Highway Code and the CTC

[MartinC]

Is the CTC actually doing anything to challenge the proposed changes to the HC?

[orbiter]

Good question Nothing on the CTC campaign page. Last comment on the news page dated June 06.

[Yorkshireman]

From last weeks Newsnet :-

newsnet 04.05.07

The weekly newsletter for members of CTC





News



Battle continues for cyclist-friendly Highway Code

A revised draft of the Highway Code has not properly addressed the concerns of 11,000 cyclists who last year joined our campaign to have the Code re-worded. The original draft told cyclists to ‘use cycle facilities…where provided’. Following our campaigning efforts, the revised wording, issued on 28th March, reads: ‘Use cycle routes and cycle facilities…wherever possible, as they can make your journey safer.’ The new wording does not address our original concern that insurance companies will use the wording of the new Code as an excuse to reduce the amount of compensation they pay if a motorist hits a cyclist that has chosen to use a road rather than a nearby cycle facility. We very much hope that the Government will see sense and amend the wording to say “use cycle facilities where they help with your journey” – thus leaving the decision at the cyclist’s discretion. If it does not, we will seek to persuade the Lords to vote it out, or may ultimately initiate a Judicial Review against it.



We would like to hear about incidents where a cyclist has been injured while using a cycle facility, or has suffered verbal or physical abuse, or hassle from the police, as a result of using the road rather than a nearby cycle facility. Please email adam.coffman@ctc.org.uk


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There`s also a petition here :-
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/

with over 7,000 signed last time I looked (this morning).

[orbiter]

Thanks Colin. Even though I'm a member I wasn't aware of the newsnet.

I'd recommend everyone to mail their MP about it as there is an Early Day Motion currently tabled to stop the new HC, which they could sign up to.

See http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=33216&SESSION=885
and contact your MP at
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

You could refer your MP to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardiantravel/story/0,,2076300,00.html
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/li ... 746923.ece

for light reading on the subject.
The first has references to relevant Dept for transport documents which conflict with the proposed Code.

Pete M

[pickles]

I'd recommend everyone to mail their MP about it as there is an Early Day Motion currently tabled to stop the new HC, which they could sign up to.

See http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=33216&SESSION=885
and contact your MP at
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

I wouldn't bother asking your MP to sign this unless they're a Lib Dem - this is a frontbench policy position and therefore not one that Members from other parties can sign up to (without losing the whip).

[orbiter]

I wouldn't bother asking your MP to sign this unless they're a Lib Dem - this is a frontbench policy position and therefore not one that Members from other parties can sign up to (without losing the whip).

That's a good point but

1. There's no harm in asking - and making your feelings known. You might even educate your MP on the subject.

2. There is at least one non-LibDem signatory to the EDM

3. If you don't ask you certainly don't get.

Pete

[pickles]

I wouldn't bother asking your MP to sign this unless they're a Lib Dem - this is a frontbench policy position and therefore not one that Members from other parties can sign up to (without losing the whip).

That's a good point but

1. There's no harm in asking - and making your feelings known. You might even educate your MP on the subject.

2. There is at least one non-LibDem signatory to the EDM

3. If you don't ask you certainly don't get.

Pete

True: Lynne Jones has signed. Other serial Labour rebels may sign, but it will make you look a bit silly if you ask ones (say - Labour minister) MP, to sign this.

CTC campaign page update here.

[orbiter]

Not sure why I'd look silly that I don't know the whipping arrangements of the party machines.

I'd rather ask and make my feelings felt, even to someone who won't sign the EDM for whatever reason. They might make noises behind the scenes if they get enough letters to convince them that the cause is right.

The important thing is to write and make your feelings known.

I am disappointed to see the update on the campaign page, which could deter people from writing at this crucial stage - "MPs of other parties cannot sign this type of EDM without the blessing of their party leaderships, so there is no point asking MPs other than LibDem members to sign it."

'No point'? Lynne Jones has demonstrated that this isn't always true. It would be better (and more positive) to say ".. so MPs other than LibDem members will probably feel they can't sign it. If your MP is LAB/Con write anyway to make sure they understand the strength of feeling about the issue. "

Pete

[pickles]

Not sure why I'd look silly that I don't know the whipping arrangements of the party machines.

I'd rather ask and make my feelings felt, even to someone who won't sign the EDM for whatever reason. They might make noises behind the scenes if they get enough letters to convince them that the cause is right.

The important thing is to write and make your feelings known.

I am disappointed to see the update on the campaign page, which could deter people from writing at this crucial stage - "MPs of other parties cannot sign this type of EDM without the blessing of their party leaderships, so there is no point asking MPs other than LibDem members to sign it."

'No point'? Lynne Jones has demonstrated that this isn't always true. It would be better (and more positive) to say ".. so MPs other than LibDem members will probably feel they can't sign it. If your MP is LAB/Con write anyway to make sure they understand the strength of feeling about the issue. "

Pete

Yes, please by all means write and make your feelings known! But if one lives in, say, Paisley (D Alexander), it might not help very much to suggest signing this particular EDM. It might even make CTC look a bit foolish and politically naive.

Sorry to be pedantic about this but I do work in an MP's office.

[Tallis the Tortoise]

From the DSA consultation report, obtained via the CTC website:

"The wording on the use of cycle facilities such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings - originally, the rule regarding these facilities stated “Use cycle routes where practicable. They can make your journey safer.” New wording was inserted into the consultation document, which contained greater detail with regard to the use of cycle boxes and advanced stop lines where provided. This change was read by many to suggest that their use was mandatory. Many felt this was unfair and unsafe, as they considered the standard of cycle lanes in GB to be very poor and very dangerous, often filled with parked vehicles, debris, drain covers and pot holes.
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. The standard of cycle routes remains the responsibility of the relevant highway authorities and so falls outside the remit of The Highway Code."

Does anybody know where in the final version this has been done? The wording in the rules for cyclists section still gives us no choice over whether or not we "should" use cycling facilities where provided.

Not only have they refused to word the code in a way that does not severely compromise our safety and right to ride on the road; they have also claimed that they have done so!

What's more, they claim that the state of cycling facilities is outside the remit of the highway code. True, but if they are acknowledging that their state is often inappropriate why are they still forcing us to use them? Surely the code should reflect reality?

Andy

Editted for clarity

[mhara]

When you look at the actual wording of EDM 1433 no wonder it has attracted so few signatures
How is anyone supposed to know this is about the Highway Code's changed wording worsening of the guidance re cycle lanes? It's way too general. Or am I missing something?

Any party's MP's can sign unless there is some specific barrier to do with their status. But Lib Dems do tend to be woolly - if the EDM was better worded then I'm sure it would attract Labour, Conservative, etc MP's

"EDM 1433
ROAD TRAFFIC
09.05.2007
Campbell, Menzies
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."

[Mick F]

Highway Code 1987 states on page 37:

"146. If there is a suitable cycle path, ride on it."

Seems a firm order to me!

(Just dug the old 'code out of the book case, as a matter of interest)

[pickles]

am I missing something?

Yes - this is not a standard EDM expressing a cross-party position. See my post above.

Any party's MP's can sign unless there is some specific barrier to do with their status. But Lib Dems do tend to be woolly - if the EDM was better worded then I'm sure it would attract Labour, Conservative, etc MP's

I don't want to go through all this again. Please read page three of factsheet 3 (Early Day Motions) on the Parliament website, here.

[FatBat]

Highway Code 1987 states on page 37:

"146. If there is a suitable cycle path, ride on it."

Seems a firm order to me!

(Just dug the old 'code out of the book case, as a matter of interest)

My mid 1960s edition has a similar wording. I think it says "If there is a suitable cycle track at the side of the road, ride on it."

But, it is up to the cyclist to determine whether or not the cycle track is "suitable", so use is purely discretionary.

[mhara]

[quote="FatBat"]

My mid 1960s edition has a similar wording. I think it says "If there is a suitable cycle track at the side of the road, ride on it."

But, it is up to the cyclist to determine whether or not the cycle track is "suitable", so use is purely discretionary.[/quote]

In a court of law it isn't what the individual themself thinks is suitable. Courts make judgements based on what a 'reasonable' person would think. I know many reasonable people, but very few of them are frequent/competent road cyclists. You could end up having your concept of 'suitable' over-ruled. Better if the Highway Code acknowledges the fact that cycling paths, lanes etc are often unsuitable, than you end up arguing against a motorist, the law and the Highway Code. Guess who will win!