Reject Highway code Rule 61 - June 1

[[email protected]]

** I think that even this revised Code should be rejected.

Getting the 28 March draft of the proposed new highway code
revised is clearly a good result for cyclists. The replacement
rule does not clearly and unambiguously state that cyclists
are not permitted to use the public highway.

For the record here is the new proposed rule - again.

http://www.gnn.gov.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=288554&NewsAreaID=2&print=true
"Friday 1 June 2007 10:00 "

"* 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."

## HOWEVER what this does seem to say is:-

Sentence 1.
"Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and
toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe
to do so."

Interpretation.
Cyclists are only allowed to use the public highway if it
is unsafe to be in a cycle facility "at the time".


Sentence 2.
"Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will
depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your
journey safer."

Interpretation.
States that use of facilities is not compulsory (under
any circumstances).



To me sentence 1 and sentence 2 appear to be contradictory.

Perhaps this is destined for the
High Court/Court of Appeal/House of Lords for
clarification.

In the interim cyclists, Officials, Police Officers,
Magistrates, Lawyers, Motorists and Members of the
Public will be able to craft the interpretation that
they desire to suit their purpose "at the time".

This WILL I predict involve the persecution and
unjust prosecution of cyclists - among other activities.

## THEREFORE

I think that even this revised Code should be rejected.

Sadly, two bodies who may have been influential in the
previous change seem to have given up. Namely the
CTC and the Evening Standard.

I will write to the same people I wrote to previously
but I fear that this will not be enough.

Ideas anyone?

 

[Peter Clinch]

[email protected] wrote:

> To me sentence 1 and sentence 2 appear to be contradictory.
>
> Perhaps this is destined for the
> High Court/Court of Appeal/House of Lords for
> clarification.
>
> In the interim cyclists, Officials, Police Officers,
> Magistrates, Lawyers, Motorists and Members of the
> Public will be able to craft the interpretation that
> they desire to suit their purpose "at the time".
>
> This WILL I predict involve the persecution and
> unjust prosecution of cyclists - among other activities.
>
> ## THEREFORE
>
> I think that even this revised Code should be rejected.

While I agree it is imperfect I would suggest that a perfect rule ain't
going to happen, because at least some of the vested interests are
convinced we need "facilities" and that they are a Good Thing. So if
you wait around for a perfect rule I think it entirely likely you'll end
up with what we already have/had, and a reputation for being a PITA that
obstructs any possibility of give and take (not that that's necessarily
fair, but I suspect it's what would happen).

> I will write to the same people I wrote to previously
> but I fear that this will not be enough.

Probably won't be, but getting your views in your MP's hands on paper
before the new draft causes a problem is better than waiting until
afterwards.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[[email protected]]

On 6 Jun, 13:12, [email protected] wrote:
> ** I think that even this revised Code should be rejected.
>
> Getting the 28 March draft of the proposed new highway code
> revised is clearly a good result for cyclists. The replacement
> rule does not clearly and unambiguously state that cyclists
> are not permitted to use the public highway.
>
> For the record here is the new proposed rule - again.
>
> http://www.gnn.gov.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=288554&NewsAreaID=...
> "Friday 1 June 2007 10:00 "
>
> "* 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."
>
> ## HOWEVER what this does seem to say is:-
>
> Sentence 1.
> "Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and
> toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe
> to do so."
>
> Interpretation.
> Cyclists are only allowed to use the public highway if it
> is unsafe to be in a cycle facility "at the time".
>
> Sentence 2.
> "Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will
> depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your
> journey safer."
>
> Interpretation.
> States that use of facilities is not compulsory (under
> any circumstances).
>
> To me sentence 1 and sentence 2 appear to be contradictory.
>
> Perhaps this is destined for the
> High Court/Court of Appeal/House of Lords for
> clarification.
>
> In the interim cyclists, Officials, Police Officers,
> Magistrates, Lawyers, Motorists and Members of the
> Public will be able to craft the interpretation that
> they desire to suit their purpose "at the time".
>
> This WILL I predict involve the persecution and
> unjust prosecution of cyclists - among other activities.
>
> ## THEREFORE
>
> I think that even this revised Code should be rejected.
>
> Sadly, two bodies who may have been influential in the
> previous change seem to have given up. Namely the
> CTC and the Evening Standard.
>
> I will write to the same people I wrote to previously
> but I fear that this will not be enough.
>
> Ideas anyone?

One is a subjective clause and the other objective - since a
subjective clause relies on the other on it's meaning it cannot be
read separately.

Sniper8052

 

[[email protected]]

On 6 Jun, 14:00, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 6 Jun, 13:12, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ** I think that even this revised Code should be rejected.
>
> > Getting the 28 March draft of the proposed new highway code
> > revised is clearly a good result for cyclists. The replacement
> > rule does not clearly and unambiguously state that cyclists
> > are not permitted to use the public highway.
>
> > For the record here is the new proposed rule - again.
>
> >http://www.gnn.gov.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=288554&NewsAreaID=...
> > "Friday 1 June 2007 10:00 "
>
> > "* 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."
>
> > ## HOWEVER what this does seem to say is:-
>
> > Sentence 1.
> > "Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and
> > toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe
> > to do so."
>
> > Interpretation.
> > Cyclists are only allowed to use the public highway if it
> > is unsafe to be in a cycle facility "at the time".
>
> > Sentence 2.
> > "Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will
> > depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your
> > journey safer."
>
> > Interpretation.
> > States that use of facilities is not compulsory (under
> > any circumstances).
>
> > To me sentence 1 and sentence 2 appear to be contradictory.
>
> > Perhaps this is destined for the
> > High Court/Court of Appeal/House of Lords for
> > clarification.
>
> > In the interim cyclists, Officials, Police Officers,
> > Magistrates, Lawyers, Motorists and Members of the
> > Public will be able to craft the interpretation that
> > they desire to suit their purpose "at the time".
>
> > This WILL I predict involve the persecution and
> > unjust prosecution of cyclists - among other activities.
>
> > ## THEREFORE
>
> > I think that even this revised Code should be rejected.
>
> > Sadly, two bodies who may have been influential in the
> > previous change seem to have given up. Namely the
> > CTC and the Evening Standard.
>
> > I will write to the same people I wrote to previously
> > but I fear that this will not be enough.
>
> > Ideas anyone?
>
> One is a subjective clause and the other objective - since a
> subjective clause relies on the other on it's meaning it cannot be
> read separately.

Ah! A linguist. Just what is needed in an emergency

I do not have the faintest idea what you are saying here
(sadly) however if indeed the two sentences are bound together
inseperably then there is less to worry about.

The problem that I see is - others reading the new version may
be as uneducated as I am.

 

[Mike Clark]

In message <[email protected]>
[email protected] wrote:

> On 6 Jun, 14:00, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > One is a subjective clause and the other objective - since a
> > subjective clause relies on the other on it's meaning it cannot be
> > read separately.
>
> Ah! A linguist. Just what is needed in an emergency
>
> I do not have the faintest idea what you are saying here
> (sadly) however if indeed the two sentences are bound together
> inseperably then there is less to worry about.
>
> The problem that I see is - others reading the new version may
> be as uneducated as I am.
>

The important thing is that there are enough qualifications in the
advice, and it is only advice, to prevent the rules being used against a
cyclist as contributory, in a legal claim for compensation.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

 

[Brian G]

Mike Clark wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On 6 Jun, 14:00, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
> [snip]
>>> One is a subjective clause and the other objective - since a
>>> subjective clause relies on the other on it's meaning it cannot be
>>> read separately.
>> Ah! A linguist. Just what is needed in an emergency
>>
>> I do not have the faintest idea what you are saying here
>> (sadly) however if indeed the two sentences are bound together
>> inseperably then there is less to worry about.
>>
>> The problem that I see is - others reading the new version may
>> be as uneducated as I am.
>>
>
> The important thing is that there are enough qualifications in the
> advice, and it is only advice, to prevent the rules being used against a
> cyclist as contributory, in a legal claim for compensation.

I don't think so. The qualifying sentence states that use is not
compulsory. That may not prevent an advocate or barrister from claiming
that even though there is no compulsion there is advice and a cyclist
choosing not to heed that advice may be acting recklessly. It is
dangerous to try to second guess the legal / fiscal process.

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

 

[Martin Dann]

[email protected] 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."

To me this rule says, if you have got on a bike for the first time, ride
on the cycle track.

If you are an experienced cyclist and know what you are doing then you
should be in a position to decide on the safety of a facility and road
for your riding style.
Obviously it is unsafe to use a shared facility at 16mph with small
children running about, dogs not on leads, covered in glass or wet leaves.

IMHO This rule is much better than the previous one, and as Peter Clinch
says, if we oppose this change we might end up with the "use wherever
possible" rule.

Martin.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Martin Dann wrote:

> To me this rule says, if you have got on a bike for the first time, ride
> on the cycle track.
>
> If you are an experienced cyclist and know what you are doing then you
> should be in a position to decide on the safety of a facility and road
> for your riding style.
> Obviously it is unsafe to use a shared facility at 16mph with small
> children running about, dogs not on leads, covered in glass or wet leaves.

Though perhaps not obviously to the person getting on a bike for the
first time...

The stupidity of this is it's suggesting if in doubt assume it's safer,
though the qualification for people with Clues recognises it's an unsafe
assumption (very literally!).

But a better rule tomorrow is better than a perfect rule maybe next
week, maybe next year... maybe never.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Mike Clark]

In message <[email protected]>
Brian G <[email protected]> wrote:

> Mike Clark wrote:
> > In message <[email protected]>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> On 6 Jun, 14:00, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>> One is a subjective clause and the other objective - since a
> >>> subjective clause relies on the other on it's meaning it cannot be
> >>> read separately.
> >> Ah! A linguist. Just what is needed in an emergency
> >>
> >> I do not have the faintest idea what you are saying here
> >> (sadly) however if indeed the two sentences are bound together
> >> inseperably then there is less to worry about.
> >>
> >> The problem that I see is - others reading the new version may
> >> be as uneducated as I am.
> >>
> >
> > The important thing is that there are enough qualifications in the
> > advice, and it is only advice, to prevent the rules being used against a
> > cyclist as contributory, in a legal claim for compensation.
>
> I don't think so. The qualifying sentence states that use is not
> compulsory. That may not prevent an advocate or barrister from claiming
> that even though there is no compulsion there is advice and a cyclist
> choosing not to heed that advice may be acting recklessly. It is
> dangerous to try to second guess the legal / fiscal process.
>

It also says that facilities "can" be safer, not "are" safer. Certainly
it allows for a reasonable defence of one's actions.

The current situation is a lot better than it looked a few weeks ago. I
suspect that given the time constraints on parliamentary process that no
further amendments will be contemplated. If further amendments were made
they could not be laid before Parliament this session and would have to
come back after the summer recess. They're therefor unlikely to respond
to further pressure.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

 

[Brian G]

Mike Clark wrote:

>
> The current situation is a lot better than it looked a few weeks ago. I
> suspect that given the time constraints on parliamentary process that no
> further amendments will be contemplated. If further amendments were made
> they could not be laid before Parliament this session and would have to
> come back after the summer recess. They're therefor unlikely to respond
> to further pressure.

I agree that is the realistic scenario. Doesn't mean I'm thrilled about it.

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

 

[Dave Larrington]

Why do I keep reading the subject of this thread as "Revisit Highway 61"?

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Although the hippopotamus hath no sting in its tail, the wise
man would rather be seated upon the back of a bee.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> Why do I keep reading the subject of this thread as "Revisit Highway 61"?

The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> Why do I keep reading the subject of this thread as "Revisit Highway 61"?

Man, you must be putting me on.

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

;; All in all you're just another hick in the mall
-- Drink C'lloid