Further parliamentary correspondance

[Nigel Cliffe]

I've had a second letter from my MP, Tim Yeo (Conservative).

This encloses a letter from minister Ladyman at the DfT.

Paraphrasing:
Mr Ladyman says that the new Highway Code does not require cyclists to use
facilities, their use remains a decision a cyclist takes.

There is a long section discussing "whenever practicable", "whenever
possible" (new 2007 wording), "wherever possible" (another draft wording
from 2006).


Key direct quotes:
"It [the highway code] does not place any compulsion on cyclists to use
cycle facilities and it remains their decision whether or not they follow
this advice to improve their safety".

"The final version makes it clear that it is at the discretion of each
cyclist to decide whether or not it is indeed possible for them to use any
specific cycle facility."

"The advive on negotiating roundabouts gives cyclists the choice of
following the procedures for the majority of road users or, if they feel
safer, either keeping to the left on the roundabout or dismounting and
walking round on the pavement or verge".



So, the minister says the code says cyclists have the legal choice on
whether they use particular facilities.


However, missing from the answer from was
a) civil liability in the event of accident (ie. claim contributory
negligence of cyclist who exercises their right to choose whether to use a
facility and has the misfortune to be involved in an accident).
b) confusion and hostility from other road users (ie. "oi, get on the cycle
path, it says use it whenever possible in the Highway Code").


I expect (a) will be clarified in legal cases, when the cyclists defence
fund will have to fork out. (b) will just happen and cyclists will have to
put up with it.


Not sure if I want to keep up the correspondence with my MP on the topic.


- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

[Peter Clinch]

Nigel Cliffe wrote:

> Not sure if I want to keep up the correspondence with my MP on the topic.

My MP seems to be on my side as he said he felt the DfT reply (I had the
same one as you) was pants. I think the next barrage will be direct to
Ladyman/DfT with a copy to my MP. Will probably write it this evening.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[David Martin]

On May 24, 9:08 am, Peter Clinch > wrote:
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> > Not sure if I want to keep up the correspondence with my MP on the topic.
>
> My MP seems to be on my side as he said he felt the DfT reply (I had the
> same one as you) was pants. I think the next barrage will be direct to
> Ladyman/DfT with a copy to my MP. Will probably write it this evening.

I wrote back thanking him for his reply and the effort he has put in
(Pete and I share the same MP), and asking him to raise specfic points
with the minister. a) the specific legal advice that states that
cyclists will not be inconvenienced under section 38(7) (the
contributory negligence clause) b) to justify the claim that the
highway code improves safety when it is discordant with the advice
given in Cyclecraft and in Bikeability, and c) asking for a list of
cycling organisations who approve of the changes laid before
parliament.

...d

[Nigel Cliffe]

David Martin wrote:
> On May 24, 9:08 am, Peter Clinch > wrote:
>> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>> Not sure if I want to keep up the correspondence with my MP on the
>>> topic.
>>
>> My MP seems to be on my side as he said he felt the DfT reply (I had
>> the same one as you) was pants. I think the next barrage will be
>> direct to Ladyman/DfT with a copy to my MP. Will probably write it
>> this evening.
>
> I wrote back thanking him for his reply and the effort he has put in
> (Pete and I share the same MP), and asking him to raise specfic points
> with the minister. a) the specific legal advice that states that
> cyclists will not be inconvenienced under section 38(7) (the
> contributory negligence clause) b) to justify the claim that the
> highway code improves safety when it is discordant with the advice
> given in Cyclecraft and in Bikeability, and c) asking for a list of
> cycling organisations who approve of the changes laid before
> parliament.


Given comments in other threads (notably the debate transcript), I've
replied to my MP (conservative, safe seat), thanking him for work to date,
but pointing out that the minister's reply fails to address some points, and
asking that he continues to press the minister for changes.

I've concentrated on the liability issue, with a secondary one of giving
amunition to those who shout "get off the road onto the cyclepath".

I didn't initially tackle the "who approved this wording" rather than "who
was consulted", so haven't raised it at this stage.


- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/