Highway Code consultation

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

The revision consultation for the Highway Code is now open. Closing
date is May 1, I think.

Rule 58 is expanded to 'use cycle facilities ... where these are
provided' (instead of 'where practicable'). If that gets through, we
have effectively lost our right to use the road anywhere the man from
the council has been out with his paint pot, regardless of utility,
condition or quality of the "facility".

For what it's worth, I'd like to see a fundamental structural change
to the Code. As it is, there are two classes of rule: law ("must")
and rule ("should") - this puts wearing a fluorescent jacket on an
equal footing with not overtaking on bends in terms of strength of
recommendation.

Instead, I suggest there should be three kinds of content: general
guidance and advice (preferably written in prose rather than as
numbered rules), safety-critical information, failure to follow which
may be evidence of driving without due care or some other offence, and
law.

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

 

[JBB]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The revision consultation for the Highway Code is now open. Closing
> date is May 1, I think.
>
> Rule 58 is expanded to 'use cycle facilities ... where these are
> provided' (instead of 'where practicable'). If that gets through, we
> have effectively lost our right to use the road anywhere the man from
> the council has been out with his paint pot, regardless of utility,
> condition or quality of the "facility".
>
> For what it's worth, I'd like to see a fundamental structural change
> to the Code. As it is, there are two classes of rule: law ("must")
> and rule ("should") - this puts wearing a fluorescent jacket on an
> equal footing with not overtaking on bends in terms of strength of
> recommendation.
>
> Instead, I suggest there should be three kinds of content: general
> guidance and advice (preferably written in prose rather than as
> numbered rules), safety-critical information, failure to follow which
> may be evidence of driving without due care or some other offence, and
> law.
>
> 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

Guy, I know you're busy but I've googled to see if there is a link to the
new proposals and checked the Dept of transport site. Do you have a link so
I can read this and then hopefully comment?

Julia

 

[Alistair Gunn]

Just zis Guy, you know? twisted the electrons to say:
> Rule 58 is expanded to 'use cycle facilities ... where these are
> provided' (instead of 'where practicable'). If that gets through, we
> have effectively lost our right to use the road anywhere the man from
> the council has been out with his paint pot, regardless of utility,
> condition or quality of the "facility".

.... and how do one add ones voice to this consultation since, as you say,
the new rule 58 is plainly a really bad idea?

> Instead, I suggest there should be three kinds of content: general
> guidance and advice (preferably written in prose rather than as
> numbered rules), safety-critical information, failure to follow which
> may be evidence of driving without due care or some other offence, and
> law.

I think you want to use the wording from RFCs - May / Should / Must?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

 

[[email protected]]

JBB <[email protected]> wrote:
> Guy, I know you're busy but I've googled to see if there is a link to the
> new proposals and checked the Dept of transport site. Do you have a link so
> I can read this and then hopefully comment?

Yeah same here....

Also is there a change to the recommendation to the 18 mph limit on cycle paths
because if there isn't then it would seem to be contradictory or it would
be saying that cyclists aren't allowed to exceed 18mph where a cycle path is
available..

 

[[email protected]]

Consultation link is here <http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Content.asp?id=SX1354-A7827478>

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected]lid wrote:
> Consultation link is here <http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Content.asp?id=SX1354-A7827478>

And the actual wording of rule 58 is

When cycling
58. Use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities
such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan
crossings where they are provided, as they can make your
journeys safer.

 

[JBB]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Consultation link is here
> <http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Content.asp?id=SX1354-A7827478>

Thanks very much - I just need to google for thes tudies on cycle lane
safety and I'm away..

Julia

 

[Adrian Boliston]

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

> [email protected]lid wrote:
>> Consultation link is here
>> <http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Content.asp?id=SX1354-A7827478>
>
> And the actual wording of rule 58 is
>
> When cycling
> 58. Use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities
> such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan
> crossings where they are provided, as they can make your
> journeys safer.

At least there is no mention of either having to use on-road cycle lanes, or
roadside cycle paths.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Content.asp?id=SX1354-A7827478

When cycling
58. Use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities
such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan
crossings where they are provided, as they can make your
journeys safer.

60. Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which
may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 134). Keep
within the lane wherever possible.

Bleugh. "Use cycle routes when practicable cycle facilities
.... where provided"

"Cycle lanes ... Keep within the lane wherever possible"




After writing several drafts I've given up and will just plagiarise someone
elses.

I presume form letters don't carry the same weight, so suggest that after
the usual discussion we can thrash out what we don't like, what the wording
should be, and if anything else (references to studies?) be included in out
submissions. We can then go off and flesh it out so that teacher won't
notice.

 

[Colin]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > [email protected]lid wrote:
> >> Consultation link is here
> >> <http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Content.asp?id=SX1354-A7827478>
>
> At least there is no mention of either having to use on-road cycle lanes, or
> roadside cycle paths.
>
Try rule 60 then:
Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken)
along the carriageway. (see rule 134). Keep within the lane wherever
possible.

note this doesn't say "practical", only possible, so presumably if it's
at all possible we are expected to be in the cycle lane.

--
Colin

Coincidence is the alibi of the Gods

 

[Mark Thompson]

> At least there is no mention of either having to use on-road cycle
> lanes

"Cycle lanes ... Keep within the lane wherever possible"

It's halfway there. Not the "whenever possible" rather than the more
sensible (but IMHO still awful) "where practicable" used in the other rule.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> "Cycle lanes ... Keep within the lane wherever possible"
>
> It's halfway there. Not the "whenever possible" rather than the more
> sensible (but IMHO still awful) "where practicable" used in the other
> rule.

Found this on the desk after I hit send--> e


--
Today I have mostly been drinking Wadworth 6X. And it shows.

 

[Tony Raven]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> The revision consultation for the Highway Code is now open. Closing
> date is May 1, I think.
>
> Rule 58 is expanded to 'use cycle facilities ... where these are
> provided' (instead of 'where practicable'). If that gets through, we
> have effectively lost our right to use the road anywhere the man from
> the council has been out with his paint pot, regardless of utility,
> condition or quality of the "facility".
>

The version I've just downloaded says:

58. Use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities
such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan
crossings where they are provided, as they can make your
journeys safer.

which is a somewhat different meaning from your snipped version and its
interpretation IMO.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Adrian Boliston]

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

> Try rule 60 then:
> Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken)
> along the carriageway. (see rule 134). Keep within the lane wherever
> possible.
>
> note this doesn't say "practical", only possible, so presumably if it's
> at all possible we are expected to be in the cycle lane.

I am wondering if the HC still carries the suicidal advice to cycle round a
roundabout keeping to the far left the whole time. I will happily use a
cycle lane if it does not put me in greater danger, but I will never use a
lane that puts me in danger just to keep to HC "advice".

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 17 Feb 2006 06:03:48 +0800, [email protected]lid said in
<[email protected]>:

>58. Use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities
>such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan
>crossings where they are provided, as they can make your
>journeys safer.

Excellent, thank you. I got this from an email list, I have been very
busy of late. I will now go and slap with a wet fish someone who is
very well known in the cycling world and should have known better.

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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:34:26 -0000, Colin
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken)
>along the carriageway. (see rule 134). Keep within the lane wherever
>possible.

If you're an expert cyclist you could probably keep within the lane I
ride past most days, but less skilled riders will stray outside it
since it's only an inch or so further out than the sunken drain
covers.

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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:52:07 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>58. Use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities
>such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan
>crossings where they are provided, as they can make your
>journeys safer.
>which is a somewhat different meaning from your snipped version and its
>interpretation IMO.

Yup, and I have only just succeeded in getting to the original myself
(it came to me from a policy mailing list). 60, on the other hand, is
100% shite.

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 Martin]

Mark Thompson wrote:
> > "Cycle lanes ... Keep within the lane wherever possible"
> >
> > It's halfway there. Not the "whenever possible" rather than the more
> > sensible (but IMHO still awful) "where practicable" used in the other
> > rule.

I have done my fill in the blanks duty. Suggested they read Cyclecraft
and remove inconsistencies that rule 60 would bring when considered
with rules such as 64 (leave plenty of room when passing parked cars),
and the rules on positioning with regard to turns.

Suggested a revised wording;

'Stay within the cycle lane where it is safe and practicable to do so.
Take care when leaving the cycle lane to pass obstructions or perform
other manouveurs'

And given them a load of spiel with examples of how 'where possible'
would endanger cyclists.

...d

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Just zis Guy,
you know? ('[email protected]') wrote:

> The revision consultation for the Highway Code is now open. Closing
> date is May 1, I think.

Sorry, Guy, where do we find this?

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

;; all in all you're just another click in the call
;; -- Minke Bouyed

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Mark
Thompson
('pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com') wrote:

>> http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Content.asp?id=SX1354-A7827478
>
> When cycling

Rule 56 says you 'should wear a helmet which conforms to current
regulations'. This is inappropriate advice, which may be dangerous.

The evidence on safety of cycle helmets is ambiguous and patchy. But in
every single territory where helmet use has increased, so has the the
KSI rate per billion cycle kilometers. While helmets undoubtedly
ameliorate injury in some accidents, they also clearly aggravate injury
in some, and increasing helmet use undoubtedly leads to a slight
increase in KSI rates. Furthermore, the evidence seems to be that the
accidents in which helmets aggravate injury are those with relatively
high impact speeds, e.g. collisions with motor vehicles.

So helmet wearing on the road at best does not improve cyclist safety,
and at worst actually reduces it.

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

;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.