Highway Code consultation

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:30:59 +0000, Pete Connors <> said in
<[email protected]>:

>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.

Yes, it's not so much a step back as a giant leap in entirely the
wrong direction. I suspect this is the result of persistent lobbying
from the ABD and the Daily Mail tendency.

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

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 18:06:12 +0000, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

I noted that the advice is, in places, very bad.

I think you need to quote what has changed.

My printed copy and the draft I downloaded show no changes to the
parts about busy or narrow roads, nor to the use of cycle lanes,
tracks and routes. I noted what _has_ changed.

I'd be interested to know what specific changes you think have
occurred to these parts.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 18:29:02 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:30:59 +0000, Pete Connors <> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >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.
>
> Yes, it's not so much a step back as a giant leap in entirely the
> wrong direction. I suspect this is the result of persistent lobbying
> from the ABD and the Daily Mail tendency.

You lot really must be reading a different draft to me.

There have been a few minor changes. While pretty much all teh
proposed changes are bad, I agree, there simply haven't been enough
of them to qualify as a "giant leap in entirely the wrong direction".

The only fundamentally new requirements are to ride single file round
bends, and to use advanced stop lines and similar. That's not a giant
leap. Banning bicycles from all A-roads and dual carriageways would
be a giant leap in teh wrong direction. Compulsory licensing would be
a giant leap. Mandatory helmets would be a giant leap. The changes
are bad more for what they doin't include (scrapping some of teh
existing very bad advice) than for what they have changed.

Consider:

No change or neutral clarification:
56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75,
76, 77, 78, 79

Benefit:
57

Worse:
58, 63

As noted above, the only changes in 58 and 63 relate to riding round
bends, and the use of advanced stop lines, toucan crossings and
similar.

If you think that's a giant leap in teh wrong direction I think you
have a very poor imagination.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 18:06:12 +0000, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I noted that the advice is, in places, very bad.
>
> I think you need to quote what has changed.
>
> My printed copy and the draft I downloaded show no changes to the
> parts about busy or narrow roads, nor to the use of cycle lanes,
> tracks and routes. I noted what _has_ changed.
>
> I'd be interested to know what specific changes you think have
> occurred to these parts.

As you say, you noted them. You seem to think they're detail and don't
matter. I think they're important and do. Every increase in the emphasis
in the highway code regarding using facilities will inevitably increase
the hostility of motorists towards cyclists on the road; and preventing
a parent staying on the outside of a child on a twisty road is
irresponsible and dangerous in the extreme, particularly as there is no
legal basis for this advice.

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

See one nuclear war, you've seen them all.

 

[David Martin]

Ian Smith wrote:
> There have been a few minor changes. While pretty much all teh
> proposed changes are bad, I agree, there simply haven't been enough
> of them to qualify as a "giant leap in entirely the wrong direction".

We are given the opportunity to state what we want them to be as a
whole, not just the bits the draft changes. You may be right in that it
is not a giant leap, but changing 'should not ride more than 2 abreast'
to 'never ride more than 2 abreast' is a significant, non neutral
change, amongst others.

...d

 

[Ian Smith]

On 19 Feb 2006, David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > There have been a few minor changes. While pretty much all teh
> > proposed changes are bad, I agree, there simply haven't been enough
> > of them to qualify as a "giant leap in entirely the wrong direction".
>
> We are given the opportunity to state what we want them to be as a
> whole, not just the bits the draft changes. You may be right in that it
> is not a giant leap, but changing 'should not ride more than 2 abreast'
> to 'never ride more than 2 abreast' is a significant, non neutral
> change, amongst others.

It has changed "should not ride more than 2 abreast" to "should never
ride more than 2 abreast". The implication of this is somewhat less
severe than as quoted above, imo.

And it isn't a giant leap in entirely the wrong direction.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[David Martin]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On 19 Feb 2006, David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Ian Smith wrote:
> > > There have been a few minor changes. While pretty much all teh
> > > proposed changes are bad, I agree, there simply haven't been enough
> > > of them to qualify as a "giant leap in entirely the wrong direction".
> >
> > We are given the opportunity to state what we want them to be as a
> > whole, not just the bits the draft changes. You may be right in that it
> > is not a giant leap, but changing 'should not ride more than 2 abreast'
> > to 'never ride more than 2 abreast' is a significant, non neutral
> > change, amongst others.
>
> It has changed "should not ride more than 2 abreast" to "should never
> ride more than 2 abreast". The implication of this is somewhat less
> severe than as quoted above, imo.
>
> And it isn't a giant leap in entirely the wrong direction.

It is just as significant. It is changing it in effect from being
dashed white lines to solid white lines if you compare it to a hatched
area on the road.

...d

 

[Matt B]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:29:43 -0000, Nigel Cliffe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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.

Compared to, say, the 1999 edition, rule 59:
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-----

;-)

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> The really, really dangerous stuff is
>
> * Rondabouts (rule 74)

Which is identical to rule 62 in all versions since, at least, 1999.

> * Single file on narrow or twisty roads (rule 63)

Which only differs from the current rule 51 slightly, wrt single file
round bends, and the bell recommendation.

> * Cycle routes/lanes/tracks (rules 58-60)

58 is only an updated version of the old 47 to include ASLs, boxes and
toucans.
59 is identical to the old 48, but updated to remind that the pedestrian
side of the line is still technically the pavement.
60 is identical to the old 49.

Have you ever even /read/, let alone taken any notice of the current HC?

--
Matt B

 

[David Martin]

Matt B wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> >
> > The really, really dangerous stuff is
> >
> > * Rondabouts (rule 74)
>
> Which is identical to rule 62 in all versions since, at least, 1999.

And how many major versions have there been since 1999? That was the
only major revision for a long while and regarded by many as retrograde
with respect to cycling.

> > * Single file on narrow or twisty roads (rule 63)
> 60 is identical to the old 49.
No it isn't. It is significantly different in that it now includes the
word 'Never'.

> Have you ever even /read/, let alone taken any notice of the current HC?

Personally I prefer to take account of what the law is (primary
resource) and then as a secondary resource the governments
recommendations wrt cycling safely (Cyclecraft). Finally I will
consider the Highway code, but remembering its origins as a nanny state
document to make the roads more convenient for motorists at the expense
of everyone else.

...d

 

[Matt B]

David Martin wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>>Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>>>The really, really dangerous stuff is
>>>
>>>* Rondabouts (rule 74)
>>
>>Which is identical to rule 62 in all versions since, at least, 1999.
>
> And how many major versions have there been since 1999?

I never said /major/.

> That was the
> only major revision for a long while and regarded by many as retrograde
> with respect to cycling.

That's as maybe.

>>>* Single file on narrow or twisty roads (rule 63)
>>
>>60 is identical to the old 49.
>
> No it isn't. It is significantly different in that it now includes the
> word 'Never'.

Look again...

1999 49: Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be
broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 119). Keep within the lane
wherever possible.

2006 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.

>>Have you ever even /read/, let alone taken any notice of the current HC?
>
> Personally I prefer to take account of what the law is (primary
> resource) and then as a secondary resource the governments
> recommendations wrt cycling safely (Cyclecraft). Finally I will
> consider the Highway code, but remembering its origins as a nanny state
> document to make the roads more convenient for motorists at the expense
> of everyone else.

Aren't most road laws "nanny state" regulations? Aren't most laws
unnecessary and nannyish?

--
Matt B

 

[David Martin]

Matt B wrote:
> >>Which is identical to rule 62 in all versions since, at least, 1999.
> >
> > And how many major versions have there been since 1999?
>
> I never said /major/.
And didn't answer the question. 1999 is pretty recent. Your sophistry
could be rephrased as 'is identical to the last revision' whilst trying
to give the impression that it has always been the case.

> >>60 is identical to the old 49.
> >
> > No it isn't. It is significantly different in that it now includes the
> > word 'Never'.
>
> Look again...
Sorry, memory fade. I was thinking of the two abreast rule.

> 2006 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.

I find this advice to be fine as long as the lane in question meets
appropriate design specs. I refuse to ride with my trailer wheels
clipping the kerb, and would prefer to leave a minimum of 2ft between
the inside wheel and the kerb. That puts me outside many lanes, even
without the trailer.

> Aren't most road laws "nanny state" regulations? Aren't most laws
> unnecessary and nannyish?

No. Blunt instruments maybe.

...d

 

[Matt B]

David Martin wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>>>>Which is identical to rule 62 in all versions since, at least, 1999.
>>>
>>>And how many major versions have there been since 1999?
>>
>>I never said /major/.
>
> And didn't answer the question. 1999 is pretty recent. Your sophistry
> could be rephrased as 'is identical to the last revision' whilst trying
> to give the impression that it has always been the case.

Then there was the 2004 edition of course.

>>>>60 is identical to the old 49.
>>>
>>>No it isn't. It is significantly different in that it now includes the
>>>word 'Never'.
>>
>>Look again...
>
> Sorry, memory fade. I was thinking of the two abreast rule.
>
>>2006 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.
>
> I find this advice to be fine as long as the lane in question meets
> appropriate design specs. I refuse to ride with my trailer wheels
> clipping the kerb, and would prefer to leave a minimum of 2ft between
> the inside wheel and the kerb. That puts me outside many lanes, even
> without the trailer.

Yes, I'm sure wide vehicles are excepted, as for wide motor vehicles in
similar circumstances. If it's no practical ignore it, but take extra care.

>>Aren't most road laws "nanny state" regulations? Aren't most laws
>>unnecessary and nannyish?
>
> No. Blunt instruments maybe.

We don't need separate laws (if we actually need one at all) to tell us
not to commit murder, or assault, or not to rob or run people over, or
to lights at night, or not to steal or incite any of those things - one
could be phrased to cover all the obviously morally wrong things, and
all the things not yet explicitly prohibited.

The only laws we need are those banning victimless crimes which are only
wrong because the law says they are - like: shopping extended hours on a
Sunday, taking 'drugs', turning left at a red light, etc. But then one
would do "Everything in appendix 1 is banned" and appendix one could be
updated each time a ministers knee jerks. ;-)

--
Matt B

 

[Peter Fox]

Following on from Ian Smith's message. . .
>> Err. Bollocks. The "proper way" to turn right depends on road geometry.
>
>Bollocks bollocks. If you want the highway code to address such
>things in such detail, you're going to need a book the size of the
>current one for each junction in the country. I'd need something teh
>size of a large dictionary just to get to work in teh morning.
>
>As a simple rule, the existing rule is appropriate. It might not be
>appropriate for anyone dumb enough to think "centre of the road" means
>they must whip out a tape measure and find the geometric centre point
>accurate to teh millimetre, but such people are few, and are never
>going to be adequately catered for.
>
As I said - Bollocks.
If they want to give advice then they should give correct advice not a
pack of convenient lies that just somehow (again and again) cranks up
the risk to cyclists.




--
PETER FOX Not the same since the bolt company screwed up
[email protected]
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk>

 

[dkahn400]

David Martin wrote:
> Matt B wrote:

> > 2006 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.
>
> I find this advice to be fine as long as the lane in question meets
> appropriate design specs.

I don't. "Possible" is a very strange word to use here, even if you
think cycle lanes are generally a good idea. It is clearly possible to
keep within the cycle lane in many situations when it is patently a
very bad idea, even with a rare well-designed lane. I suspect it's
worded in this way as any sensible wording would seriously undermine
their credibility.

My wording would run something like: "Consider riding within the cycle
lane if doing so would place you in the same position on the road you
would have chosen if the lane were not present, and if the surface is
not significantly worse for riding on than the surface of the road
adjacent to the lane."

--
Dave...

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Peter Fox <> wrote:
> Following on from Ian Smith's message. . .
> >> Err. Bollocks. The "proper way" to turn right depends on road geometry.
> >
> >Bollocks bollocks. If you want the highway code to address such
> >things in such detail, you're going to need a book the size of the
> >current one for each junction in the country. I'd need something teh
> >size of a large dictionary just to get to work in teh morning.
> >
> >As a simple rule, the existing rule is appropriate. It might not be
> >appropriate for anyone dumb enough to think "centre of the road" means
> >they must whip out a tape measure and find the geometric centre point
> >accurate to teh millimetre, but such people are few, and are never
> >going to be adequately catered for.
>
> As I said - Bollocks.
> If they want to give advice then they should give correct advice

So, you're arguing for the complete abolition of the highway code?

You must be, since it is not practical to publish a written account of
exactly and precisely the correct way to approach every junction
(including every private entrance) in every circumstance. Since you
maintain that advice given must be correct, the only alternative is
not to offer any advice at all.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>,
dkahn400 ('[email protected]') wrote:

> David Martin wrote:
>> Matt B wrote:
>
>> > 2006 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.
>>
>> I find this advice to be fine as long as the lane in question meets
>> appropriate design specs.
>
> I don't. "Possible" is a very strange word to use here, even if you
> think cycle lanes are generally a good idea. It is clearly possible to
> keep within the cycle lane in many situations when it is patently a
> very bad idea, even with a rare well-designed lane. I suspect it's
> worded in this way as any sensible wording would seriously undermine
> their credibility.

Also, using cycle lanes is almost always more dangerous than riding in
traffic. What really needs to be banned is the cycle lanes themselves.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;;Drivers in the UK kill more people every single year than
;; Al Qaeda have ever killed in any single year.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Peter Fox <> wrote:

>> If they want to give advice then they should give correct advice
>
> So, you're arguing for the complete abolition of the highway code?
>
> You must be, since it is not practical to publish a written account of
> exactly and precisely the correct way to approach every junction
> (including every private entrance) in every circumstance. Since you
> maintain that advice given must be correct, the only alternative is
> not to offer any advice at all.

The advice given should be correct for normal and usual road situations.
The advice in the highway code with respect to cycle facilities,
roundabouts and right turns (both the current version and this new
draft) and with respect to riding on twisty roads in the new draft, is
wrong and dangerous in normal situations, though there may be unusual
circumstances where it is good advice.

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

;; may contain traces of nuts, bolts or washers.

 

[dkahn400]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> Also, using cycle lanes is almost always more dangerous than riding in
> traffic. What really needs to be banned is the cycle lanes themselves.

True, but that's as likely to happen as the Pope marrying Princess
Anne.

--
Dave...

 

[Tony Raven]

dkahn400 wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> Also, using cycle lanes is almost always more dangerous than riding in
>> traffic. What really needs to be banned is the cycle lanes themselves.
>
> True, but that's as likely to happen as the Pope marrying Princess
> Anne.
>

Not unlikely then ;-) IIRC she was married by the Archbishop of
Canterbury first time round.

--
Tony

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