revised highway code available

Revised highway code is laid before parliament.

It looks like they've ignored many of the cyclist representations,
despite these being the majority of responses. "Use cycle routes and
cycle facilities ... wherever possible" is still in there.

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/cons...Code_Draft.pdf

Also the report on consultation:

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/cons...ion_report.pdf

However, apparently the CTC is asking members to hold fire for the
moment and will be saying more in due course.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 02 Apr 2007 07:15:49 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

Also the report on consultation:

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/cons...ion_report.pdf

Bad form, following up my own posting, but I've read more of this and
I'm livid!. About the roundabout rule, they say there were lots of
comments pointing out the HC advice is dangerous, but:

"the advice is still considered to be appropriate and has not been
changed".

So even though more cyclists responded than everyone else put
together, they decided to ignore them...

You really should read this report. As an example of doing
consultation and ignoring the overwhelming majority response it's a
classic.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

"Ian Smith" wrote in message
...
Revised highway code is laid before parliament.

It looks like they've ignored many of the cyclist representations,
despite these being the majority of responses. "Use cycle routes and
cycle facilities ... wherever possible" is still in there.

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/cons...Code_Draft.pdf


Well, the 'wherever practicable' is gone and is replaced by 'wherever
possible' This is *bad* as there is a difference in emphasis. Something can
be 'possible' but entirely impractical. This is making things worse for
cyclists.

Proposed rule 61:-

"Use cycle routes and cycle facilities such as advanced stop lines, cycle
boxes and toucan crossings wherever possible, as they can make your journey
safer."



:-(

in message , Ian Smith
') wrote:

Revised highway code is laid before parliament.

It looks like they've ignored many of the cyclist representations,
despite these being the majority of responses. "Use cycle routes and
cycle facilities ... wherever possible" is still in there.

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/cons...Code_Draft.pdf

Also the report on consultation:


http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/cons...ion_report.pdf

However, apparently the CTC is asking members to hold fire for the
moment and will be saying more in due course.

So, in summary: 'we received more comment from cyclists than anyone else,
but we decided to ignore it all'.

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

pSchroedinger's cat is blinkstrongNOT/strong/blink dead./p

Ian Smith wrote on 02/04/2007 08:15 +0100:
Revised highway code is laid before parliament.

It looks like they've ignored many of the cyclist representations,
despite these being the majority of responses. "Use cycle routes and
cycle facilities ... wherever possible" is still in there.

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/cons...Code_Draft.pdf


Also the report on consultation:

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/cons...ion_report.pdf


However, apparently the CTC is asking members to hold fire for the
moment and will be saying more in due course.

regards, Ian SMith

I see the helmet takes on another magic property - that of helping you
to be seen according to the proposed Highway Code picture.

What a waste of space. 70% of the comments came from cyclists telling
them they were wrong but they have decided that they know better. But
what can one expect from the *Driving* Standards Agency.


--
Tony

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

wafflycat wrote on 02/04/2007 08:58 +0100:

"Ian Smith" wrote in message
...
Revised highway code is laid before parliament.

It looks like they've ignored many of the cyclist representations,
despite these being the majority of responses. "Use cycle routes and
cycle facilities ... wherever possible" is still in there.

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/cons...Code_Draft.pdf


Well, the 'wherever practicable' is gone and is replaced by 'wherever
possible' This is *bad* as there is a difference in emphasis. Something
can be 'possible' but entirely impractical. This is making things worse
for cyclists.

Proposed rule 61:-

"Use cycle routes and cycle facilities such as advanced stop lines,
cycle boxes and toucan crossings wherever possible, as they can make
your journey safer."


I am saving a copy of the consultation response so that if it ever comes
up in Court it will be possible to point to the section that says:

"A large number of respondents also felt that other road users believed
cyclists were legally obliged to use these facilities at all times , and
therefore expected cyclists to use them wherever available, rather than
by free choice, dependent on conditions. This then raised the issue of
liability if cyclists did not use the facilities and a road traffic
incident occurred.

It was felt that other road users needed to be made aware that the
choice to use these facilities remains with the cyclist, and there is no
law forcing their use. The phrasing of the rule has therefore been
amended to take this into account."

This clearly shows that the words in the Highway Code do not mean what
they say and how they should be interpreted.

However I shall henceforth make all possible efforts to get to the front
of a traffic queue to the ASL ;-)

--
Tony

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

Tony Raven wrote:
Ian Smith wrote on 02/04/2007 08:15 +0100:
Revised highway code is laid before parliament.

It looks like they've ignored many of the cyclist representations,
despite these being the majority of responses. "Use cycle routes and
cycle facilities ... wherever possible" is still in there.

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/cons...Code_Draft.pdf

Also the report on consultation:

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/cons...ion_report.pdf

What a waste of space. 70% of the comments came from cyclists

Given that there were 4000 respondents, that's about 2800 people - or
equivalent to about 4% of the membership of the CTC, or 0.005% of the UK
population.

telling
them they were wrong but they have decided that they know better.

If the tone was that of "telling them they were wrong" it probably got
their backs up. But anyway, they obviously decided that the opinions of
such a very small minority of road users didn't carry enough weight or
authority to justify taking much notice of them.

--
Matt B

Matt B wrote:
But anyway, they obviously decided that the opinions of
such a very small minority of road users didn't carry enough weight or
authority to justify taking much notice of them.

You are a ****wit.

Go away now, please.

in message , Aloysius Cholmondeley
Featherstonehawe om')
wrote:

Matt B wrote:
But anyway, they obviously decided that the opinions of
such a very small minority of road users didn't carry enough weight or
authority to justify taking much notice of them.

You are a ****wit.

Go away now, please.

Feeding trolls encourages them. If you want him to go away, ignore him.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Ring of great evil
Small one casts it into flame
Bringing rise of Men ;; gonzoron

"wafflycat" wrote in message
...

Proposed rule 61:-

"Use cycle routes and cycle facilities such as advanced stop lines, cycle
boxes and toucan crossings wherever possible, as they can make your
journey safer."

"Cycle Routes" seems too vague to me. A normal road could be described as a
"cycle route" if it's a route I choose to cycle along.