petition against daft changes to ghighway code

[oddman]

From Matt Seaton's article in Grauniad today

'A revised Highway Code, due out this year, which is worded to allow the legal interpretation that cyclists might be guilty of "contributory negligence" if they fail to use available cycle facilities.

The old Highway Code text suggested simply that cyclists "use cycle routes when practicable". No problem there. The new code advises us to "use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities ... where they are provided".'

Petition against at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bike

[mat205125]

Signed. I never use cycle paths that run parallel to roads as leaving and re-joining the flow of traffic is more dangerous than staying with the flow.

[mk1fan]

Signed. Truely ridiculous wording of a clause.

Check out [url]www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk[/url]. The Facility of the Month is a real eye opener.

Edited by mk1fan on Thursday 10th May 16:15

[flattotheboards]

mat205125 said:

I never use cycle paths that run parallel to roads as leaving and re-joining the flow of traffic is more dangerous than staying with the flow.

well said why cant the thick people in govenmentt realise this?

[Black5]

Have to say in many respects cycle facilities a good idea, but we should have the option.

The average cyclist doesn't ride at 20mph+ and has no problems stopping at cycle junctions or using cycle routes.

Cycle routes seperate a nervous cyclist and children etc from traffic, which can only be a good thing.

The issues happen when a 'faster' cyclist is seen to worry another passing them quickly etc on a narrow cycle route. This cyclist would be much better using the road.

In city centres many cyclists are faster than the cars around them, so using cycle facilities only serves the purpose of slowing the cyclist.

Late night - just babbling . . . . .

[neilski]

Crap idea. And don't get me started on "shared use" cycle paths / pavements.