Highway code petition

[lnr]

The highway code is preparing for a new version, as it regularly does, and the current version before parliament for consideration contains the phrase "cyclists should use cycle facilities where possible" - regardless of whether convenient or even safe. There's a petition up on the number 10 site requesting that this clause be re-thought. As many of my friends-list cycle I thought I'd mention it here (previously it has travelled through cam.misc, the cambridge cycling campaign mailing list, the #chiark irc channel, and another friend's LJ - it's interesting that I can recognise names from all those places). Anyway it's here if you're interested: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/.

In other news, and on which I'll try and write more later, since nothing has really happened until you've blogged about it:

• My sister is married and the wedding was utterly utterly lovely.
• We still don't have a desk, but may do tomorrow if we're lucky.
• And 65 Days of Static were excellent last night at the Junction 2 - proper tour later this year, do catch them if you can.

Comments

[knell.livejournal.com]

Uh, the CTC has been campaigning on that thing for about the last year (the consultation period was last May or suchlike). Starting a petition now is a bit behind the times..

[lnr]

The campaign was to get the draft changed during the consultation phase before it was handed to parliament. The response to the consultation said roughly "oh but that's not what it *means*" and it was left as is. It went to parliament end of last week, and people have been asked to renew their activities talking to their MPs etc. So it doesn't seem entirely inappropriate to have a petition at this point.

[arnhem.livejournal.com]

It's actually even worse than that.

The response to the consultation was "oh dear, that bit's rather ambiguous, and no we don't intend to force cyclists to use cycle facilities rather than the road [*]; we'll make sure it's fixed in the final revision".

The "fix" consisted of disambiguating it in precisely the wrong direction.

As I understand it, it'll now go through on the nod in 40 days (from the end of March), because it's assumed that civil servants will competently and appropriately implement change based on the consultation and current government policy. Unless sufficient stink is raised that it gets voted on, that is.

[*] this is confirmed by the prime minister's response to a previous epetition (http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10784.asp):

"The use of cycle lanes is not compulsory for cyclists. They can choose to ignore them and use the remainder of the carriageway if they prefer to do so. "

[pm215]

people have been asked to renew their activities talking to their MPs

Do you have a link to relevant advice there? Last time I looked at the CTC newsletter it said "please wait while we figure out what you should do"...

[lnr]

Doesn't seem to be from the CTC, but another cycling org, but see end of here:

http://www.cyclenetwork.org.uk/latest/latest.html#hc

(I'm not a CTC member FWIW)

[aldabra]

Haha, it's a bit depressing that I know about a third of the signers so far. Are we really the only people in the country who care about this?

[lnr]

I don't think so, it's just it was the actual author of the petition who posted it to cam.transport this morning, and I don't think it's spread very far yet. Come back in a week and see if it's the same.

[littlemissgoth.livejournal.com]

I don't personally see a problem with that phrasing... if the cycleway isn't safe, it isn't possible to use it. And if its inconvenient to use it, you have as much right to use the normal roads as anyone else... so long as you are not breaking the law by going somewhere with those pesky "no cycles" signs, no-one has a legal leg to stand on while say anything against you.

Basically its just a suggestion that its safer to be off the road if you can be.

You have to remember that this is a "law-like" document. Its not an Act of Parliament, so it can't be (and isn't intended to be) enforced. Its a, hmm... lets say its a "considered summary" of the road traffic laws, with some explanations, road safety, etc thrown in for good measure.

You can't be (ok, lets say you *shouldn't* be) arrested for not following the Code. You have to break a real law (from the Road Traffic Act, Road Safety Act, etc).

And even if by some insanity it somehow (I can't personally see this happening in....) became illegal to ride on the road where there's a cycleway provided, the Police still have to act on it... the chances are they have better things to do unless you *really* annoy one of them! (hint; don't steal their helmets or run over their toes ;-) )

And even if you got arrested, the CPS would still have to decide to prosecute... which is doubtful; how many lawyers can you think of who would want it on their case history that they prosecuted someone for riding a bike????

Seriously though, in an overstretched service like the CPS, not every case is prosecuted because there simply isn't the time, money, lawyers, court dates, etc... they deal with the "bad" cases (rape, murder, etc), and then work down the severity scale... I suspect they occasionally get pushed into prosecuting some stuff just because its been given exposure (say because someone goes to the press after being arrested for something stupid)...

In essence, if it somehow came to pass as law, I expect it would just end up as another pointless bit of legislation that never gets used. Unless, of course, someone was stupid and went to the press with the story of being arrested for it...

[damerell.livejournal.com]

Contributory negligence is the problem.

[bjh21.livejournal.com]

I refer you to the case of Daniel Cadden (http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?amp;TabID=4774), who was arrested, tried, and convicted of inconsiderate cycling (s29 RTA 1988 (http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=2276580)) for failing to use a cycle path. Perhaps he was stupid to publicise this and get his conviction quashed, but it nonetheless looks as if, even without encouragement from the HC, the police, CPS, and courts are more than willing to come down hard on cyclists using the roads.

[littlemissgoth.livejournal.com]

-sheepish- didn't know 'bout that.... :-(

ok, well, the law is, as someone smarter than me once said, an ass...

my more general point still stands though; he wasn't prosecuted under the highway code but the RTA.

I semi-can't believe it managed to get to trial... and worse still conviction... that's just *bad*... I suppose it depends on what the evidence was... although that sounds to have been a bit dodgy...!

And I hate to say it but changing the highway code won't change any attitudes to cyclists... most people don't ever read it after they pass their driving test, and even then, they skip the parts for cyclists because they don't need to know them...

Having been on the CTC site to read on the Daniel Cadden case I noticed they have various other legal campaigns... perhaps it would be more useful to be petitioning for a general review of and consultation over road traffic legislation with regards to cyclists... maybe with a view to getting the law made more cyclist-friendly, less nonsensical and less open to abuse (which is what I'd class Mr Cadden's case under).

[lnr]

The problem is not being arrested for being on the road, but comes in two ways:

a) Already drivers intimidate cyclists who use the road "when there's a perfectly good cyclepath on the pavement". With the re-phrasing this intimidation will only get worse, as those drivers who have read the new code feel more justified in objecting to cyclists choosing not to use the cycle facilities provided.

b) There is a danger that any cyclist involved in an accident on the road will have any compensation reduced on the grounds of "contributory negligence" for not using a facility. This has been fought against successfully where the use of cycle helmets has been concerned, since so far it has been unclear that in the cases involved a helmet would have actually helped significantly. It's not so clear what happens when you're run over on the road - since if you'd been on the path the accident couldn't have happened.