Singularity

Highway Code petition

Apr.21, 2007, filed under Miscellany

Not going down without a fightYeah. I’m dubious about the value of these Downing Street petition things as well. But it can’t hurt, can it?

The proposed revision — which includes such ridiculous changes as “use cycle paths where possible” rather than the currently slightly less proscriptive “use cycle paths were practicable” — was laid before Parliament on the 28th March 2007. A member of the Commons or the House of Lords has to bring an adverse prayer to have any chance of getting it stopped, but this in itself would not be guaranteed to prevent it coming into force. It would only take it before a committee that has no power to amend it: only accept it or throw it out entirely. Government would most probably use its built-in majority to whip it through.

The really irritating part of this is that 70% of the responses to the draft were from cyclists pointing out why the revised wording was poor:

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.

The advice on wearing cycle helmets and high visibility clothing – as many respondents incorrectly believed that the advice to wear cycle helmets and high visibility clothing was mandatory they asked for the recommendations to be completely removed, primarily because it was seen as removing the cyclist’s choice of what to wear. However, as this is still considered to be good advice for all cyclists, it has not been changed.

The advice on negotiating roundabouts – The Highway Code did state that, when negotiating roundabouts, cyclists should keep to the left when cycling, or dismount and walk round. Many respondents considered the former to be dangerous and contrary to the advice given in cycle training manuals, while the latter discriminated against the cyclist’s right to use the road equally with any other road user. However, the advice is still considered to be appropriate and has not been changed, although the order of the wording has been revised for clarity.

In other words: screw you.

Add your name to the petition as a start. Better yet, lobby your MP at a surgery or even by letter. If you need any hints and tips on why the changes are a bad idea, drop me a line at the usual address.

No comments for this entry yet...

Leave a Reply