Right To The Road Threat?
The consultation process for amendments to the Highway Code has started, and the closing date for comments is the 10th May. There are several proposed amendments that cyclists should be very concerned about. I have commented using the Online form that can be found by clicking here. You will need to register to be able to use the online response form, but it's a once-only registration and you can ask to be advised of future consultations which I, for one, will be keeping an eye on.
Included in the draft document are quite a few proposed amendments to the rules covering cycling. The ones that most concern me are:
When cycling
58. Use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings where they are provided, as they can make your journeys safer.
The main issue with this is, in the words of Wafflycat, "If that gets through, we have effectively lost our right to use the road anywhere the man from the council has been out with his paint pot, regardless of utility, condition or quality of the "facility"."
Coupled with the following, which is already in the current edition of the Highway Code:
60. Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 134). Keep within the lane wherever possible.
This seems to me to be making clear the intent that cyclists are increasingly to be forced to use routes and segregation techniques however poor or dangerous. It's just a short step to the red MUST. These clearly are still only guidelines, not laws or rules, but I am hearing a lot of worrying stories of these items being used to excuse the actions of other careless road users and shift the blame onto the injured cyclist.... which leads me on to my last concern:
64. You should
be aware of traffic coming up behind you
WHAT??!!!! What is this meant to imply? Does this perhaps refer to the unfortunate young woman who was mown down by an HGV on 2nd February? And might the fact that she was, at the time, wearing an iPod perhaps have prompted this addition? We'll never know. But the onus is not on the cyclist to evade the lorry if it's behind him/her - it's on the lorry driver to not hit the cyclist.....
As for "we don't have to worry about it, it's not law, only guidelines", as the Highway Code itself says:
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see page 103) to establish liability.
We all need to understand that our right to use the Queens Highway is being eroded and that just because these things are not currently law doesn't mean that we should not take their possible inclusion very seriously.
Thanks to Wafflycat of ACF for bringing this to everyone's attention.
Included in the draft document are quite a few proposed amendments to the rules covering cycling. The ones that most concern me are:
When cycling
58. Use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings where they are provided, as they can make your journeys safer.
The main issue with this is, in the words of Wafflycat, "If that gets through, we have effectively lost our right to use the road anywhere the man from the council has been out with his paint pot, regardless of utility, condition or quality of the "facility"."
Coupled with the following, which is already in the current edition of the Highway Code:
60. Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 134). Keep within the lane wherever possible.
This seems to me to be making clear the intent that cyclists are increasingly to be forced to use routes and segregation techniques however poor or dangerous. It's just a short step to the red MUST. These clearly are still only guidelines, not laws or rules, but I am hearing a lot of worrying stories of these items being used to excuse the actions of other careless road users and shift the blame onto the injured cyclist.... which leads me on to my last concern:
64. You should
be aware of traffic coming up behind you
WHAT??!!!! What is this meant to imply? Does this perhaps refer to the unfortunate young woman who was mown down by an HGV on 2nd February? And might the fact that she was, at the time, wearing an iPod perhaps have prompted this addition? We'll never know. But the onus is not on the cyclist to evade the lorry if it's behind him/her - it's on the lorry driver to not hit the cyclist.....
As for "we don't have to worry about it, it's not law, only guidelines", as the Highway Code itself says:
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see page 103) to establish liability.
We all need to understand that our right to use the Queens Highway is being eroded and that just because these things are not currently law doesn't mean that we should not take their possible inclusion very seriously.
Thanks to Wafflycat of ACF for bringing this to everyone's attention.
posted by Catherine at 13:18
7 Comments:
Hi sweedy. I see your point here, but, around little old romsey etc the cycle paths are mostly on pavements, to keep cyclists off roads that are too narrow for cars to pass them safely... if i were a cyclist i think the road is the last place i'd want to be!
But of course in little old North Baddesley (as well as many other routes) the cycle lanes are just that thin white line on the road between you and the Blue Star 4... Eeek!
If more cyclists used the cyclepaths provided there would be fewer incidents involving cyclists and drivers.
But as long as the pedal-power brigade insist on their "right" to cycle on the road, they will continue to come off worse when involved in "physical disagreements" with motor vehicles.
Ban motor vehicles and nobody pays road tax. You seriously think the powers that be will pay for 'roads' to be maintained once the cars and lorries are gone?
But since cyclists think they can use the roads after dark with NO lights, and NO form of safety equipment (not even a dayglow band or a cycle helmet), what else should we expect?
Disgruntled Driver
(cyclist in past life!)
Generalisation should be illegal. Punishable by public flogging, preferably.
Anonymous wishes to clarify - he was not intending to lump all cyclists together as idiots who treat the road as their own personal fiefdom and expect everyone else to get out of their way - these "people" often treat the pavement as a direct continuation of "their" road and show no respect for pedestrians either.
Given my druthers, I'd prefer it if cyclepaths were seperated from the roads by a six- to eight-inch concrete wall - small enough that you can cross it if you must, but too big for most motor vehicles - or cyclists - to "accidentaly" wander over it.
Every vehicle should be able to use the roads in safety when necessary but cyclists should remember that cycle paths are there for them to use and should use them. And motor vehicle drivers should remember they are NOT cyclists and keep out of the cycle lanes!
Interesting idea that - if there were a 2 metre wide cycle lane everywhere with a little concrete wall separating them I'd be inclined to agree with you. But how would they be swept of glass and debris? Would we also have a specially designed "cycle road" (as that is what they would be) sweeper? I wonder how everyone would feel about the inevitable widening of every road that would be required.
Can I suggest some essential reading on cycle path construction: http://www.nuttycyclist.co.uk/cycling/daft-lanes-index.htm.
Also, http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/cycling.html. This is the website of the author of "Cyclecraft", the definitive guide to skilled cycling techniques, published by The Statioery Office and recommended by RoSPA.
Post a Comment
<< Home