Pete Owens wrote:thirdcrank wrote:I've only had a skim read of this consultation document - and remember, it's only consultation at this stage - but at the broad brush level this seems good. Somebody has read Cyclecraft. At the detailed level, it's probably natural to look at your own niggles.
If you read it in more detail (particularly the bit on road positioning) it reads as though there was a committee consisting of 1 cycle trainer and 10 driving instructors. The cycle trainer has explained good cycling practice - the driving instructors have not quite understood (or perhaps wilfully misunderstood) and the result is a mangled version which has all the right terms, but is still written from the perspective of drivers expecting cyclists to keep out of their way.At the time of the 2008 consultation, I pointed out that the advice to cyclists passing parked vehicles to avoid being doored was not included in the advice to drivers overtaking cyclists. I was ignored: I applied for a copy of the consultation document and it was quickly followed by a letter of thanks for my contribution before I had submitted it. A much expanded Rule 213 - addressed to drivers now includes this:-... Cyclists are also advised to ride at least a door’s width or 0.5m from parked cars for their own safety. ...
While it is good advice they need to go out with a tape measure and measure just how wide car doors are.
The same mistake applies with the new design standard for door-zone cycle lanes.Back to the attitude of the courts, I think that if this draft is adopted, things will take a big step closer to presumed liability (or whatever you like to call it) in that the duty of care oved by drivers to vulnerable road users seems to be significantly increased. Somebody like Martin Porter QC is better qualified to speak on this than l'il ole me.
That is good - It should help avoid (or at least reduce) those cases where insurance companies try to reduce compensation due to contributory negligence.
To make clear what I'm trying to say.
The advice to cyclists up till now has been to avoid being doored. (My words.) This was not reflected in the advice to drivers overtaking cyclists. ie Although it might be obvious, I thought it needed spelling out. The new draft does that.
" ... it reads as though there was a committee consisting of 1 cycle trainer and 10 driving instructors. ..."
Whatever, I think it's important to remember that official bodies prefer "... take me to your leader" consultation. In this case our leader is the cyclists' self-styled champion. I'll predict with some confidence that any responses from cyclists criticising the draft will be met with a response making the point that this is the preferred version agreed with cUK and for all I know the BCF. The only thing that's likely to change the eventual published version is what the other "community" leaders such as RAC, AA, BHS, Living Streets have to say. That's why cUK want people to respond to the consultation using their pro forma response here:-
https://action.cyclinguk.org/page/64572 ... ing.id=web