" distinction is an important one.

"must" = you break the law if you don not do this, accident or not.

"Should" = if there is an accident and you were doing something different
the onus is on you to demonstrate that what you were doing was appropriate

Without a "must" or "should" it is just motherhood and apple pie advice or
description.

Which is just what you are advocating!

[which means of course that the "should" in #45: Clothing. You should
wear...(snipped) is incorrect]

pk

"Paul" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

lanes nearby*. 'The prescence of cycle oaths or lanes in the vicinity

^^^^^

Lovely typo, Paul. Do they make you swear too ;-) ?

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

Quoted message said:

Lovely typo, Paul. Do they make you swear too ;-) ?

Whoops!
Paul

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

notwithstanding the fact that this rule is actually contradicted by some research

Not exactly. It is true that they "can" make your journey safer - this
is not contradicted by the fact they "usually" make your journey less
safe.

You are right to bring this up. I remember a long struggle during the
last revision, where the compilers wanted something like "you should
use cycle paths where they exist, do not cycle on the road if there is
a cycle path nearby". Cycling groups suggested something like "you may
use cycle paths if you wish and you may sometimes find them useful".

What we have now is the result of a long battle against
near-compulsion. This is likely to happen again :-(

I agree with you on (2) - the wording at the moment is very ambiguous.
A specific distance, worded "at least", and perhaps "slow down and/or
leave extra room if travelling at higher speeds".

The pictures should be changed so the cyclists pictured are not cycling
in the gutter.

I'd also suggest one like "do not overtake a cyclist if you are likely
to need to slow down immediately afterwards, for example when
approaching a junction or a queue of traffic."

And perhaps a few that marry up Cyclecraft with the HC, like "Expect
cyclists to occupy the centre of the lane where there may not be room
to safely drive alongside, for example at roundabouts, road narrowings
and junctions".

For overtaking, how about, "do not pull in until you can see the
vehicle you passed in your rear-view mirror. Some vehicles,
particularly cyclists, may be going faster than you think".

And, maybe a little flippantly "Do not use your window washer where
there are pedestrians, cyclists and open top cars in the vicinity -
they really don't want a mouthful of detergent".

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

HMG are about to consider a major revision of the Highway Code. Now
is the time to start getting your thoughts in order.

Can we have...

Rule 1. Clarkson is a woolly-haired, petrol-headed tosspot and if you think
you should act like him when driving, you will be shot at dawn, have your
entrails pulled from your abdomen and your body burnt.

I don't think that's too much to ask ;-)

Cheers, helen s

Just zis Guy said:

HMG are about to consider a major revision of the Highway Code. Now
is the time to start getting your thoughts in order.

what about that lunatic advice about roundabouts and cycles in HC62?

best wishes
james

I submit that on or about Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:39:43 +0000 (UTC), the
person known to the court as "p.k." <[email hidden]> made
a statement (<[email hidden]> in
Your Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The reason for this is that, at present, rule 139
(http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.htm#139) has exactly the same weight
as rule 47 (http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm#47, notwithstanding
the fact that this rule is actually contradicted by some research).

Quoted message said:

The do not have the same weight:
139: Overtake only when it is safe to do so. You should (list snipped)
47: Use cycle routes when practicable. They can make your journey safer.
The "must" vs "should" distinction is an important one.

True - and conspicuously absent in this case.

Quoted message said:

"must" = you break the law if you do not do this, accident or not.

Must means this is the law. Should means you should do this, there
being no legal force. There is no real distinction between 139,
failure to obey which would be driving without due care, and 47,
failure to do which might well actually increase your safety. Which
is why I advocate an explicit distinction between rules and general
guidance.

The word should in not used with any particular formula, as you noted
elsewhere (e.g. should wear reflectives).

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

I submit that on or about 23 Sep 2005 02:29:07 -0700, the person known
to the court as "iakobski" <[email hidden]> made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

notwithstanding the fact that this rule is actually contradicted by some research

Quoted message said:

Not exactly. It is true that they "can" make your journey safer - this
is not contradicted by the fact they "usually" make your journey less
safe.

Full quote: "47: Use cycle routes when practicable. They can make your
journey safer."

The "use when practicable" is the contentious bit, since they
apparentl can make your journey less safe just as easily as they can
make it safer..

Quoted message said:

You are right to bring this up. I remember a long struggle during the
last revision, where the compilers wanted something like "you should
use cycle paths where they exist, do not cycle on the road if there is
a cycle path nearby". Cycling groups suggested something like "you may
use cycle paths if you wish and you may sometimes find them useful".
What we have now is the result of a long battle against
near-compulsion. This is likely to happen again :-(

Indeed. Hence the need to be prepared for lobbying.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

"Paul" <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
| Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
| > HMG are about to consider a major revision of the Highway Code. Now
| > is the time to start getting your thoughts in order.
|
| 3 specific things I would want are:
|
| 1) An explicit statement that, unless otherwise prohibited, cyclists
| are allowed to use public highways *even when there are cycle paths or
| lanes nearby*. 'The prescence of cycle oaths or lanes in the vicinity
| does NOT reduce the rights of cyclists to use the highway or the care
| that should be shown to them by other road users'.

Agree, even a list of legal road vehicles in the introduction. Too many
drivers seem to think they supposed to suffer cyclists on the road only
through some extension of the Western Liberal Concensus. Also it would
be good to have it stated that that means cyclists are supposed to obey
traffic lights same as everyone else...

Sorry, <g>, but there's always: 45: Clothing: You should wear a cycle
helmet which conforms to current regulations. Change it to "You should
wear head-gear consistent with the need to stay warm in winter and cool
in summer (to preserve concentration), keep hair and sweat out of the
eyes (to preserve visibility), and prevent minor cuts and bruises." But
I guess they'll be wanting to make "cycle helmet" into "safety
helmet".... :-(

--
Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

HMG are about to consider a major revision of the Highway Code. Now
is the time to start getting your thoughts in order.

My main idea is to change the current structure of rules, some citing
law, to a three-tier approach: rules which describe law (e.g. 147);
rules which may, if breached, lead to an offence (e.g. 146); and
general guidance with on legal force.

(see http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/16.htm for these rules)

The reason for this is that, at present, rule 139
(http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.htm#139) has exactly the same weight
as rule 47 (http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm#47, notwithstanding
the fact that this rule is actually contradicted by some research).

Your research doesn't count.

Common sense says "use cycle tracks where practical" (provided you're a
cyclist). Gives some segregation from faster traffic. Leads to longer life
expectancy in cyclists.

Quoted message said:

In particular the existence of rule 45 encourages victim blaming and
may be to the detriment of cyclists injured by negligent drivers
(Fulbrook, 2004).

Rubbish. Rule 45 encourages cyclists to make themselves visible, which
might help them be seen and thus live a little longer.

Quoted message said:

So, thinking caps on, chaps, and let's be ready to lobby our MPs.
Remember, the last major consultation on cycling rules has effectively
led to a complete capitulation (on lights).

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

HMG are about to consider a major revision of the Highway Code. Now
is the time to start getting your thoughts in order.

My main idea is to change the current structure of rules, some citing
law, to a three-tier approach: rules which describe law (e.g. 147);
rules which may, if breached, lead to an offence (e.g. 146); and
general guidance with on legal force.

How about...

(on Page 1, in great big capital letters, with a red box around them)

"The sections of the Highway Code entitled 'The Road User on Cycles' applies
to ALL cyclists, with no exceptions for those who think they know better".

In message <[email hidden]>

Just zis Guy said:

HMG are about to consider a major revision of the Highway Code. Now
is the time to start getting your thoughts in order.

I think that there should be rules/advice for pedestrians on shared use
facilities. (1) (2)
Something along the lines of: pedestrains are advised that cycles may
approach from behind them, and not to suddenly wander from one side to
the other.
Possibly recommend walking on the left.

Dog owners must keep their dogs on a lead and under control(3), under
pain of death.

Also for cycleists,
On shared use facilities, cyclists should ride on the left where
ever possible.

The wearing of a cycling helmet will not reduce the risk of having an
accident.

(1) I know that they are not fashionable here, but I do use them.
(2) It should in no way remove rights of pedestrians.
(3) i.e. not on one of them 20m trip wire things.

Martin.

--
Typed by monkey #27662472869676 on typewriter #7552416572242
When emailing me, please include the word Banana in the subject line.

I submit that on or about Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:21:47 GMT, the person
known to the court as "ian henden" <[email hidden]> made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle)
to the following effect:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The reason for this is that, at present, rule 139
(http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.htm#139) has exactly the same weight
as rule 47 (http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm#47, notwithstanding
the fact that this rule is actually contradicted by some research).

Your research doesn't count.

Quoted message said:

Common sense says "use cycle tracks where practical" (provided you're a
cyclist). Gives some segregation from faster traffic. Leads to longer life
expectancy in cyclists.

Or not. As the research shows, cycle tracks can be up to six times as
dangerous as riding on the road - as you have been told before. There
is a summary of research at
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html

Common sense is, in fact, notoriously unreliable in matters of road
safety (see Risk by John Adams).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In particular the existence of rule 45 encourages victim blaming and
may be to the detriment of cyclists injured by negligent drivers
(Fulbrook, 2004).

Quoted message said:

Rubbish. Rule 45 encourages cyclists to make themselves visible, which
might help them be seen and thus live a little longer.

Rubbish. Rule 45 underpins victim blaming (see Fulbrook, 2004).

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

I submit that on or about Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:28:10 GMT, the person
known to the court as "ian henden" <[email hidden]> made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle)
to the following effect:

Quoted message said:

"The sections of the Highway Code entitled 'The Road User on Cycles' applies
to ALL cyclists, with no exceptions for those who think they know better".

Why single out cyclists? Are you suggesting that cyclists are alone
in breaking the rules? It seems to me that there is no group of road
users which is usually, let alone always compliant.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

I submit that on or about Sat, 24 Sep 2005 01:03:06 +0100, the person
known to the court as Martin Dann <[email hidden]> made a
statement (<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's
bundle) to the following effect:

Quoted message said:

Something along the lines of: pedestrains are advised that cycles may
approach from behind them, and not to suddenly wander from one side to
the other.

Or:

"Shared use facilities are a Work of Stan and should be Shunned" :-)

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 01:03:06 +0100 someone who may be Martin Dann
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Dog owners must keep their dogs on a lead and under control(3), under
pain of death.

How about, "Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on
a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with
cyclists." Rule 42 of the Highway Code.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:21:47 GMT someone who may be "ian henden"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Your research doesn't count.

Guy provided references, you simply made assertions like the above.
As a result Guy is more believable.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.