Highway code - Cylists must use cyclepaths

Tom Crispin said:

Matt B said:

I ask awkward questions?

"Inane questions" would be a more accurate description. Others may
just think of you as an annoying little runt. I, however, enjoy the
little gems you come up with from time to time, and think that every
group should have its mascot troll.

Runt?

I would, urm, C it differently, if you get my drift.
--
Ambrose

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Tom Crispin said:

Matt B said:

I ask awkward questions?

"Inane questions" would be a more accurate description. Others may
just think of you as an annoying little runt. I, however, enjoy the
little gems you come up with from time to time, and think that every
group should have its mascot troll.

Runt?

I would, urm, C it differently, if you get my drift.

Runt will do.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

Tom Crispin said:

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Tom Crispin said:

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 20:13:21 +0000, Matt B
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> I ask awkward questions?

"Inane questions" would be a more accurate description. Others may
just think of you as an annoying little runt. I, however, enjoy the
little gems you come up with from time to time, and think that every
group should have its mascot troll.

Runt?

I would, urm, C it differently, if you get my drift.

Runt will do.

Sorry, I always seem to lower the tone.

--
Ambrose

"Paul - [censored]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Arthur Clune came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

I haven't seen this mentioned here yet:

Look for the thread started by Guy titled "Highway Code Consultation"

Quoted message said:

The major problem is a proposed new rule telling cyclists to
use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities ... where
they are provided (Rule 58).

... and further into the thread where [email hidden]
explains that this _ISN'T_ what's said, but is a parahrase of

"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."

Which is different to how you put it ...

The HC people are asking for comments and contributions. If you don't like
the proposals, email them and tell them so..

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

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Matt B
<[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

Arthur Clune wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303

Quoted message said:

I just read it properly - it's utter scare-mongering balderdash! What
court is going to say that you contributed to an 'accident' because you
/could/, or even /should/ have been somewhere else at the time of the
collision!

All of them. The Highway Code is not law, but courts often pay heed to
whether particular parties to an incident were or were not behaving in
accordance with the Code. So if the Code says "cyclists must use cycle
facilities where provided" and then a cyclist is injured in a collision
with a motor vehicle while not using a facility (say being in the middle
of the road instead of a left-hand-side cyclepath in order to turn
right), then the courts could well find against the cyclist.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

"Pyromancer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

All of them. The Highway Code is not law, but courts often pay heed to
whether particular parties to an incident were or were not behaving in
accordance with the Code. So if the Code says "cyclists must use cycle
facilities where provided" and then a cyclist is injured in a collision
with a motor vehicle while not using a facility (say being in the middle
of the road instead of a left-hand-side cyclepath in order to turn
right), then the courts could well find against the cyclist.

Even if it would be a physical impossibility to turn right without at some
point leaving the left hand cycle path?

Tony Hogarty said:

Ian Smith said:

You're lucky. My MP has ignored all communications by all means I've ever
tried (letter to constituency office, letter to HoC, fax, email). All
disappear without trace. It's the price you pay for living in such a safe
seat you're a nice cushy sinecure.

Name and shame them.

I have previously. Sir Paul Beresford. Mole Valley.

The one time I met him in person he got his foot into his mouth with
breathtaking speed, too.

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

On 2 Mar 2006 04:01:04 -0800, "dkahn400" <[email hidden]> said
in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

No it isn't. The current (not old) rule 47 simply states "Use cycle
routes when practicable". It does not say "where provided" which
appears to remove the cyclist's freedom to decide about practicabilty.
If the facility is there you are expected to use it.

MattB's ignorance is as broad as it is deep. Not worth replying to
each new data point, IMO.

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

On 2 Mar 2006 09:37:48 GMT, [email hidden] (Arthur Clune) said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

The Driving Standards Agency has begun a public consultation
on a revised draft of the Highway Code - it can be viewed at
http://www.dsa.gov.uk/highwaycode

Noted previously. I received a reminder today of how dangerous and
damaging these "recommendations" are: the father of a boy seriously
injured when an out-of-control lorry hit him at over 40mph is
concerned that the insurers will try the contributory negligence trick
because he was not wearing a helmet. If anyone can find a study which
shows 3/4" of polystyrene can be effective against trucks with
defective brakes then it will be something of a surprise to me.

I've said it before: I think the code should have three separate and
distinct kinds of content - general advice, in prose (because, face
it, we will never actually stop them from issuing propaganda about
helmets, reflectives and cycle lanes); rules, failure to obey which
may be evidence of an offence (no overtaking on blind bends etc.) and
law.

At the moment the code makes far too little distinction between vague
motherhood-and-apple-pie statements and the law of the land.

ABD are, I think, lobbying for changes which will strengthen the
advice to get out of the way of faster traffic (no mention of the fact
that it may only be faster because it's breaking the 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

dkahn400 said:

The proposed new wording is "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."

And this is particularly farcical in the case of ASLs, where you would
be required to filter through the queue to the front, even if you
- are happy to wait your turn in line
- have not learnt to filter (which you learn after traffic lights in
the national standards for cycle training).

There is no evidence of any cycling expertise in the drafting of this
code. It should be given to John Franklin and/or Bob Davis for
complete rewriting.

Colin McKenzie

Matt B said:

When would using an ASL ... not be practicable?

When you don't have the necessary skills to reach it safely past the
queue of waiting motor vehicles.

The whole tone needs changing to:
- facilities are there to give cyclists extra options
- cyclists using facilities may interact with motor vehicles in
unexpected ways
- cyclists have the right to choose not to use facilities, whether or
not their reasons for doing so look valid to anyone else.

Colin McKenzie

Matt B said:

If one has a good reason ( i.e. not just bloody mindedness ;-) ) for
/not/ being in the 'facility' then how can that be construed as
contributory to any collision? I'm not sure that even disobeying a
'must' could be construed as therefore deserving to be hit.

If one is dead, how is one going to explain one's reasons?
Why should one's grieving relatives have to fight for just
compensation or settle for injustice?

Colin McKenzie

ian henden said:

The HC people are asking for comments and contributions. If you don't like
the proposals, email them and tell them so..

We will. But judging by last time, additional efforts will be needed
to make the DSA actually make the necessary changes.

Colin McKenzie (whose draft response currently runs to 4 pages on the
DSA form, despite optimising column widths).

Just zis Guy said:

ABD are, I think, lobbying for changes which will strengthen the
advice to get out of the way of faster traffic (no mention of the fact
that it may only be faster because it's breaking the law).

Well thats my hobby stuffed.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

Arthur Clune came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

Paul - censored said:

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."

I was just quoting the CTC.

Quite .. they have it wrong and are scare-mongering. IMHO.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 20:54:22 +0000,

Just zis Guy said:

ABD are, I think, lobbying for changes which will strengthen the
advice to get out of the way of faster traffic (no mention of the fact
that it may only be faster because it's breaking the law).

That's going to be a huge help to me on my commute. About half my
holdups are due to red lights and the other half due to slow moving
cars. While my commute isn't very long 10 mins min, 20 mins max, most of
the variability is caused by cars holding me up and the very slow
journeys are always caused by cars, often deliberately, causing an
obstruction.

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/

Paul - censored said:

Arthur Clune came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

I haven't seen this mentioned here yet:

Look for the thread started by Guy titled "Highway Code Consultation"

Quoted message said:

The major problem is a proposed new rule telling cyclists to
use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities ... where
they are provided (Rule 58).

... and further into the thread where [email hidden]
explains that this _ISN'T_ what's said, but is a parahrase of

"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."

Which is different to how you put it ...

To add to this. The highway code is a collection of rules and advice to
road users. Only where a rule is preceded by the word 'MUST'/'MUST NOT'
in red is the rule law and enforcable, anything else is advice although
it may be used to establish responsibility in the event of an incident.
Nothing in the above changes or removes any rights it is advice one
can choose to follow or ignore.

My 1994 copy of the highway code states:

Rule 205: Use cycle lanes and tracks wherever possible they can make
your journey safer and quicker.

which is not substantially different in content or style to the proposed
rule 58.

Sniper8052

in message <[email hidden]>, Sniper805

(L96A1) (') said:

Paul - censored said:

Arthur Clune came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

I haven't seen this mentioned here yet:

Look for the thread started by Guy titled "Highway Code Consultation"

Quoted message said:

The major problem is a proposed new rule telling cyclists to
use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities ... where
they are provided (Rule 58).

... and further into the thread where [email hidden]
explains that this _ISN'T_ what's said, but is a parahrase of

"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."

Which is different to how you put it ...

To add to this. The highway code is a collection of rules and advice
to
road users. Only where a rule is preceded by the word 'MUST'/'MUST
NOT' in red is the rule law and enforcable, anything else is advice
although it may be used to establish responsibility in the event of an
incident.
Nothing in the above changes or removes any rights it is advice one
can choose to follow or ignore.

My 1994 copy of the highway code states:

Rule 205: Use cycle lanes and tracks wherever possible they can make
your journey safer and quicker.

which is not substantially different in content or style to the
proposed rule 58.

OK, little grammar exercise coming up. What is the scope of the
conjunction in new paragraph 58? I would argue that it conjoins these
two sentences:

"Use cycle routes when practicable as they can make your journeys safer."

and

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

'Use cycle facilities... where they are provided' is new. The wording is
in the imperative mode, implying this is something you must do -
wherever they are provided. The absence of the keyword 'must' will
escape most casual readers, however it is interpreted in court. And
frankly I don't care about how this is interpreted in court nearly as
much as I care about how it will be interpreted in funerals. Because
this is going to kill people.

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

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

in message <[email hidden]>, ian henden

(') said:

"Arthur Clune" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I haven't seen this mentioned here yet:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303

The Driving Standards Agency has begun a public consultation
on a revised draft of the Highway Code - it can be viewed at
http://www.dsa.gov.uk/highwaycode

The major problem is a proposed new rule telling cyclists to
use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities ... where
they are provided (Rule 58). If confirmed, this would open the
way for driver's insurance companies to seek to reduce the damages
for any cyclists injured by their clients, on the basis that the
cyclist's failure to use a nearby cycle facility (in accordance
with the Highway Code) represented "contributory negligence"

It's contributory negligence already if a cyclist does not take
adequate measures to contribute to his own safety by using a suitable
alternative,
where one exists, to a crowded busy road with potentially dangerous
traffic on it.

Except that, as you well know, the concensus of all the research on this
issue is that the crowded busy road is substantially /safer/ than a
cycle lane or path. So using the farcility /may/ be contributory
negligence, but using the road cannot be.

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

;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundum variat.

in message <[email hidden]>, Budstaff

(') said:

I was of course, hoping to provoke an answer from MattB. Does that make
_me_ a troll? ;-)

In this case, yes, and an irresponsible and destructive one at that.

Trolls destroy Usenet groups - if you don't believe me, visit the
wasteland that is the scot.* hierarchy, and compare it to how it was ten
years ago (GIYF). The best way users of Usenet groups can defend against
trolls is to killfile them; if you deliberately follow up to - and
attempt to provoke - trolls, then your response will get past most
killfiles. You may think it's funny, but this is one of those 'tragedies
of the commons'. We have a common good, Usenet, which we all value, but
it is easily destroyed by a few irresponsible, anti-social people - such
as yourself.

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

;; Usenet: like distance learning without the learning.