Official changes to the Highway Code

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

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
--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

[[email protected]]

On 1 Jun, 16:28, Tony Raven > 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?

Rob

[Tim Hall]

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:28:10 +0100, Tony Raven
> 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


The nub of the gist being:


" * 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.

* 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. "


The first sentence of 61 is horrible.



Tim

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

wrote on 01/06/2007 16:43 +0100:
>
> 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?
>

No, it would not be considered practicable to cycle at a quarter of the
speed you could otherwise go anymore than a 300baud modem would be
considered practicable these days for the interwebby.



--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

[Bob Downie]

>
>* 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.
>
While I think this is better wording I still don't see it as good. To
explore one logical route. Suppose you decided that it was unsafe to use
an available cycle facility. You were then involved in an accident.
Clearly if you had used the facility the accident wouldn't have
happened. It could then be argued that you were wrong in your assessment
that it was unsafe to use the facility.

As far as I can see you are then still open to third party liability
claims.
--
Bob Downie
Devotee of the wheel
please remove #n0spam# to reply directly

[[email protected]]

On 1 Jun, 16:54, 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. "
>
> While I think this is better wording I still don't see it as good. To
> explore one logical route. Suppose you decided that it was unsafe to use
> an available cycle facility. You were then involved in an accident.
> Clearly if you had used the facility the accident wouldn't have
> happened. It could then be argued that you were wrong in your assessment
> that it was unsafe to use the facility.
>
> As far as I can see you are then still open to third party liability
> claims.

Without the "at the time" bit, I wouldn't feel too worried about that.
Surely you could just use evidence from John Franklin and others to
argue that the facility was always more dangerous than the road, which
was why you'd chosen the road. The fact that you had an accident
doesn't prove that this decision was wrong. It's just "at the time"
seems to imply you can't use a general safety assessment, it has to be
particular to that route on that occasion.

Incidentally, what happens if you don't know the facility is there?
Signing can be very patchy.

Rob

[Kenneth Clements]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> On 1 Jun, 16:28, Tony Raven > 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
>
> 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 would think any cycle facility is unsafe at any time for the reasons we
all know. So that could be a reasonable argument for a cyclist not to use
one.

Ken.

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

wrote on 01/06/2007 17:08 +0100:
>
> Without the "at the time" bit, I wouldn't feel too worried about that.
> Surely you could just use evidence from John Franklin and others to
> argue that the facility was always more dangerous than the road, which
> was why you'd chosen the road. The fact that you had an accident
> doesn't prove that this decision was wrong. It's just "at the time"
> seems to imply you can't use a general safety assessment, it has to be
> particular to that route on that occasion.
>

"Sorry occifer but at the time there were some chavs hanging around on
the cyclepath so I decided it was unsafe to use it." Who is going to be
able to disprove that was the case at the time?


--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

[[email protected]]

On Jun 1, 4:43 pm, wrote:
> On 1 Jun, 16:28, Tony Raven > 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:
[snip]
> " * 63 Cycle Lanes. ...When using a cycle lane,
> keep within the lane when practicable....
>
> 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?

not sure what your objection is. If you /are/ using a cycle lane then
it is reasonable to keep within the lane markings when practicable.
This would apply to any traffic using any marked lane IMO.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Tony Raven
') wrote:

> wrote on 01/06/2007 16:43 +0100:
>>
>> 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?
>
> No, it would not be considered practicable to cycle at a quarter of the
> speed you could otherwise go anymore than a 300baud modem would be
> considered practicable these days for the interwebby.

Yes, but the test in the code is not 'unless at the time it was
practicable', it is 'unless at the time it was safe', which is a very
different thing. Things may be safe but impracticable, in which case,
under this wording, you are obliged to use them.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Usenet: like distance learning without the learning.

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

Simon Brooke wrote on 01/06/2007 20:43 +0100:
> in message >, Tony Raven
> ') wrote:
>
>> wrote on 01/06/2007 16:43 +0100:
>>> 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?
>> No, it would not be considered practicable to cycle at a quarter of the
>> speed you could otherwise go anymore than a 300baud modem would be
>> considered practicable these days for the interwebby.
>
> Yes, but the test in the code is not 'unless at the time it was
> practicable', it is 'unless at the time it was safe', which is a very
> different thing. Things may be safe but impracticable, in which case,
> under this wording, you are obliged to use them.
>

I was answering the case as posed by leandr42 but either its safe to
cycle at 20mph or it isn't. If you need to slow down to 5mph to make it
safe then it is not safe at the time (when you are wanting to go at 20mph)

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

[Ekul Namsob]

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. "

<snip>

> While I think this is better wording I still don't see it as good. To
> explore one logical route. Suppose you decided that it was unsafe to use
> an available cycle facility. You were then involved in an accident.
> Clearly if you had used the facility the accident wouldn't have
> happened. It could then be argued that you were wrong in your assessment
> that it was unsafe to use the facility.

Not really. The fact that the road was at the time unsafe does not mean
that the cycle facility would have been safe.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

[p.k.]

wrote:
>
> " * 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?


you are not reading it correctly:

"When using a cycle lane,
keep within the lane when practicable"

It is not saying "use where practicable"

It is saying "If you are using, stay within where practicable"

pk

[Mark Thompson]

> " * 61 Cycle Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle
> boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so.

> The first sentence of 61 is horrible.

Yep. Often they're merely inconvenient/slower. I'd like the rule changed
to just leave it up to the rider to make a decision, without any nonsense
about safety. "Cyclists may like to use cycles routes, advanced stop
lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings. They may make your journey
safer" would be my preferred wording.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Tony Raven
') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote on 01/06/2007 20:43 +0100:
>> in message >, Tony Raven
>> ') wrote:
>>
>>> wrote on 01/06/2007 16:43 +0100:
>>>> 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?
>>> No, it would not be considered practicable to cycle at a quarter of the
>>> speed you could otherwise go anymore than a 300baud modem would be
>>> considered practicable these days for the interwebby.
>>
>> Yes, but the test in the code is not 'unless at the time it was
>> practicable', it is 'unless at the time it was safe', which is a very
>> different thing. Things may be safe but impracticable, in which case,
>> under this wording, you are obliged to use them.
>>
>
> I was answering the case as posed by leandr42 but either its safe to
> cycle at 20mph or it isn't. If you need to slow down to 5mph to make it
> safe then it is not safe at the time (when you are wanting to go at
> 20mph)

Your answer and the average magistrate's answer are not guaranteed to be
identical, however.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Do not sail on uphill water.
- Bill Lee

[_[_2_]]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:54:18 +0100, 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.
>>
> While I think this is better wording I still don't see it as good. To
> explore one logical route. Suppose you decided that it was unsafe to use
> an available cycle facility. You were then involved in an accident.
> Clearly if you had used the facility the accident wouldn't have
> happened. It could then be argued that you were wrong in your assessment
> that it was unsafe to use the facility.
>

Well it could be argued thus, but that does not mean that such an argument
is likely to be successful. The fact that an incident occured in one
situation does not change the probability of the same or worse incident
occurring in another situation. If in your judgement the cycle "facility"
is dangerous compared to the road the fact that use of the road has
expressed a danger does not mean your judgement was wrong.

[Adrian Boliston]

"Ekul Namsob" > wrote in message
news:1hz1rzp.463ow53zxklsN%notmyaddress.1.ekulnams ...

> 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".

[Ekul Namsob]

Adrian Boliston > wrote:

> "Ekul Namsob" > wrote in message
> news:1hz1rzp.463ow53zxklsN%notmyaddress.1.ekulnams ...
>
> > 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.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[Rob Morley]

In article <1hz2zsn.3bb2u817gfzk3N%
>, Ekul Namsob
says...
> Adrian Boliston > wrote:
>
> > "Ekul Namsob" > wrote in message
> > news:1hz1rzp.463ow53zxklsN%notmyaddress.1.ekulnams ...
> >
> > > 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.

[Ekul Namsob]

Rob Morley > wrote:

> In article <1hz2zsn.3bb2u817gfzk3N%
> >, Ekul Namsob
> says...
> > Adrian Boliston > wrote:
> >
> > > "Ekul Namsob" > wrote in message
> > > news:1hz1rzp.463ow53zxklsN%notmyaddress.1.ekulnams ...
> > >
> > > > 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.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[Stevo]

wrote:
> On 1 Jun, 16:28, Tony Raven > 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%
>, Ekul Namsob
says...
> Rob Morley > wrote:
>
> > In article <1hz2zsn.3bb2u817gfzk3N%
> > >, Ekul Namsob
> > says...
> > > Adrian Boliston > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Ekul Namsob" > wrote in message
> > > > news:1hz1rzp.463ow53zxklsN%notmyaddress.1.ekulnams ...
> > > >
> > > > > 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