A question re Highway Code in "The Other Place" today

J. Chisholm said:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldordpap.htm#order

"Lord Haskel to ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will amend the
proposed Highway Code so that, instead of providing that cyclists must
use cycle facilities (for example, cycle lanes), it provides that they
should do so where this would help with their journey."

(He's a Labour Peer)
Oral Questions were at 11:00

Does anyone know what answer was given?

As always Parliamentary debates are available in Hansard. (I note that
since it includes "today"this URL may change)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/04.htm#hddr_1

Unfortunately some Lords saw fit to drag the discussion along the red
lightand no light route :-(

But the key worrying prase is:

[For the Government] Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I fully
acknowledge that there is some unease about the wording, but when one
boils it down the argument is about the use of either the term “when
practicable” or the term “whenever possible”. The lawyers have given
clear advice to the department that “whenever possible” offers greater
clarity in legal terms than “when practicable”.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

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

Quoted message said:

But the key worrying prase is:

[For the Government] Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I fully
acknowledge that there is some unease about the wording, but when one
boils it down the argument is about the use of either the term "when
practicable" or the term "whenever possible". The lawyers have given
clear advice to the department that "whenever possible" offers greater
clarity in legal terms than "when practicable".

That very clearly says to me that if it is possible to use a cycle lane then
you must. Not use a cycle lane when it is safe or practical to do so.

I don't speak legal though, only English.
--
peter

Cheap train tickets database
http://www.petereverett.co.uk/tickets/

Email sent to this address is generally deleted upon arrival
Visit website if you want to contact me

J. Chisholm said:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldordpap.htm#order

"Lord Haskel to ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will amend the
proposed Highway Code so that, instead of providing that cyclists must
use cycle facilities (for example, cycle lanes), it provides that they
should do so where this would help with their journey."

(He's a Labour Peer)
Oral Questions were at 11:00

Does anyone know what answer was given?

Read for yourself at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/home.htm

In summary: Lord Haskell asked, Lord Bassam attempts to fob him off
with the HC is not law and cyclists can choose to ignore it. Haskell
points out that's bollocks wrt contributory negligence. Bassam says
the lawyers required the 'where possible' because that's "more
accurate" (!).

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes says cyclists are a load of
red-light-jumping law-breaking anarchists anyway.

Bassam agrees that's irritating and offers to find out the facts if
she wants.

Lord Howarth says they're worse than that - they also go the wrong way
up one-way streets and ride on pavements, slaughtering pedestrians as
they go. Will the government make the HC stricter and have a decent
crack-down on the scum.

Bassam agrees.

Lord Colwyn says is everyone aware that the HC will now contradict the
national standards cycle training, and possibly make cycling more
dangerous.

Bassam says that's bollocks and "very careful thought" has been given
to the wording.

Lord Treverson says he passed his test in 1969 and has never read the
blasted code since. No doubt he's never had an accident, either, and
presumably speed limits only apply to the plebes. Also, other drivers
are becoming much less tolerant of his mistakes these days.

Bassam says the silly old duffer ought to read the HC.

Lord Hanningfield says 11,000 people wrote to their MPs and 70% of
them were cyclists and the wording really ought to be fixed.

Bassam says they are all just moaning ninnies - he also says the only
possible choices are "when practicable" or "whenever possible".
Bassam thinks the important thing is to increase road safety.

Lord Janner says the real problem is all the invisible cyclists
without lights and dark clothes. They are a "constant danger".

Bassam says Janner is talking tosh, but then spoils it with "of course
people should wear ... helmets".

Lord Oxburgh says is Bassam really happy with wording that is almost
unanimously protested against by every cycling organisation in
existence.

Bassam says they've thought about the words very hard and if anyone
has any better ideas he'll happily listen to them.

Some of this account might be a slight paraphrase. You probably ought
to read the source for yourself.

regards, Ian SMith

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith said:

Bassam says they've thought about the words very hard and if anyone
has any better ideas he'll happily listen to them.

Hansard: "Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the department is extremely
conscious of the need to get this right. I have gone through the wording
very carefully with your Lordships; if your Lordships have a better form
of wording, we will listen to it. We have been consulting for a very
long time on this and are determined to get it right."

Would an appropriate response not be for us to devise an alternate form
of words and contact Bassam and other members of the House to propose it
to them? Anyone know what the procedural (and legal, I guess) issues
are here?

"Cycle routes and other facilities such as [insert list here] may make
your journey safer. Consider using them where they are provided".
That's off the top of my head, I'm sure the collective brains of urc can
better it.

-dan

On 17 May, 16:42, "naked_draughtsman" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Phil Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But the key worrying prase is:

Quoted message said:

[For the Government] Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I fully
acknowledge that there is some unease about the wording, but when one
boils it down the argument is about the use of either the term "when
practicable" or the term "whenever possible". The lawyers have given
clear advice to the department that "whenever possible" offers greater
clarity in legal terms than "when practicable".

That very clearly says to me that if it is possible to use a cycle lane then
you must. Not use a cycle lane when it is safe or practical to do so.

I don't speak legal though, only English.

I am sure that I don't speak legalese but I am
not sure if I speak english either, however
I agree that the new wording is very clear.
Completely unabmiguous.

It does appears to me that it instructs cyclists to
head for the nearest cycle facility and to stay there.
It would of course be #"possible" never to leave it.

Perhaps a reaction to the recent increase in the
number of cyclists on the road in London?
Back to the tube girls and boys. "Our BMWs
need your roads."

Daniel Barlow wrote on 18/05/2007 01:50 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith said:

Bassam says they've thought about the words very hard and if anyone
has any better ideas he'll happily listen to them.

Hansard: "Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the department is extremely
conscious of the need to get this right. I have gone through the wording
very carefully with your Lordships; if your Lordships have a better form
of wording, we will listen to it. We have been consulting for a very
long time on this and are determined to get it right."

I would have thought the next move is for the CTC to request from the
Government the basis of the legal advice and how exactly they interpret
the words "wherever possible". The consultation said motorists needed
to be made aware that it was the cyclist's choice and they are saying
the words are chosen very carefully to to get that right. We are saying
it doesn't seem so so maybe the next step is to explain to us what
"wherever possible" means and why.

--
Tony

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

in message <[email hidden]>, Daniel Barlow

(') said:

Ian Smith said:

Bassam says they've thought about the words very hard and if anyone
has any better ideas he'll happily listen to them.

Hansard: "Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the department is extremely
conscious of the need to get this right. I have gone through the wording
very carefully with your Lordships; if your Lordships have a better form
of wording, we will listen to it. We have been consulting for a very
long time on this and are determined to get it right."

Would an appropriate response not be for us to devise an alternate form
of words and contact Bassam and other members of the House to propose it
to them? Anyone know what the procedural (and legal, I guess) issues
are here?

"Cycle routes and other facilities such as [insert list here] may make
your journey safer. Consider using them where they are provided".
That's off the top of my head, I'm sure the collective brains of urc can
better it.

But it also maintains the lie which is at the heart of the issue: that
facilities always make you safer, when the majority of them do the
diametric opposite.

"Consider using cycle facilities such as [list here] where they will make
your journey safer and more convenient."

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Let's have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
;; in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle.
;; Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Dem, OR)

Tony Raven said:

Daniel Barlow wrote on 18/05/2007 01:50 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith said:

Bassam says they've thought about the words very hard and if anyone
has any better ideas he'll happily listen to them.

Hansard: "Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the department is extremely
conscious of the need to get this right. I have gone through the wording
very carefully with your Lordships; if your Lordships have a better form
of wording, we will listen to it. We have been consulting for a very
long time on this and are determined to get it right."

I would have thought the next move is for the CTC to request from the
Government the basis of the legal advice and how exactly they interpret
the words "wherever possible". The consultation said motorists needed
to be made aware that it was the cyclist's choice and they are saying
the words are chosen very carefully to to get that right. We are saying
it doesn't seem so so maybe the next step is to explain to us what
"wherever possible" means and why.

Actually, some of the stuff Bassam said is interesting, because
previously we've had government answers saying the word change (to
possible) was in response to the cyclists concerns. Bassam says
otherwise - he says it was the lawyers that wanted the change.
Bassam's answer seems more plausible, because the new wording _is_
less open to debate and does offer greater clarity - cyclists get off
the roads whenever possible is a very clear message. Bassam's answer
does not require you to believe the drafter does not speak english.

However, that would mean the previously supplied answer was in fact
lies.

What's the mechanism for pointing out the government has been lying
to parliament?

regards, Ian Smith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith said:

What's the mechanism for pointing out the government has been lying
to parliament?

"voting", though the next lot are unlikely to e any better :-(

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Ian Smith wrote on 18/05/2007 09:45 +0100:

Quoted message said:

What's the mechanism for pointing out the government has been lying
to parliament?

Lying to Parliament? Now there's a novel concept for this Government.

--
Tony

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

Ian Smith said:

Tony Raven said:

Daniel Barlow wrote on 18/05/2007 01:50 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith wrote:
> Bassam says they've thought about the words very hard and if anyone
> has any better ideas he'll happily listen to them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hansard: "Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the department is extremely
conscious of the need to get this right. I have gone through the wording
very carefully with your Lordships; if your Lordships have a better form
of wording, we will listen to it. We have been consulting for a very
long time on this and are determined to get it right."

Quoted message said:

I would have thought the next move is for the CTC to request from the
Government the basis of the legal advice and how exactly they interpret
the words "wherever possible". The consultation said motorists needed
to be made aware that it was the cyclist's choice and they are saying
the words are chosen very carefully to to get that right. We are saying
it doesn't seem so so maybe the next step is to explain to us what
"wherever possible" means and why.

Actually, some of the stuff Bassam said is interesting, because
previously we've had government answers saying the word change (to
possible) was in response to the cyclists concerns. Bassam says
otherwise - he says it was the lawyers that wanted the change.
Bassam's answer seems more plausible, because the new wording _is_
less open to debate and does offer greater clarity - cyclists get off
the roads whenever possible is a very clear message. Bassam's answer
does not require you to believe the drafter does not speak english.

However, that would mean the previously supplied answer was in fact
lies.

What's the mechanism for pointing out the government has been lying
to parliament?

I suspect it goes more along the lines of:

1. Hmmm, how can we get cyclists off the road. The law doesn't make
any requirements to use cycle lanes. I know, we'll put in "use cycle
facilities when practicable" into the highway code.

2. Prosecute Daniel Cadden

3. Appeal court - "No requirement to use cycle facilities, utterly
ridiculous"

4. Change the wording in the highway code to mean the same thing as we
_meant_ when we wrote it last time.

5. Cyclists complain

6. "But we haven't changed the meaning, just made it clearer".

Except that they have changed the meaning. There would have been a
similar outcry years and years ago if anybody believed the old wording
has the same implications as the new wording.

Tim.

in message <[email hidden]>, Ian Smith

(') said:

Tony Raven said:

Daniel Barlow wrote on 18/05/2007 01:50 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith wrote:
> Bassam says they've thought about the words very hard and if anyone
> has any better ideas he'll happily listen to them.

Hansard: "Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the department is
extremely conscious of the need to get this right. I have gone through
the wording very carefully with your Lordships; if your Lordships have
a better form of wording, we will listen to it. We have been
consulting for a very long time on this and are determined to get it
right."

I would have thought the next move is for the CTC to request from the
Government the basis of the legal advice and how exactly they interpret
the words "wherever possible". The consultation said motorists needed
to be made aware that it was the cyclist's choice and they are saying
the words are chosen very carefully to to get that right. We are
saying it doesn't seem so so maybe the next step is to explain to us
what "wherever possible" means and why.

Actually, some of the stuff Bassam said is interesting, because
previously we've had government answers saying the word change (to
possible) was in response to the cyclists concerns. Bassam says
otherwise - he says it was the lawyers that wanted the change.
Bassam's answer seems more plausible, because the new wording _is_
less open to debate and does offer greater clarity - cyclists get off
the roads whenever possible is a very clear message. Bassam's answer
does not require you to believe the drafter does not speak english.

However, that would mean the previously supplied answer was in fact
lies.

What's the mechanism for pointing out the government has been lying
to parliament?

The government never lies to parliament; it is merely guilty of
terminological inexactitudes, or economical with the actualite. However, I
have written to the noble Lord suggesting a form of words which is both
(i) true, and (ii) in accordance with the law of the land, and thus, in
these two ways at least, an improvement on those in the current draft.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"This young man has not the faintest idea how socialists think and does
not begin to understand the mentality of the party he has been elected
to lead. He is quite simply a liberal"
-- Ken Coates MEP (Lab) of Tony Blair

In article said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Daniel Barlow

(') said:

"Cycle routes and other facilities such as [insert list here] may make
your journey safer. Consider using them where they are provided".
That's off the top of my head, I'm sure the collective brains of urc can
better it.

But it also maintains the lie which is at the heart of the issue: that
facilities always make you safer, when the majority of them do the
diametric opposite.

No it doesn't. "may make ... Consider" clearly implies that they don't
always make it safer and consideration is needed to tell if they will.

Peter Clinch said:

Ian Smith said:

What's the mechanism for pointing out the government has been lying
to parliament?

"voting", though the next lot are unlikely to e any better :-(

Tried that.
Makes no difference round here - tory safe seat sinecure.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Phil Cook said:

[For the Government] Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I fully
acknowledge that there is some unease about the wording, but when one
boils it down the argument is about the use of either the term "when
practicable" or the term "whenever possible". The lawyers have given
clear advice to the department that "whenever possible" offers greater
clarity in legal terms than "when practicable".

It's a classic diversion to pretend that the argument is between two
obnoxious alternatives. However, this does not stack up against
Ladyman's reply in the Commons that the wording was changed in
response to the results of the consultation as Lord Bassam is
suggesting that there has been no substantive change.

--
Dave...

Phil Cook twisted the electrons to say:

Quoted message said:

The lawyers have given clear advice to the department that ?whenever
possible? offers greater clarity in legal terms than ?when
practicable?.

It may well give "greater clarity" however the clarity (or otherwise)
isn't the thing that we're all objecting to is it?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Ian Smith said:

Peter Clinch said:

Ian Smith said:

What's the mechanism for pointing out the government has been lying
to parliament?

"voting", though the next lot are unlikely to e any better :-(

Tried that.
Makes no difference round here - tory safe seat sinecure.

Same problem, different direction. Old mining town, old mining values.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"This is all very interesting, and I daresay you already see me
frothing at the mouth in a fit; but no, I am not; I am just
winking happy thoughts into a little tiddle cup." (Nabokov,
Lolita)

Ian Smith said:

J. Chisholm said:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldordpap.htm#order

"Lord Haskel to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will amend the
proposed Highway Code so that, instead of providing that cyclists must
use cycle facilities (for example, cycle lanes), it provides that they
should do so where this would help with their journey."

(He's a Labour Peer)
Oral Questions were at 11:00

Does anyone know what answer was given?

Read for yourself at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/home.htm

In summary: Lord Haskell asked, Lord Bassam attempts to fob him off
with the HC is not law and cyclists can choose to ignore it. Haskell
points out that's bollocks wrt contributory negligence. Bassam says
the lawyers required the 'where possible' because that's "more
accurate" (!).

<big snip>

Quoted message said:

Some of this account might be a slight paraphrase. You probably ought
to read the source for yourself.

Your account was probably more interesting though.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

Don Whybrow said:

Ian Smith said:

Peter Clinch said:

Ian Smith wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> What's the mechanism for pointing out the government has been lying
> to parliament?
"voting", though the next lot are unlikely to e any better :-(

Quoted message said:

Tried that.
Makes no difference round here - tory safe seat sinecure.

Same problem, different direction. Old mining town, old mining values.

Well my consituency is the closest three way marginal in the country,
the green and ukip voters instead voting for any of the big three
parties would be enough to swing it for any of them. The UKIP votes
alone (5th place) would be enough to swap 1 and 2 or 2 and 3.

But my MP doesn't seem to be trumpetting anybody's cause at all in
parliament. She did say "I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn." on 29th March this year. But that's it
since March 2005.

She does vote in line with party policy:
# Very strongly for introducing ID cards.
# Very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals.
# Strongly for introducing student top-up fees.
# Very strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws.
# Very strongly for the Iraq war.
# Very strongly against investigating the Iraq war.

She did reply to my original letter. I've not heard anything from my
subsequent one or the email asking her to support the EDM.

Mind you, I didn't vote for anybody in the General Election, I only
voted in the local election (Until we get PR I refuse to put my name
to something as corrupt as our general election system[1] - although,
after the Scottish fiasco a few days ago I think next time I'll fill
my form in with a 1,2,3,4,5 instead of not voting.)

(In the local elections, just two votes separated the conservatives
and lib dems (Con gain from LD). 152 votes went to the old lib dem
person now standing as independent. Those votes would be enough for
the Greens (came third ahead of L) to have won. Even as close as that
we still only got 34.55% turnout)

Tim.

[1] My view is the most likely way to get the system changed is if the
turnout stays very low.