Highway Code cracked: more than 40 rules changed!

[mhara]

CTC will be pressing for a couple of changes to tidy up the final version, and is asking cyclists to support us by signing an online petition.

Can anybody tell me where on the website I can track this online petition down?

Most of the rule changes are along the lines of: be aware of cyclists when doing x or y. Roundabouts have got a bit better. There is now a photo of someone overtaking a cyclists giving a full lane width between.

Can't find this anywhere. Can you supply a URL Pickles?

[thirdcrank]

The Department for Transport is proposing the following wording:

Rule 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.]

It seems to me that the only proposed exception to the draft HC's advice to use cycle routes etc., is when it would be unsafe. (I.e. no exception for when it would be very inconvenient) Anybody trying to understand the effect of this should read the introduction to the HC where it explains what is likely to be the result if ignoring the advice in the HC. (I.e.. no specific offence but can be used in criminal or civil courts etc etc. The main part of the HC is only advice - the criminal offences which it sets out have all been enacted in legislation elsewhere.)

IMO without an exception to allow inconvenient cycle facilities to be ignored, this is no victory for cyclists.

The 'practicable' in respect of cycle lanes only seems to mean that if you are using a cycle lane, stay in it unless you cannot do so (e.g. parked cars). No big issue there.

[Dondare]

CTC will be pressing for a couple of changes to tidy up the final version, and is asking cyclists to support us by signing an online petition.

Can anybody tell me where on the website I can track this online petition down?

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/

[Dondare]

"Rule 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.

Rule 63: Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway. 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."

An unneccessarily long-winded and rather cumbersome way of saying that you don't have to use them.

And I still don't like the assertion that they can make your journey safer.
99 times out of a hundred they don't.

[mhara]

thanks Dondare.
I thought it meant a fresh petition. The roads4bikes one has been around for quite a while.

[drossall]

I am not a lawyer and have to admit that my first reaction to the word practicable was that it was an americanisation of practical.

No, it's not an Americanism. Practical is often used where practicable is meant. Practical is the opposite of theoretical, whereas practicable has a meaning somewhere between feasible and reasonable.

For example, in determining the height of a building, stacking up sugar cubes of known size to reach the roof-top, and counting the number of cubes, would be a practical approach, because it involves doing something rather than theorising.

However, it would not be practicable because, among other things, the pile would tend to fall over

Using a cycle facility is always practical, because cycling is a practical activity. The issue is whether it is practicable in a particular context.

[drossall]

To get back to the main point, I'm pleased at the very real progress, but I have to admit that I am somewhat confused by the wording of rule 61. It does still effectively say that facilities should be used unless there is a pressing reason to the contrary. Then it says facilities can make journeys safer, which must be true in some individual cases, but doesn't appear to be in a general sense.

I'm left wondering whether the conclusions of John Franklin are in dispute (I have never seen a serious research-based counter-argument)? If not, is the DfT really working on the basis of wishful thinking, and are there any other parts of the Highway Code that are based on the same? We know, for example, that it has taken years to get removed the dangerous advice about going around the outside of a roundabout to turn right.

I say this from the perspective of someone who believes that following the Code is important because cyclists have more to gain than most from predictable and considerate road behaviour. I also use cycle paths daily, but not necessarily for safety reasons.

[fatboy]

Does cycle paths littered with glass count as being "not safe". If so that will help me. I work in Harlow and once or twice a week bike in to work but I've given up on the cycle path network because, despite being basically good and probably almost as good as cycle paths can get, it is generally littered with glass. To my mind that is unsafe but would the law see it that way?

[thirdcrank]

It would be interesting to see full details of the other 40 changes to the rules.

A couple of public consultations ago, I went right through the HC picking up on everything that was not right for cyclists (as it seemed to me).

For example, (and I cannot now be bothered to check the rule numbers) a rule for cyclists advises giving a wide berth to parked cars in case a door is opened. The rule for drivers overtaking cyclists did not include something on the lines "Cyclists overtaking parked cars will need to give them plenty of clearance to avoid doors being opened into their path and you must give them room to do this."

I applied for the public consultation document from the DSA and received a glowing letter of thanks for my submission, before I had even submitted it and I was, of course, completely ignored.

I hope that the 40 rule changes deal with all that sort of thing

In the meantime, let's not forget that standing up to the new rules will not be easy if they have the endorsement of the CTC. It's got to be spot on or we are done for. It's certainly not a question of this is progress, let's take it a bit further next time. You can't campaign against your own position.

[Seak]

Rumour has it that the online petition is being held up due to 'technical difficulties'.

Normal service to be resumed shortly.

[pickles]

CTC will be pressing for a couple of changes to tidy up the final version, and is asking cyclists to support us by signing an online petition.

Can anybody tell me where on the website I can track this online petition down?

I understand that the petition will be launched soon, and will include CTC's response to the final, limited-stakeholder consultation.

Most of the rule changes are along the lines of: be aware of cyclists when doing x or y. Roundabouts have got a bit better. There is now a photo of someone overtaking a cyclists giving a full lane width between.

Can't find this anywhere. Can you supply a URL Pickles?

This is the March 2007 version, so contains the old Rules 61/63.

One example is that old Rule 94 (don't dazzle "other road users") has been changed to Rule 114 "other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders" Minor, perhaps, but it all helps.

[pickles]

There further rule changes telling drivers to take extra care in wet weather and roadworks around vulnerable road users.

The Department for Transport have just released the new Rules here.

[pickles]

thanks Dondare.
I thought it meant a fresh petition. The roads4bikes one has been around for quite a while.

CTC's online petition is here. Click me.

[mhara]

Brill. Thanks Pickles. Have signed.

[reohn2]

its been brought to my attention that whilst the CTC is pushing for the HC wording to be change from "use cycle facilities....where provided"which I don't agree with at all, to "use cycle facilities where they help with your journey" which is a lot better.
Now I read the CTC petition which reads" I welcome their recognition that use of cycle facilities and cycle lanes is "not compulsory" and will "depend on your skills and experience".

Whats going on, why has the proposed wording suddenly changed.I'm no english literature student but there seems to be a certain amount of subtly going on here and I'm not quite sure why or am I being cynical.