DoT Publication - A Sustainable Future for Cycling

[Slark]

I've just had a quick scan through the DoT's sustainable future for
cycling document published in January:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/cycling/cyclingfuture.pdf

It's good to see the increase in interest in cycling and the associated
benefits it brings, but two issues stand out for me: (1) I don't see any
mention of changing the current motor vehicle training & testing to
increase awareness of cyclists, and other users, rights and
responsibilities, and (2) there's not a single picture of a cyclist
without a helmet - is it actually illegal to cycle anywhere without one
these days (I'm being ironic...).

Graham

 

[Doki]

"Slark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've just had a quick scan through the DoT's sustainable future for
> cycling document published in January:
>
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/cycling/cyclingfuture.pdf
>
> It's good to see the increase in interest in cycling and the associated
> benefits it brings, but two issues stand out for me: (1) I don't see any
> mention of changing the current motor vehicle training & testing to
> increase awareness of cyclists, and other users, rights and
> responsibilities, and (2) there's not a single picture of a cyclist
> without a helmet - is it actually illegal to cycle anywhere without one
> these days (I'm being ironic...).

From what I remember of when I learned, (1) is already in the highway code.
2 is a pain in the neck though.

 

[Slark]

Doki wrote:
>
> "Slark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I've just had a quick scan through the DoT's sustainable future for
>> cycling document published in January:
>>
>> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/cycling/cyclingfuture.pdf
>>
>> It's good to see the increase in interest in cycling and the
>> associated benefits it brings, but two issues stand out for me: (1) I
>> don't see any mention of changing the current motor vehicle training &
>> testing to increase awareness of cyclists, and other users, rights and
>> responsibilities, and (2) there's not a single picture of a cyclist
>> without a helmet - is it actually illegal to cycle anywhere without
>> one these days (I'm being ironic...).
>
> From what I remember of when I learned, (1) is already in the highway
> code. 2 is a pain in the neck though.

Thanks Doki - forgive my ignorance, but does the HC talk about primary,
secondary positions for cyclists - i.e. make it clear why we do what we
have to do?

Graham

 

[Doki]

"Slark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doki wrote:
>>
>> "Slark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> I've just had a quick scan through the DoT's sustainable future for
>>> cycling document published in January:
>>>
>>> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/cycling/cyclingfuture.pdf
>>>
>>> It's good to see the increase in interest in cycling and the associated
>>> benefits it brings, but two issues stand out for me: (1) I don't see any
>>> mention of changing the current motor vehicle training & testing to
>>> increase awareness of cyclists, and other users, rights and
>>> responsibilities, and (2) there's not a single picture of a cyclist
>>> without a helmet - is it actually illegal to cycle anywhere without one
>>> these days (I'm being ironic...).
>>
>> From what I remember of when I learned, (1) is already in the highway
>> code. 2 is a pain in the neck though.
>
> Thanks Doki - forgive my ignorance, but does the HC talk about primary,
> secondary positions for cyclists - i.e. make it clear why we do what we
> have to do?

I don't think it goes into that much detail. More of "give cyclists room and
don't drive like a ***" type of thing. The Highway code is online...

 

[Mark]

On Wed, 7 May 2008 18:19:21 +0100, "Doki" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Slark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Doki wrote:
>>>
>>> "Slark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> I've just had a quick scan through the DoT's sustainable future for
>>>> cycling document published in January:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/cycling/cyclingfuture.pdf
>>>>
>>>> It's good to see the increase in interest in cycling and the associated
>>>> benefits it brings, but two issues stand out for me: (1) I don't see any
>>>> mention of changing the current motor vehicle training & testing to
>>>> increase awareness of cyclists, and other users, rights and
>>>> responsibilities, and (2) there's not a single picture of a cyclist
>>>> without a helmet - is it actually illegal to cycle anywhere without one
>>>> these days (I'm being ironic...).
>>>
>>> From what I remember of when I learned, (1) is already in the highway
>>> code. 2 is a pain in the neck though.
>>
>> Thanks Doki - forgive my ignorance, but does the HC talk about primary,
>> secondary positions for cyclists - i.e. make it clear why we do what we
>> have to do?
>
>I don't think it goes into that much detail. More of "give cyclists room and
>don't drive like a ***" type of thing. The Highway code is online...

How many motorists have ever read the Highway Code since they took
their test? I doubt it is very many judging from the appalling
ignorance shown by most.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

 

[Daniel Barlow]

Mark <[email protected]> writes:

> How many motorists have ever read the Highway Code since they took
> their test? I doubt it is very many judging from the appalling
> ignorance shown by most.

It's almost universal among drivers (my driving instructor even
admitted as much) that you drive one way for the test and another way
once you've passed[*], so I expect most road users consider knowledge
of the highway code as just a hoop to jump through that can later be
ignored.


-dan

[*] this is not universally bad - for example, in normal driving you
don't need to make exaggerated head movements so that the car passenger
is aware you're checking the mirror.

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"Slark" <[email protected]> wrote

[snip]

> Thanks Doki - forgive my ignorance, but does the HC talk about
> primary, secondary positions for cyclists - i.e. make it clear why
> we do what we have to do?

There's a new fashion, for pictures showing bike + car, and saying
"Share the road".

Many motorists love this idea, because they think it's directed at
cyclists, not them, and that "Share the road" means "Share the lane
(under all circumstances)"

Jeremy Parker