Highway Code Rewording - MP's reply

In article <[email hidden]>, Hake
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Hi all,

I am not particuarly knowledgable about wordings & their implications,
but I can plainly see that the Cycle facilities rule & the round-a-bout
rules are bad. Should the new HC be put in place, I would frequently be
ignoring it - or risking my safety.

So, as many of us have done, I wrote of to my MP about the changes to
the hiughway code.

I recieved a reply the other day, and am hoping for a bit assistance in
constructing a persusive response.

The reply i recieved goes something like this;

"With respect to the highway code, I understand your concerns and agree that
we should not be discouraging cyclists from our roads.

However, the ammendments to the highway code have been part of a long
consultation that began last year. There were a considerable number of
responses and i can assure you that the deliberations and outcomes were an
attempt to be fair to all parties whilst trying to ensure that safety
remained of paramount importance on our roads.

Below is the actual response to the consultation from the DSA specific to
cyclists which may help allay your concerns:

"
He then included th relevant section from the DSA's consltation document
(http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/consult/Responses/Response_to_Highway_Code_Consultation_report.pdf)
- the 'Rules for Cyclists' bit.

He finsished with
"
I have to say that I am reletively satisfied that the interests of cyclists
willl not be affected by the changes made to the highway code. However I do
think that it remains of paramount importance that we invest in improving
cycle facilities for cylist so we develop a safer and more user friendly
network of cycle lanes and routes.
"

So where do I start???!!!

I don't understand why he has included the consultation document quotes - I
thought that the revised code has had the final changes made to it and now
just has to be let through parliment. I also understood that they ignored
any of the usefull bits that the consultation provided.

If anyone can give me some ideas - to be honest the response makes me feel
like he has allready made his decision.

The response to consultation document states "It was felt that other
road users needed to be made aware that the choice to use these
facilities remains with the cyclist, and there is no law forcing their
use. The phrasing of the rule has therefore been amended to take this
into account." The change in wording is generally perceived to have had
the opposite effect, having changed "wherever practicable" to "wherever
possible". 'Practicable' implies that if you don't consider that using
the facility would make your journey easier or safer then you are under
no obligation to use it, while 'possible' implies that you should use it
if you can, even if you don't think it's in your own best interest to do
so.

The draft HC says cycle facilities "can make your journey safer", which
is in some cases clearly not true - the response to consultation
document states "The standard of cycle routes remains the responsibility
of the relevant highway authorities and so falls outside the remit of
The Highway Code." Until there is an acceptable[1] minimum national
standard for cycle facilities that is enforced in law, the Highway Code
really shouldn't be recommending their use (nor should it be
recommending helmet use until helmets have been properly shown to be
useful in reducing death or serious injury, and not positively harmful
as has been suggested by some informed parties).

[1] i.e. supported by properly conducted studies, risk assessments and
consultations.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The response to consultation document states "It was felt that other

road users needed to be made aware that the choice to use these
facilities remains with the cyclist, and there is no law forcing their
use. The phrasing of the rule has therefore been amended to take this
into account." The change in wording is generally perceived to have had
the opposite effect, having changed "wherever practicable" to "wherever
possible". 'Practicable' implies that if you don't consider that using
the facility would make your journey easier or safer then you are under
no obligation to use it, while 'possible' implies that you should use it
if you can, even if you don't think it's in your own best interest to do
so.

The draft HC says cycle facilities "can make your journey safer", which
is in some cases clearly not true - the response to consultation
document states "The standard of cycle routes remains the responsibility
of the relevant highway authorities and so falls outside the remit of
The Highway Code." Until there is an acceptable[1] minimum national
standard for cycle facilities that is enforced in law, the Highway Code
really shouldn't be recommending their use (nor should it be
recommending helmet use until helmets have been properly shown to be
useful in reducing death or serious injury, and not positively harmful
as has been suggested by some informed parties).

[1] i.e. supported by properly conducted studies, risk assessments and
consultations.

Thanks for the reply, I shall try and make good use of it,

Cheers,

Colin

Rob Morley said:

The change in wording is generally perceived to have had
the opposite effect, having changed "wherever practicable" to "wherever
possible". 'Practicable' implies that if you don't consider that using
the facility would make your journey easier or safer then you are under
no obligation to use it, while 'possible' implies that you should use it
if you can, even if you don't think it's in your own best interest to do
so.

This is not correct. Practicable and possible here have very nearly
the same meaning. Practicable is not at all the same as practical,
though many assume so.

In any case, like both of you I believe that neither is appropriate
here. Given the poor standard of so many cycle farcilities, I don't
think anyone should be encouraged to use them.

LSMike wrote on 08/05/2007 16:07 +0100:

Quoted message said:

This is not correct. Practicable and possible here have very nearly
the same meaning. Practicable is not at all the same as practical,
though many assume so.

The OED disagrees and even has practicable as meaning practical. It
certainly thinks there is a difference.

Practicable: Able to be done or put into practice successfully;
feasible; able to be used; useful, practical, effective.

Possible: That is capable of being; that may or can exist, be done, or
happen (in general, or in given or assumed conditions or circumstances);
that is in a person's power, that a person can do, exert, use, etc.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Tony Raven said:

LSMike wrote on 08/05/2007 16:07 +0100:

Quoted message said:

This is not correct. Practicable and possible here have very nearly
the same meaning. Practicable is not at all the same as practical,
though many assume so.

The OED disagrees and even has practicable as meaning practical. It
certainly thinks there is a difference.

Practicable: Able to be done or put into practice successfully;
feasible; able to be used; useful, practical, effective.

Possible: That is capable of being; that may or can exist, be done, or
happen (in general, or in given or assumed conditions or circumstances);
that is in a person's power, that a person can do, exert, use, etc.

It is 'Possible' (as a car driver) to drive all the way from Exeter to
Southampton by motorway (M5-M4-M25-M3) but as it is 150 miles further
that by normal main roads, I don't think anyone would suggest it was
'practicable'

Hence in normal english usage (must check with 'Fowler'😉the word
'possible' imposes a far greater restriction on cyclists than does
'practicable'

Jim Chisholm

In article <[email hidden]>,
LSMike
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Rob Morley said:

The change in wording is generally perceived to have had
the opposite effect, having changed "wherever practicable" to "wherever
possible". 'Practicable' implies that if you don't consider that using
the facility would make your journey easier or safer then you are under
no obligation to use it, while 'possible' implies that you should use it
if you can, even if you don't think it's in your own best interest to do
so.

This is not correct. Practicable and possible here have very nearly
the same meaning. Practicable is not at all the same as practical,
though many assume so.

Strictly speaking practicable means "able to be practised", but it tends
to imply practicality (otherwise why would you make a practice of it?)
and I did use the term 'imply' in my statement.

"Hake" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi all,

I am not particuarly knowledgable about wordings & their implications,
but I can plainly see that the Cycle facilities rule & the round-a-bout
rules are bad. Should the new HC be put in place, I would frequently be
ignoring it - or risking my safety.

So, as many of us have done, I wrote of to my MP about the changes to the
hiughway code.

I recieved a reply the other day, and am hoping for a bit assistance in
constructing a persusive response.

The reply i recieved goes something like this;

"With respect to the highway code, I understand your concerns and agree that
we should not be discouraging cyclists from our roads.

However, the ammendments to the highway code have been part of a long
consultation that began last year. There were a considerable number of
responses and i can assure you that the deliberations and outcomes were an
attempt to be fair to all parties whilst trying to ensure that safety
remained of paramount importance on our roads.

Below is the actual response to the consultation from the DSA specific to
cyclists which may help allay your concerns:

"
He then included th relevant section from the DSA's consltation document
(http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/consult/Responses/Response_to_Highway_Code_Consultation_report.pdf)
- the 'Rules for Cyclists' bit.

He finsished with
"
I have to say that I am reletively satisfied that the interests of cyclists
willl not be affected by the changes made to the highway code. However I do
think that it remains of paramount importance that we invest in improving
cycle facilities for cylist so we develop a safer and more user friendly
network of cycle lanes and routes.
"

So where do I start???!!!

I don't understand why he has included the consultation document quotes - I
thought that the revised code has had the final changes made to it and now
just has to be let through parliment. I also understood that they ignored
any of the usefull bits that the consultation provided.

If anyone can give me some ideas - to be honest the response makes me feel
like he has allready made his decision.

Thanks in advance

Colin

This it the reply that I received from Caroline Flint. Clearly the aide who
drafted it doesn't know what he is talking about and the Minister also clearly
either did not read her own reply or was similarly ignorant of the position of
the second draft of the Highway Code! She also clearly did not read my
original mail to her either

Here is the reply less headings

"
dated 01 May 2007 from the House of Commons

Thank you for you for your email of 23 April concerning the revised Highway
Code.

You will recall that I wrote to the Minister about this very matter.

The new code was subject to consultation and as you state is now in use.

However, I will bear in mind your briefing when I next have an opportunity to
discus this with the Roads Minister.

Many thanks for raising this matter with me.

Yours sincerely

etc etc "

My original email to her is shown below

"M/s Flint,

My address and all required details are at the foot of this mail

I cycle daily and cover well over 100 miles each week, 98 % of my cycling is
"on road"'. Now in my 70th year, I cycle in excess of 5000 miles every year.

You will realise that I am most concerned with the increasing pressure from
various sources to remove cyclists from public roads. There is an inherent
right for all people to use the highways --- pedestrians, cyclists and ( with
VED and insurance) motorised vehicles.

As you know, earlier this year, the CTC mounted a "campaign" via its members
pointing out potential difficulties in the first draft of the proposed new
Highway Code. Many MPs were targeted, including yourself.

However I am most concerned with the content of the second draft which is now
in its final stages before the House of Commons.

I do point out that this mail is initiated purely by myself and aims to make
you aware again of one particular dangerous inclusion in the new draft.

"The wording in the current Highway Code makes it quite clear that cyclists
may use facilities, or not, at their own discretion. This is also the law.
The wording of the revised draft says that cyclists should use facilities
'wherever possible', implying that they have no such discretion. It may be
'possible' to use a facility which it is either extremely unsafe or extremely
inconvenient to use."

The attached document has been assembled by a number of cyclists in an attempt
to present the considered shortcomings of the new proposals for the Highway
Code. But in fact the most important one is the one I have highlighted above.

You will also, I am sure, be aware of the recent prosecution of Mr Daniel
Cadden and the subsequent quashing of that verdict making a quite clear
statement in support of the rights of cyclists to use the highway.

I do feel, strongly, that you should take a very careful look at the document
I have attached and then have and equally careful rethink about the proposed
Highway Code currently coming before the house. I do apologise for any typo
errors in that document since it is still under construction but I am most
concerned about the lack of time before the new draft become a "fait
accomplis", so it is forwarded to you in its present form.

Again the most important aspect is that one that I have highlighted above.

I cycle a lot in the South Yorkshire area and shop, on cycle, in Doncaster
several times each week. Most of the cycle paths in the DMBC area are
dangerous and badly maintained ( there are places where broken glass has been
there for over 6 months -- they are possibly never ever cleaned!). Shared
paths do not make good cycle routes. Countless junctions with other roads,
driveways and business access points makes my position on the road far
afer -- where I am part of the traffic flow and have the same rights ( and
restrictions) as other road users. The moment I get on a cycle path I lose
that right. and am put in danger at every junction.

I am safer on road. I cycle with great awareness, I stop in line in traffic
and do not undertake! I obey all traffic lights. I do not cycle on pavements
( although the cycle mounted police in the area do so!).

In asking for your support in this matter I am aware there are stupid and
dangerous cyclists as well as stupid and dangerous motorists. In the Doncaster
MBC area I would consider that the majority of people on cycles are children
and adult pavement riders. On any one days cycling I would probably meet less
the 10 cyclists on road commuting or for exercise but that seems to be an
improvement of 4 years ago!

Finally I would ask you again to have a careful rethink about the next step of
the Highway Code. Let it be a step forward for cyclists not a leap backwards.

Thank you for your time and patience "

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

Quoted message said:

She also clearly did not read my
original mail to her either

When writing to busy (or disinterested) people, shorter is better. As we
can see from Stephen Ladyman's nonsense too many people wrote about
helmets, hi vis and other stuff, so the critical issue was obscured.