Highway Code- debate in Parliament?

An Early Day Motion (EDM) has been submitted by Ming Cambell (LibDem
Leader) and 8 other MPs. This occurred yesterday (Wednesday)
see:
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDe...16&SESSION=885

This states:
"That the alterations in the provisions of the Highway Code proposed to
be made by the Secretary of State for Transport, dated 28th March 2007,
a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th March, be not made."

IF sufficient MPs sign this motion it should get debating time in
Parliament.

*** YOU KNOW WHAT YOU MUST DO *** GET YOUR PM TO SIGN ***

This motion is, in part, due to Lobbying by members of Cambridge Cycling
Campaign, of the Cambridge MP, David Howarth. Volunteer Officers of the
Campaign met with the MP a week or so ago.

Jim Chisholm

On May 10, 9:20 am, "J. Chisholm" wrote:
An Early Day Motion (EDM) has been submitted by Ming Cambell (LibDem
Leader) and 8 other MPs. This occurred yesterday (Wednesday)
see:http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDe...16&SESSION=885

This states:
"That the alterations in the provisions of the Highway Code proposed to
be made by the Secretary of State for Transport, dated 28th March 2007,
a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th March, be not made."

IF sufficient MPs sign this motion it should get debating time in
Parliament.

*** YOU KNOW WHAT YOU MUST DO *** GET YOUR PM TO SIGN ***

This motion is, in part, due to Lobbying by members of Cambridge Cycling
Campaign, of the Cambridge MP, David Howarth. Volunteer Officers of the
Campaign met with the MP a week or so ago.

Jim Chisholm

Email sent to my MP to follow up an email and letter posted yesterday.

...d

In article ,
"J. Chisholm" writes:
| An Early Day Motion (EDM) has been submitted by Ming Cambell (LibDem
| Leader) and 8 other MPs. This occurred yesterday (Wednesday) ....
|
| This motion is, in part, due to Lobbying by members of Cambridge Cycling
| Campaign, of the Cambridge MP, David Howarth. Volunteer Officers of the
| Campaign met with the MP a week or so ago.

Assuming that was a an action by the organisation rather than individuals,
let it be said that I publicly welcome that as a positive, appropriate
action by the Cambridge Cycling Campaign. I do give credit where credit
is due!

Well done. I will prod Lansley but, as Sydney Smith said, with no very
great hope of success.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote on 10/05/2007 09:56 +0100:

Well done. I will prod Lansley but, as Sydney Smith said, with no very
great hope of success.


Prod away. I've already prodded him and the more prods he gets the more
likely he is to notice the prods. I plan to e-mail him today
encouraging him to sign the EDM. He lives in and does cycle in our village.

--
Tony

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

On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:20:06 +0100 someone who may be "J. Chisholm"
wrote this:-

An Early Day Motion (EDM) has been submitted by Ming Cambell (LibDem
Leader) and 8 other MPs. This occurred yesterday (Wednesday)
see:

Thanks for alerting me to this. My MP has been incredibly
unresponsive on this issue recently year, though he was good on it
last year. Given that this EDM is in the name of his boss, who also
happens to be a fellow Fife Liberal Democrat MP, I have taken the
opportunity to fire off another letter in the hope of jerking him
into action.

In his defence he is perhaps recovering from the election, along
with his staff. I think it highly significant that the Department
for Motorists are trying to sneak this through in the middle of an
election.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On May 10, 1:22 pm, David Hansen
wrote:
I think it highly significant that the Department
for Motorists are trying to sneak this through in the middle of an
election.

Slightly paranoid. I do not think they are trying to "sneak" anything
through. They *believe* they are making things safer for cyclists;
sadly, they are very misinformed.

On May 10, 1:32 pm, wrote:
On May 10, 1:22 pm, David Hansen
wrote:

I think it highly significant that the Department
for Motorists are trying to sneak this through in the middle of an
election.

Slightly paranoid. I do not think they are trying to "sneak" anything
through. They *believe* they are making things safer for cyclists;
sadly, they are very misinformed.


It's hard to imagine how this new wording "wherever possible" could
ever have been thought to make it clear to motorists that cyclists
have a right to use the road and only use facilities when they want
to.

At least with the tactile paving "tramlines" the "it was felt" could
be put down to incompetence and ignorance. But unless the person
drafting this HC change was not a native speaker of English it's hard
to conceive how this new wording could possibly have been thought to
imply what it's supposed to imply.


61. Take care when using cycling facilities. Despite appearances, they
can often make your journey more dangerous.

Tim.

In article .com,
writes:
| On May 10, 1:22 pm, David Hansen
| wrote:
| I think it highly significant that the Department
| for Motorists are trying to sneak this through in the middle of an
| election.
|
| Slightly paranoid. I do not think they are trying to "sneak" anything
| through. They *believe* they are making things safer for cyclists;
| sadly, they are very misinformed.

Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

While I agree that you should assume incompetence over malice, there
comes a point beyond which that view ceases to be compatible with the
facts. And that point was passed a long time ago in the case of that
department.

It is not that they are trying to endanger cyclists; it is that they
believe that cycling is not an important form of transport, and should
be removed from the roads to make way for more important traffic.

And, given that the original timetable for this proposed revision
allowed for another 6 months or so, there is something VERY suspicious
about the way it has been brought forward.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On May 10, 9:20 am, "J. Chisholm" wrote:

IF sufficient MPs sign this motion it should get debating time in
Parliament.

*** YOU KNOW WHAT YOU MUST DO *** GET YOUR PM TO SIGN ***

Mine already has: Vince Cable.

--
Dave...

On May 10, 1:32 pm, wrote:

Slightly paranoid. I do not think they are trying to "sneak" anything
through. They *believe* they are making things safer for cyclists;

Sadly I see no evidence for that. It's much more likely they want to
pedestrianise us to get us out of their way when they're driving their
cars.

--
Dave...