Highway Code consultation

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



Peter Fox wrote:
> Following on from David Martin's message. . .
> >
> >dkahn400 wrote:
> >> Peter Fox wrote:
> >>
> >> > Duh - look up how RETRO reflectors work will you?
> >>
> >> I think David meant that they would be visible under the street
> >> lighting without the need for reflectors.
> >
>
> Well I suggest he gets out more then and actually look at the
> effectiveness of street lighting.

I don't need to, I have one shining in through the window as I type..
I am perfectly aware of the effectiveness of street lighting. What in
particular had you in mind?

...d


> --
> PETER FOX Not the same since the bridge building business collapsed
> [email protected]
> 2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
> Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk>
 
wafflycat wrote:
> See a current 'official' CTC response to the proposed changes on the CTT
> forum at:-
> which includes:
> "In other words, there is virtually nothing new which will benefit
> cyclists' safety, and a number of things which could actually lead to
> yet more adverse legal outcomes against cyclists. In particular, there
> is a significantly increased risk that cyclists could find themselves
> being prosecuted, or having to accept reduced damages after being hit by
> drivers, because they were breaching the Highway Code, even though what
> they were doing wasn't merely legal, but perfectly sensible and, in some
> cases, positively recommended by John Franklin's "Cyclecraft", the
> officially-backed guidance on safe cycling!"

I have to question the competence of the people drafting the Highway
Code. There IS cycling knowledge in the DfT (one Gereint Killa comes
to mind), but there isn't much sign of it in the draft code.

This could have something to do with the fact that it's on the DSA
(DRIVING standards agency) website. There is a definite subtext of
'get out of the way of cars' and 'if you're hurt as a pedestrian or
cyclist it's your own fault'.

It urgently needs a rewrite by people who understand walking and
cycling and want to promote them.

Colin McKenzie
 
wafflycat wrote:
> I see it it proposed to change current rule 51 which includes:
>
> You should not ride more than two abreast and
> You should ride in single file on narrow or busy roads
>
> to be in Rule 63 and amended to:
>
> "You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on
> narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"
>
> It's the *never* bit that gets me more than anything. This could
> increase danger to cyclists when there are a lot of cyclists on road
> e.g. club run... audax... As this may effectively increase the *length*
> of road taken up by a moving group of cyclists... figure in impatient
> motorist overtaking when not okay and hey presto, increased the
> likelihood of cyclists being hit as all of a sudden the sight of an
> oncoming vehicle means the overtaking motorist is 'forced' to pull in
> when he's only halfway along the line of cyclists???

That may be seen as condoning cyclists who may deliberately go more than
two-abreast to block traffic. Oh what fun :-(
It may be a safe thing to do in exceptional circumstances (which I
cannot think of) but I'm sure it would be viewed as being unreasonable
by most road users.

Responsible cyclists would leave gaps for vehicles to pull into whilst
still not riding more than two-abreast.

"Never" is too strong though.


tt
 
Adrian Boliston wrote:
> "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>I see it it proposed to change current rule 51 which includes:
>>You should not ride more than two abreast and
>>You should ride in single file on narrow or busy roads
>>to be in Rule 63 and amended to:
>>"You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on
>>narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"
> If I was cycling along and up in front were a group of 6 cyclists riding 2
> abreast, would this mean that I would not be able to overtake them?

With trainees, we frequently double them up to get through traffic
lights quicker. The rear instructor is usually further out than the
trainees. That's effectively 3 abreast. With the proposed rule we'd
have to leave them in single file. We'd get through slower (and delay
drivers more), and be more likely to get split up (reducing our safety).

Colin McKenzie
 
Following on from triddletree's message. . .
>That may be seen as condoning cyclists who may deliberately go more than
>two-abreast to block traffic. Oh what fun :-(
>It may be a safe thing to do in exceptional circumstances (which I
>cannot think of) but I'm sure it would be viewed as being unreasonable
>by most road users.

The issue here is that the wonks writing the HC pontificate from their
cluelessness about things that are not issues _except to keep cycles out
of the way_ /as perceived by car drivers/. All this business of not
going two abreast so that you can be overtaken[1] is balls because if
there is room enough to overtake one then there is room enough to
overtake two.

[1] On narrow lanes where a normal single cyclist expects to have to
negotiate with oncoming and overtaking traffic then it makes sense for
sociably paired cyclists to thin out and be helpful.



--
PETER FOX Not the same since the bra business went bust
[email protected]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists
 
in message <[email protected]>, Adrian Boliston
('[email protected]') wrote:

> "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>I see it it proposed to change current rule 51 which includes:
>>
>> You should not ride more than two abreast and
>> You should ride in single file on narrow or busy roads
>>
>> to be in Rule 63 and amended to:
>>
>> "You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file
>> on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"
>
> If I was cycling along and up in front were a group of 6 cyclists
> riding 2 abreast, would this mean that I would not be able to overtake
> them?

That's right, yes. Stay behind the trundlies at all times.

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

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

> <snippity everything>
>
> I think Im misunderstanding something basic here :) What exactly is a
> cycle track, and is it physically seperated from the road or part of
> the road?

A cycle path or track is separated from the road, although is often
alongside a road and in Britain there is no official guidance requiring
any sort of barrier between. A cycle lane is marked on the road surface
with paint.

> Oh and have you got a reference (incomplete'll do) for the study?

There are a large number of studies of the safety of cycle paths and
cycle lanes. A good place to start is here:

<URL:http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html>

But you might also look here:
<URL:http://www.jfparker.demon.co.uk/lane_links.html>

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Iraq war: it's time for regime change...
... go now, Tony, while you can still go with dignity.
[update 18 months after this .sig was written: it's still relevant]
 
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:25:15 +0000 someone who may be Colin McKenzie
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>With trainees, we frequently double them up to get through traffic
>lights quicker. The rear instructor is usually further out than the
>trainees. That's effectively 3 abreast. With the proposed rule we'd
>have to leave them in single file. We'd get through slower (and delay
>drivers more), and be more likely to get split up (reducing our safety).

An excellent point to make to those running the "consultation".

It wasn't that long ago that there was the last "consultation" on
the thing and we were giving the authors free advice.


--
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
 
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.

FWIW, my comments on 63:

The advice for cyclists to ride in single file on narrow or busy roads or
on bends has no basis in law, is actively dangerous, and should be
removed.

Skilled cyclists will in any case ride in the primary position on narrow
or busy roads, except where it is safe for following vehicles to
overtake, and always on bends. This is the advice given by the
government's own manual on cycling, Cyclecraft. If a cyclist is in the
primary position there is always room for another cyclist on the inside.

But more importantly, experienced cyclists accompanying less experienced
cyclists, especially children, will normally ride on the outside of
them.

The advice for cyclists to ride in single file in more risky road
circumstances not only prevents the protection and mentoring of less
experienced cyclists, is also encourages motorists to overtake in places
where it is manifestly unsafe to do so, and the advice for cyclists to
single up in such places will confirm motorists in the belief that they
have a right to harass cyclists riding correctly in the primary
position, and that they have a right to overtake cyclists on bends
irrespective of the danger of doing so.

This rule as drafted not merely condones but actually encourages illegal
and dangerous road behaviour.

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

Morning had broken, and there was nothing we could do but wait
patiently for the RAC to arrive.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

agreed - I hadn't read that far when I posted the quote for rule 58.

in my opinion rules 56, 58, 60, 71 and 74 all need revision.
 
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:08:23 +0000 (UTC), "wafflycat"
<w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:

>I see it it proposed to change current rule 51 which includes:
>
>You should not ride more than two abreast and
>You should ride in single file on narrow or busy roads
>
>to be in Rule 63 and amended to:
>
>"You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on
>narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"
>
>It's the *never* bit that gets me more than anything. This could increase
>danger to cyclists when there are a lot of cyclists on road e.g. club run...
>audax... As this may effectively increase the *length* of road taken up by a
>moving group of cyclists... figure in impatient motorist overtaking when not
>okay and hey presto, increased the likelihood of cyclists being hit as all
>of a sudden the sight of an oncoming vehicle means the overtaking motorist
>is 'forced' to pull in when he's only halfway along the line of cyclists???
>
>Cheers, helen s
I suppose a consultation has to have *some* starting point, but the
imprecision of this draft is entirely symptomatic of the unending
shower of excrement descending from the political classes and their
lackeys.
Phew, that feels better; now I'll get back to twiddling with my bike
before a run out tomorrow :)


Pete
--
"If people think nature is their friend,
then they sure don't need an enemy." - Vonnegut
mono[losethis]treme@ntlw{andthis>orld.com
 
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Zog The Undeniable <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> IIRC it used to say, literally, "If there is a cycle path, ride on it".

Not quite - "If there is a suitable cycle path, ride on it".
Rule 137 in 1978.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:15:20, TheBagbournes <[email protected]> wrote:

> The small point about not removing your hands from the handlebars is OK
> riding advice, but "apart from to change gear" just gives away the
> massive ignorance behind this document. How many bikes do you see
> nowadays that *don't* have Ergo/STI/some kind of integration on the bars?

Most of the ones in my garage.

What's your alternative - make non-ergo/sti/whatnot illegal?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
> There are a large number of studies of the safety of cycle paths and
> cycle lanes. A good place to start is here:
>
> <URL:http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html>
>
> But you might also look here:
> <URL:http://www.jfparker.demon.co.uk/lane_links.html>

Thanks!
 
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:29:43 -0000, Nigel Cliffe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This bit of the thread smacks of tabloid headlines and lets avoid awkward
> facts that get in the way of a good rant.

<aol>

> Begin quote------
> On the right. If you are turning right, check the traffic to ensure it is
> safe, then signal and move to the centre of the road. Wait until there is a
> safe gap in the oncoming traffic before completing the turn. It may be safer
> to wait on the left until there is a safe gap or to dismount and push your
> cycle across the road.
>
> End quote-----
>
> That looks quite sensible. The rule starts by stating the proper way to do
> things. Then offers an alternative to those who might not like the first
> option.

And is itself a significant improvement over previous codes which
didn't have teh proper way to do it, and only offered the wait on teh
left advice. This is really not a rule to get agitated about at this
time, IMO.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:56:32 +0000,
Peter Fox <[email protected]> wrote:
> Following on from Just zis Guy, you know?'s message. . .
>
> Another stinker:-
>
> 107. You MUST
> ? use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit
> street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a
> speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise
> specified
>
> So those mandatory retro-reflectors will work of their own accord then
> will they? Err...I think not.
>
This rule is a statement of the law hence the MUST. It would be just
wrong if it said you MUST use headlights at night.

Maybe you think there should be another rule, you SHOULD use headlights
at night, even on roads with street lighting.

Whatever you might think of the laws, the highwaycode consultation is
not the place to argue about it as the drafters of the highway code
almost certainly have no say in what the law should be but just have to
reflect it in the highwaycode.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/
 
Following on from Nigel Cliffe's message. . .
>However, for the right-turn ranters, here's the text of Rule 71 from the
>consultation copy of the Highway Code, which is under the section "Road
>Junctions". Rules 69 and 70 cover left junctions. There are no changes
>proposed to the text compared to the current code.
>
>Begin quote------
>On the right. If you are turning right, check the traffic to ensure it is
>safe, then signal and move to the centre of the road. Wait until there is a
>safe gap in the oncoming traffic before completing the turn. It may be safer
>to wait on the left until there is a safe gap or to dismount and push your
>cycle across the road.
>
>End quote-----
>
>
>That looks quite sensible. The rule starts by stating the proper way to do
>things. Then offers an alternative to those who might not like the first
>option.


Err. Bollocks. The "proper way" to turn right depends on road geometry.
In some cases the proper place is not in "the centre of the road" but in
the centre/right of the lane. Hovering on the white line just so
traffic can whizz past on your left and right is NOT correct.


--
PETER FOX Not the same since the bottom fell out of the bucket business
[email protected]
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk>
 
in message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
('[email protected]') wrote:

> And each of these are not a change in the highway code.

Roundabouts is no change - but very dangerous. The other two are
materially changed and are both made more dangerous.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other
;; languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their
;; pockets for new vocabulary -- James D. Nicoll
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Highway Code Consultation Cockup
Replies
7
Views
523
UK and Europe
David Nutter
D
D
Highway Code anti-cyclist wording FOI answer
Replies
18
Views
533
UK and Europe
Ekul Namsob
E
C
Highway code
Replies
13
Views
698
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
Top Bottom Back