Government aggrees to amendment of proposed changes to Highway Code
Lance Armstrong | 10.07.2007 11:22 | Other Press
Following pressure from many cyclists across the country, it appears - at least on the surface - that the government might have adopted a sensible approach and changed the original daft draft proposed changes to the Highway Code.
Whether the petitions page on the office of the prime minster (petitions.pm.gov.uk) is a complete waste or time or not is a debate for another time, but in a response yesterday to a petition asking the government to "Listen to cyclists and not approve the revised highway code", it appears that someone might just have paid attention.
The authors of the petition, signed by 29,873 signatories, alongwith a number of cycle lobby groups have argued that the proposed revisions to the Highway Code would by law "requrie cyclists to use cycle facilities 'wherever possible'." It continues: "Many facilities are of poor standard, or just plain dangerous. Cyclists should not be forced to use such facilities against their better judgment. In short, cyclists should be allowed to use the road."
The full response to the petition from the PM's office (also available at www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page12275.asp) was:
"Having listened to the concerns of cyclists regarding certain aspects of rules 61 and 63 of the proposed revisions to the Highway Code, we sought views from key stakeholders on proposals for further changes to these rules.
We have now carefully considered stakeholders views and on 15 June laid before Parliament revised versions of rules 61 and 63, as follows:
61 Cycle Routes and Other 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.
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 cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
Provided that there are no objections in Parliament to the proposed revisions we should be able to publish the new edition of the Highway Code by the end of September. Any delay in issuing the Code would mean delaying the benefits of applying all the improved advice for all road users that it contains, including advice to motorists to be more aware of vulnerable road users such as cyclists."
The obvious interpretation of this (if you forget about trying to understand just who and what stakeholders exactly are in all this) seems to be to continue as normal and keep cycling how you always have done, without fear of being further discriminted by law enforcers as well as taxi drivers. It can always be argued that the shear inconsitency of the majority of cycle "facilities" in cities across this country make them automatically dangerous, and the roads - being as they are populated by large metallic fossil fuel guzzling demons that hurtle along at ludicrous speeds churning out polluting gases - are perpetually so.
The authors of the petition, signed by 29,873 signatories, alongwith a number of cycle lobby groups have argued that the proposed revisions to the Highway Code would by law "requrie cyclists to use cycle facilities 'wherever possible'." It continues: "Many facilities are of poor standard, or just plain dangerous. Cyclists should not be forced to use such facilities against their better judgment. In short, cyclists should be allowed to use the road."
The full response to the petition from the PM's office (also available at www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page12275.asp) was:
"Having listened to the concerns of cyclists regarding certain aspects of rules 61 and 63 of the proposed revisions to the Highway Code, we sought views from key stakeholders on proposals for further changes to these rules.
We have now carefully considered stakeholders views and on 15 June laid before Parliament revised versions of rules 61 and 63, as follows:
61 Cycle Routes and Other 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.
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 cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
Provided that there are no objections in Parliament to the proposed revisions we should be able to publish the new edition of the Highway Code by the end of September. Any delay in issuing the Code would mean delaying the benefits of applying all the improved advice for all road users that it contains, including advice to motorists to be more aware of vulnerable road users such as cyclists."
The obvious interpretation of this (if you forget about trying to understand just who and what stakeholders exactly are in all this) seems to be to continue as normal and keep cycling how you always have done, without fear of being further discriminted by law enforcers as well as taxi drivers. It can always be argued that the shear inconsitency of the majority of cycle "facilities" in cities across this country make them automatically dangerous, and the roads - being as they are populated by large metallic fossil fuel guzzling demons that hurtle along at ludicrous speeds churning out polluting gases - are perpetually so.
Lance Armstrong