Highway Code anti-cyclist wording FOI answer



D

David Hansen

Guest
You may recall the attempt by the Department of Transport to adopt
anti-cyclist wording in the Highway Code.

I have been having a battle with them to try and find out who was in
favour of this wording and who was not. They have now provided as
much of this information as they claim they can under the Freedom of
Information Act, a sample of the responses.

I have not looked at it yet, but it will be interesting to see
whether this sample confirms my thoughts or not.

<http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2008/march08/highwaycode/> has
their information should anyone wish to consider it.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
On 25 Mar, 12:53, David Hansen <[email protected]>
wrote:
> You may recall the attempt by the Department of Transport to adopt
> anti-cyclist wording in the Highway Code.
>
> I have been having a battle with them to try and find out who was in
> favour of this wording and who was not. They have now provided as
> much of this information as they claim they can under the Freedom of
> Information Act, a sample of the responses.
>
> I have not looked at it yet, but it will be interesting to see
> whether this sample confirms my thoughts or not.
>
> <http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2008/march08/highwaycode/> has
> their information should anyone wish to consider it.

From a quick look at a few of the responses they are all either from
cyclist's campaigng groups or individuals agreeing with the CTC's
response with a few comments of their own.

What exactly did you ask for?
 

> From a quick look at a few of the responses they are all either from
> cyclist's campaigng groups or individuals agreeing with the CTC's
> response with a few comments of their own.
>
> What exactly did you ask for?

Aye - a random picking out of quuite a few of the individual responses -
it's all as you say.
 
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:14:00 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be POHB
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> I have not looked at it yet, but it will be interesting to see
>> whether this sample confirms my thoughts or not.
>>
>> <http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2008/march08/highwaycode/> has
>> their information should anyone wish to consider it.
>
>From a quick look at a few of the responses they are all either from
>cyclist's campaigng groups or individuals agreeing with the CTC's
>response with a few comments of their own.

That is what I expected. The question is whether anyone supported
their anti-cyclist wording and if so what sort of interests an
organisation represents.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
David Hansen wrote:
> You may recall the attempt by the Department of Transport to adopt
> anti-cyclist wording in the Highway Code.
>
> I have been having a battle with them to try and find out who was in
> favour of this wording and who was not. They have now provided as
> much of this information as they claim they can under the Freedom of
> Information Act, a sample of the responses.
>
> I have not looked at it yet, but it will be interesting to see
> whether this sample confirms my thoughts or not.
>
> <http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2008/march08/highwaycode/> has
> their information should anyone wish to consider it.


You've been given 400 of the 2500 responses. So, the contents of the other
2100 is unknown. There is no indication as to whether the 400 shown are
representative.

From a very quick random opening of a dozen or so labelled as "individual",
all I've opened are from cyclists, most arguing the points raised by the CTC
and this newsgroup.

I also checked all the organisations in the first group who are not
immediately cycle groups from their title. None were arguing in favour of
the old bad wording, many against it.


So, all you've got is an absence of evidence of anyone in favour of the bad
wording and 2100 unknown responses.



- Nigel



--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
 
"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> You may recall the attempt by the Department of Transport to adopt
> anti-cyclist wording in the Highway Code.
>
> I have been having a battle with them to try and find out who was in
> favour of this wording and who was not. They have now provided as
> much of this information as they claim they can under the Freedom of
> Information Act, a sample of the responses.
>
> I have not looked at it yet, but it will be interesting to see
> whether this sample confirms my thoughts or not.
>
> <http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2008/march08/highwaycode/> has
> their information should anyone wish to consider it.
>
>
>
> --
> David Hansen, Edinburgh
> I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54


It's noticeable that a large number of responses used the CTC wording either
in part or in full.
 
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:12:27 -0000 someone who may be "Nigel Cliffe"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>You've been given 400 of the 2500 responses.

Correct.

>So, the contents of the other 2100 is unknown.

Correct.

>There is no indication as to whether the 400 shown are representative.

What they have hopefully done is what they said they would do:

"The easiest way for us to retrieve information is alphabetically by
the name of the respondent. So we could start at the beginning and
work our way through until the £600 limit was reached. We would
therefore provide a sample of the database weighted towards the
start of the alphabet."

Any other approach would have produced even less data to consider.

Given the limitations, I think the sample is the best that could be
done.

>I also checked all the organisations in the first group who are not
>immediately cycle groups from their title. None were arguing in favour of
>the old bad wording, many against it.

Thanks. That too is interesting as it localises the supporters of
the wording to the DfT themselves.

>So, all you've got is an absence of evidence of anyone in favour of the bad
>wording and 2100 unknown responses.

I await suggestions of an alternative approach from the clever
cloggs.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
David Hansen wrote:

> I await suggestions of an alternative approach from the clever
> cloggs.

(1)
The DfT must have accessed the data themselves and summarised it so they
must be a breakdown of for/against/don't know.
(2)
If you asked for the submissions that 'agree with DfT' then that's what you
should get. They have refused - something stinks. (Surprise!)

Write to the Minister (cc your MP) asking for an enquiry about how what the
DfT said appears to be contradicted by the evidence.


--
Peter Fox
Beer, dancing, cycling and lots more at www.eminent.demon.co.uk
 
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:38:07 +0000 someone who may be Peter Fox
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>David Hansen wrote:
>
>> I await suggestions of an alternative approach from the clever
>> cloggs.
>
>(1)
>The DfT must have accessed the data themselves and summarised it

Correct.

>so they must be a breakdown of for/against/don't know.

They claim not. They claim that whether an individual respondent was
for, against or silent on the anti-cyclist wording was not recorded
in their database. The admission that they have the responses in a
database took a lot of persuasion.

They also claim that they did not record whether people wanted their
responses to be kept secret and thus they had to check each response
individually. They claim this took time and to work through the
whole lot was above the cost ceiling set for requests under the Act.

>(2)
>If you asked for the submissions that 'agree with DfT'

It is not something I asked for. However, there is nothing to stop
someone else asking this and reporting back what they say. I imagine
they would claim that it is too expensive to gather this information
as it would involve looking through each one, as in my two
paragraphs above.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:38:07 +0000 someone who may be Peter Fox
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Write to the Minister (cc your MP) asking for an enquiry about how what the
>DfT said appears to be contradicted by the evidence.

While I couldn't do that, from a quick skim I do think I have enough
to ask my MP to ask the minister who agreed with the anti-cyclist
wording. I too have checked and none of the non-cycling
organisations agreed, rather they disagreed.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
David Hansen wrote:

>
>> So, all you've got is an absence of evidence of anyone in favour of the bad
>> wording and 2100 unknown responses.
>
> I await suggestions of an alternative approach from the clever
> cloggs.

You don't need an alternative approach. You can now quite honestly say
that the DT has not provided any evidence of anyone in favour of the
wording.
 
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:53:01 +0000, David Hansen
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

><http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2008/march08/highwaycode/> has
>their information should anyone wish to consider it.

Send me emu, anyone, if you want one pdf with all combined (a bit
easier to browse through).

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:12:27 -0000 someone who may be "Nigel Cliffe"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >You've been given 400 of the 2500 responses.
>
> Correct.
>
> >So, the contents of the other 2100 is unknown.
>
> Correct.
>
> >There is no indication as to whether the 400 shown are representative.
>
> What they have hopefully done is what they said they would do:
>
> "The easiest way for us to retrieve information is alphabetically by
> the name of the respondent. So we could start at the beginning and
> work our way through until the £600 limit was reached. We would
> therefore provide a sample of the database weighted towards the
> start of the alphabet."
>
> Any other approach would have produced even less data to consider.
>
> Given the limitations, I think the sample is the best that could be
> done.
>
> >I also checked all the organisations in the first group who are not
> >immediately cycle groups from their title. None were arguing in favour of
> >the old bad wording, many against it.
>
> Thanks. That too is interesting as it localises the supporters of
> the wording to the DfT themselves.
>
> >So, all you've got is an absence of evidence of anyone in favour of the bad
> >wording and 2100 unknown responses.
>
> I await suggestions of an alternative approach from the clever
> cloggs.

How far through the alphabet did they get? Would there be a way of
someone else totally independently wording a FOI query that would get
another tranche - even as unsubtle as the same wording with "and make it
from M forwards please."

Last time I checked the Scottish Parliament web site for a consultation
response, anything not specified confidential appeared to be on-line,
certainly anything from an organisation rather than an individual. I
take it from this thread that DfT don't do this?

--Pete

--
on a clear disk you can seek forever
 
David Hansen wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:38:07 +0000 someone who may be Peter Fox
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>David Hansen wrote:
>>
>>> I await suggestions of an alternative approach from the clever
>>> cloggs.
>>
>>(1)
>>The DfT must have accessed the data themselves and summarised it
>
> Correct.
>
>>so they must be a breakdown of for/against/don't know.
>
> They claim not. They claim that whether an individual respondent was
> for, against or silent on the anti-cyclist wording was not recorded
> in their database. The admission that they have the responses in a
> database took a lot of persuasion.
>
> They also claim that they did not record whether people wanted their
> responses to be kept secret and thus they had to check each response
> individually. They claim this took time and to work through the
> whole lot was above the cost ceiling set for requests under the Act.

I find this interesting.

My surname, as you may notice, begins with 'B'. They have most certainly not
approached me to ask whether my response could be published. If they
started from the beginning of the alphabet, one would have thought that
they would have done so. I have not yet checked through all
the 'individual' responses, so my response may be there.

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

;; When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.
 
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:45:45 +0000 someone who may be Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> They also claim that they did not record whether people wanted their
>> responses to be kept secret and thus they had to check each response
>> individually. They claim this took time and to work through the
>> whole lot was above the cost ceiling set for requests under the Act.
>
>I find this interesting.
>
>My surname, as you may notice, begins with 'B'. They have most certainly not
>approached me to ask whether my response could be published.

That will presumably have been part of their response questionnaire.
Most things have this sort of thing these days, along with an
impertinent form asking you if you are a black, disabled, Welsh,
woman, trades unionist and so on. Most sensible people ignore the
latter completely, other than perhaps to type none of your dammed
business on it. Some fill in at least bits of the former.

I assume that if someone did not indicate that their response was to
be secret they have assumed it is public. Personally I would have
rejected any response on the Highway Code where the author wanted it
kept secret. However, I suspect they would never do this as some of
their highly influential cronies don't like their ideas viewed by us
plebs.

However, you raise an interesting point. Your response should be in
the released documents, unless there was a massive number of people
with 'A' and 'Ba' to 'Br' surnames. If it is not then that is
certainly something for me or you, or both of us, to take up via our
MPs.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:43:19 +0000 someone who may be
[email protected]lid (Pete Lindsay) wrote this:-

>Last time I checked the Scottish Parliament web site for a consultation
>response, anything not specified confidential appeared to be on-line,
>certainly anything from an organisation rather than an individual. I
>take it from this thread that DfT don't do this?

Correct.

I did give them an example of just this sort of thing (as it happens
from the City of Edinburgh Council), but they claimed that they did
and could not do this and only their "summary" could be provided.

There might be a reasonably good explanation for this, perhaps
inertia. You can see some of their assertions on this subject in
their e-mail, which they call a letter. They no longer send me
Microshit Word documents which, like many badly run organisations,
is their default way of sending an e-mail. It is clear that they
have yet to understand the computer age.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> David Hansen wrote:

> > They also claim that they did not record whether people wanted their
> > responses to be kept secret and thus they had to check each response
> > individually. They claim this took time and to work through the
> > whole lot was above the cost ceiling set for requests under the Act.
>
> I find this interesting.
>
> My surname, as you may notice, begins with 'B'. They have most certainly not
> approached me to ask whether my response could be published. If they
> started from the beginning of the alphabet, one would have thought that
> they would have done so. I have not yet checked through all
> the 'individual' responses, so my response may be there.

As might mine, slightly earlier than yours, I would guess. Having said
that, I'm not sure whether I gave my feedback directly. I know that I
contacted my MP who forwarded my letter but this could possibly mean
that it is filed under H for Hendrick, Huseless Hcrony of Htony Hwho
Hnow Hseems Hto Hbe Hsucking Hup to Hgordon.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Highway code
Replies
13
Views
697
UK and Europe
Martin Dann
M
N
Highway Code, published in 1931
Replies
13
Views
390
UK and Europe
Jeremy Parker
J
T
Final version of the Highway Code
Replies
14
Views
417
UK and Europe
David D Miller
D
T
Highway Code - something to hide?
Replies
14
Views
409
UK and Europe
permajeo
permajeo
A
Highway Code - Response from MP
Replies
3
Views
268
UK and Europe
Ekul Namsob
E
Top Bottom Back