More Highway Code

[lnr]

Following on from this. I've learned from the Cambridge Cycling Campaign, who have been liaising with local MP David Howarth, that an Early Day Motion has been put before the house, opposing the acceptance of the new version of the Highway Code. The objection by MPs to an order before parliament is called a "Prayer for Annulment" and once the EDM prayer is published, there are 20 days from today to get lots of MPs to sign it. It's not clear how many MPs are needed.

The motion is now public: http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=33216&SESSION=885 so I guess now is the time to encourage your MP to sign up! And do feel free to point other people at this post.

Update: Hmm, I've just been relaying what's been said by the CCC, but it seems from comments that this may be not as useful as it sounds. I'll be passing this back to them for comment.

Update 2: A committee member (who prefers not to be named) says:

My understanding from David Howarth when I spoke to him on Monday is that an EDM prayer (as distinct from a normal EDM) with "lots" of signatories results in a debate being held in Committee, which may then result in a full debate in the HoC.

As far as I can see, it's the only option open to anyone to stop this. That's the procedure there is so we'd better make best use of it. Getting lots of MPs to be aware of the problem is worth trying. It could lead to media interest etc., who knows.

Comments

[hoiho.livejournal.com]

If it's an EDM, then there's no "need' about anything: it's just a marker, and it, sadly, has absolutely no power, or authority, no matter how many sign it. They're often used for rather more trivial things, like congratulating football teams on big wins. They're the lowest form of parliamentary action, really.

[stephdairy.livejournal.com]

It's not the prayer to annul that's relevant, it's a subsequent vote to annul in one of the Houses of Parliament. The EDM is just an indication to the relevant business managers that a debate should be held. Substantive EDMs with large numbers of signatures are sometimes given parliamentary time, as sometimes are EDMs proposed by the Official Opposition. I wouldn't hold your breath, though; the House of Commons hasn't annulled an SI for over 25 years.

The signatories seem to be a LibDem only club at the moment.

(S)

[mair_in_grenderich]

I have linked here ...

(also, there is some media interest)

[gailsedotes.livejournal.com]

frankly i would prefer that cyclists would:
1. use hand signals
2. didn't treat roundabouts, pedetrian crossings and crosswalks WITH lights as if they were invisible
3. wore helmets so that when they disreguarded 1 and 2 they would not necesarily die when i completely legally ran them over!

[lnr]

Are you deliberately trying to wind me up? If so you've succeeded.

I'm trying to make sure that the new Highway Code doesn't mean cyclists are considered negligent for using the road when a (possibly dangerous or inconvenient) cycle facility exists. I'm not making blanket statements about motorists based on the poor behaviour of some of them.

I find motorists who don't signal as irritating as cyclists who don't to be honest, and while there are fewer of them they have far less excuse: flicking a switch in easy reach of the steering wheel is less effort and doesn't make it harder to control the vehicle.

You may or may not know that I've long since signed up to http://www.stopatred.org/ - and that I agree with you entirely that all vehicles should obey the rules of the road. I wish there were more enforcement of this, and of things like pavement cycling, as well as of speeding and other motoring offences.

And finally you'll probably be pleased to know that while there's no clear evidence to show that helmets are actually much protection in anything but the most minor of accidents, while they're only designed for collisions at under 12 mph, while there's some evidence to show that they encourage cars to drive too close to cyclists, and even evidence that they can increase the risk of some sorts of injury, the new Highway Code also includes the instruction that "Cyclists should wear helmets". Which means that if you do knock a non-helmet wearing cyclist over, whether through their fault or yours, any compensation you or your insurers have to pay to them may well be reduced on the grounds of Contributory Negligence. Especially if they have the temerity to cycle on the road.

[damerell.livejournal.com]

Cretin.

[gailsedotes.livejournal.com]

not trying to wind you up! i think the new bits in the highwaycode are a wind up! how can they go about making rediculas suggestions like those if they wont even enforce the basic rules - like obeying traffic lights, roundabouts, zebracrossings? j rides to school everyday and has been taken off her bike on gilbert road 3 times - even clipped her bike and she went head first into van (helmets are not entirely useless)! i pick up b from his school and it is chaos when the bikes come out. i take great care around cyclists but they dont half make it hard. and that's not a wind up - i think the police should be fining more cyclists for basic voliations like failing to signal. i once had a cyclist go round the roundabout the wrong way - i slammed on the breaks and near missed him and at the lights he opened the passenger car door and had a go at me - OVER the car seat holding J as a toddler!

[damerell.livejournal.com]

It's a shame it wasn't a windup.

"I prefer rogues to imbeciles, because they sometimes give it a rest."

What makes the roads dangerous? Cretins in cars who think it's legal to run people over would be top of my list.

Hello

[(Anonymous)]

Hello!
How are you?