Official changes to the Highway Code

[Stevo]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 1 Jun, 16:28, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It seems it's just 2 rules, not the forty that the CTC claimed, that
>> have been changed but the new wording has been officially announced:http://preview.tinyurl.com/yvh8er
>> --
> Herewith the important bits in quotes:
>
> "The Department for Transport is proposing further changes to the
> cycling elements of the revised Highway Code laid before Parliament on
> 28 March 2007.
>
> The changes put forward are in order to clarify advice in the Code on
> the use of cycle facilities and cycle lanes. They take account of
> further representations from and discussions with, the cycling
> organisation CTC. "
>
> So it was just the CTC who got things changed...
>
> "The proposal is to amend draft rules 61 and 63 of the Highway Code so
> that they would read as follows:
>
> * 61 Cycle Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle
> boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so.
> Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your
> experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer. "
>
> I still don't get what "at the time" adds... I am supposed to check
> out the route each time to make sure it's still rubbish?
> However, this rule now seems harmless to me.
>
>
> " * 63 Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be
> broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). When using a cycle lane,
> keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check
> before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention
> clearly to other road users. Use of these facilities is not compulsory
> and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your
> journey safer. "
>
> Still don't like this one. If it's practicable to cycle it at 5 mph
> but not at my normal 20 mph, do I have to slow down by 15 mph to avoid
> forcing any driver to slow down by 10 mph?

Can't see a problem with it, it is not telling you to use a lane when
practical, it is telling you to stay within the lane if practical *when
using a lane*.


>
> Rob
>
>

 

[Peter Amey]

Bob Downie wrote:
>>
>> * 61 Cycle Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle
>> boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so.
>> Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your
>> experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer. "
>>
>> I still don't get what "at the time" adds... I am supposed to check
>> out the route each time to make sure it's still rubbish?
>> However, this rule now seems harmless to me.

I suspect the "at the time" clause is an attempt to deal with the
problem I and many others raised: the use of an ASL when doing so would
involve going down the N/S of a truck. Clearly trying to get to the ASL
would be unsafe at that time.

Don't say I agree with this but that's what I think it's for.

Peter
--
www.amey.org.uk

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <1hz386j.a2r519ta9gdzN%
[email protected]>, Ekul Namsob
[email protected] says...
> Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hz2zsn.3bb2u817gfzk3N%
> > [email protected]>, Ekul Namsob
> > [email protected] says...
> > > Adrian Boliston <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Ekul Namsob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:1hz1rzp.463ow53zxklsN%[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > > Not really. The fact that the road was at the time unsafe does not mean
> > > > > that the cycle facility would have been safe.
> > > >
> > > > Even if you have an accident it does not iply that the road is "unsafe".
> > >
> > > It implies that the road was, at the time, unsafe.
> > >
> > Which has no bearing on whether the alternative cycle facility was safe
> > at the time - there's no requirement to assess degree of danger and go
> > with the lesser, simply to assess whether the cycle facility is unsafe.
>
> I think I've already said that.
>
You expect me to read the whole thread?

 

[TerryJ]

> would be unsafe at that time.

It may be possible for someone who is familiar with all of a
particular cycle lane in question to assess it's usefulness, but in
general, when in an area one does not know well, one can get into a
right pickle trying to follow a signed route, so I think the new
wording does give one the necessary choice.

TerryJ