Advance notice: HC revision

  • Thread starter Just zis Guy, you know?
  • Start date



On Sat, 24 Sep, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dog owners must keep their dogs on a lead and under control(3), under
> pain of death.
>
> (3) i.e. not on one of them 20m trip wire things.

That's already in there (well, the death bit isn't, but the
requirement to use a short lead is).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I submit that on or about Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:28:10 GMT, the person
> known to the court as "ian henden" <[email protected]> made a statement
> (<_j%[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle)
> to the following effect:
>
>>"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.
>
Some groups are more compliant than others.

Cyclists do not rate particularly highly in the compliancy stakes. (Neither
do pedestrians ....)

--
IanH
 
in message <%d%[email protected]>, ian henden
('[email protected]') wrote:

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

No, substantially /more/ deaths and serious injuries, not fewer. Much
shorter life expectancy. I know this defies 'common sense', but that's
because common sense looks at the whole length of the path, whereas the
accidents are clustered at junctions.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'there are no solutions, only precipitates'
 
in message <[email protected]>, ian henden
('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>I submit that on or about Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:28:10 GMT, the person
>> known to the court as "ian henden" <[email protected]> made a statement
>> (<_j%[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle)
>> to the following effect:
>>
>>>"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.
>>
> Some groups are more compliant than others.
>
> Cyclists do not rate particularly highly in the compliancy stakes.
> (Neither do pedestrians ....)

....and least of all, motorists.

So who does comply? Well, err, no-one. But in this part of the country at
least, cyclists are as good as any other identifiable group.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Women are from Venus. Men are from Mars. Lusers are from Uranus.
 
ian henden <[email protected]> wrote:

> > 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.

> Some groups are more compliant than others.

> Cyclists do not rate particularly highly in the compliancy stakes. (Neither
> do pedestrians ....)

And neither do drivers, a large majority of whom freely admit to
breaking the law on a regular basis, and in fact resist any suggestion
that the law might be enforced as being an intolerable restriction.

Guy
 
In article <_j%[email protected]>, ian henden wrote:
>
>"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".

Can we have a matching one saying that buses aren't exempt from the
rules for motor vehicles?
 
dkahn400 wrote:
>Alan Braggins wrote:
>
>> Can we have a matching one saying that buses aren't exempt from the
>> rules for motor vehicles?
>
>Aren't they? Judging from their general behaviour I'd assumed they
>were.

A common mistake, which is why I feel the notice would be useful.

In the interests of fairness, the section on bus lanes should have a
section on why being in a hurry in a car doesn't count, nor does turning
left two junctions further on.
 
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> writes:

[using cycling paths]
> No, substantially /more/ deaths and serious injuries, not fewer.

On the face of it, when making an individual decision where to
cycle. That ignores the collective argument though.

Cycle paths make it easier to cycle. You get along faster, you can use
shortcuts that you wouldn't otherwise be allowed, most people get a
feeling of safety. With cycle paths you can expect a greater take-up
of cycling.

As the same statistics show, safely depends to a large degree on how
many cyclists there are. In other words, build cycle paths, triple the
number of cyclists, and the overall safety will increase.

Robert
 
"Robert Kiessling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Cycle paths make it easier to cycle. You get along faster, you can use
> shortcuts that you wouldn't otherwise be allowed, most people get a
> feeling of safety. With cycle paths you can expect a greater take-up
> of cycling.
>

I beg to differ. Many a cycle path is dangerous, unwanted, not needed and a
much use as a chocolate teapot.

Aquaint yourself with

http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/

Cheers, helen s
 
> You get along faster

In my experience, giving way at every side road, the narrowness of the
path, the bad surface of the path, the peds wandering along the path etc
all tend to make it slower.
 
Mark Thompson <[email protected]>typed


> > You get along faster

> In my experience, giving way at every side road, the narrowness of the
> path, the bad surface of the path, the peds wandering along the path etc
> all tend to make it slower.

As well as the dogs on or off strings, and their turds.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.
 
in message <[email protected]>, Robert Kiessling
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> writes:
>
> [using cycling paths]
>> No, substantially /more/ deaths and serious injuries, not fewer.
>
> On the face of it, when making an individual decision where to
> cycle. That ignores the collective argument though.
>
> Cycle paths make it easier to cycle. You get along faster,

I've never seen a cyclepath of which that was true. There may be some,
but I seriously doubt it.

> you can use
> shortcuts that you wouldn't otherwise be allowed,

Possibly, but you're equally cut off form shortcuts you otherwise would
be allowed.

> most people get a
> feeling of safety. With cycle paths you can expect a greater take-up
> of cycling.
>
> As the same statistics show, safely depends to a large degree on how
> many cyclists there are

/on the road/.

> In other words, build cycle paths, triple the
> number of cyclists, and the overall safety will increase.

Not if those cyclists were not on the road.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
;; Voltaire RIP Dr David Kelly 1945-2004
 
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 14:46:40 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>in message <[email protected]>, Robert Kiessling
>> Cycle paths make it easier to cycle. You get along faster,
>
>I've never seen a cyclepath of which that was true. There may be some,
>but I seriously doubt it.

There are some rural ones on old railway lines which are pretty good,
wide, straight, away from pedestrians, and often the alternative is a
narrow scenic windy road with regular cars.

Jim.
 
> There are some rural ones on old railway lines which are pretty good,
> wide, straight, away from pedestrians, and often the alternative is a
> narrow scenic windy road with regular cars.

The Manchester cycleway is a good example of this. For most of the bits
I've travelled you can bomb along at top speed.
 
"wafflycat" <waffles*$*A**T*v21net$*££*D*O*T*co*D£$£*O*T*uk> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
You get along faster, you can use
>> shortcuts that you wouldn't otherwise be allowed, most people get a
>> feeling of safety. With cycle paths you can expect a greater take-up
>> of cycling.
>>
>
> I beg to differ. Many a cycle path is dangerous, unwanted, not needed and
> a much use as a chocolate teapot.
>
> Aquaint yourself with
>
> http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/
>
> Cheers, helen s

Absolutely concur, except that you could eat a chocolate tea pot.
>
 
>> I beg to differ. Many a cycle path is dangerous, unwanted, not needed
>> and a much use as a chocolate teapot.
>>
>> Aquaint yourself with
>>
>> http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facilit
>> y-of-the-month/

> Absolutely concur, except that you could eat a chocolate tea pot.

Tho cycle lanes are different from cycle paths.

I'm with you all the way on the chocolate teapot. mmmmmmm
 
Mark Thompson <[email protected]> writes:

>> You get along faster
>
> In my experience, giving way at every side road, the narrowness of the
> path, the bad surface of the path, the peds wandering along the path etc
> all tend to make it slower.

And yet, the Taff Trail into Cardiff has almost no side roads, and a
considerably better surface for much of its length than any of the
alternative roads - the wonder of tarmac with no HGVs to grind it
up. The peds slow me down, but no more so than traffic and traffic
lights would on the road.

As always, it's horses for courses.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"If I knew I'd live this long, I would have taken better care of myself."
- Mickey Mantle
 
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> writes:

>> Cycle paths make it easier to cycle. You get along faster,
>
> I've never seen a cyclepath of which that was true. There may be some,
> but I seriously doubt it.

Maybe my choice of word was wrong (sorry I am no native speaker). I
meant to include a part of the road marked for bicycle use only. For
my daily commute those together with shared bus lanes make the
difference between crawling at average car speed and being able to
cycle maybe twice as fast.

>> you can use
>> shortcuts that you wouldn't otherwise be allowed,
>
> Possibly, but you're equally cut off form shortcuts you otherwise would
> be allowed.

How do additional facilities limit your choice of way?

>> most people get a
>> feeling of safety. With cycle paths you can expect a greater take-up
>> of cycling.
>>
>> As the same statistics show, safely depends to a large degree on how
>> many cyclists there are
>
> /on the road/.

Surely if bicycle paths were better used and showed a constant stream
of bikes coming out at crosscroads, that would get the car drivers'
attention much better than the occational unexpected cyclist.

Robert
 
"wafflycat" <waffles*$*A**T*v21net$*££*D*O*T*co*D£$£*O*T*uk> writes:

> I beg to differ. Many a cycle path is dangerous, unwanted, not needed
> and a much use as a chocolate teapot.

You don't need to condemn the whole idea because of bad execution.

Take for example

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?G2M?X=539826&Y=187820&A=Y&Z=1

It's not shown well, but in fact the cycling paths in the middle layer
(lowest the A12, topmost the roundabout) go to all sides. With them
you can cycle safely from anywhere to anywhere not using the dangerous
roundabout.

> Aquaint yourself with
>
> http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/

Very nice collection. I was already aware of it though.

Robert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Advance notice of auction for lanky road cyclists
Replies
7
Views
688
UK and Europe
Arthur Clune
A
M
Advance stop lines
Replies
160
Views
4K
UK and Europe
John Hearns
J
D
Advance booking for the York Rally
Replies
8
Views
405
UK and Europe
David Martin
D
S
thoughts on advance stop lines
Replies
18
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Paul Luton
P
M
  • Locked
Suggestion to resolve advance-stop line problem
Replies
324
Views
11K
UK and Europe
Randal Lovelace
Randal Lovelace
Top Bottom Back