Skip to main content.
« Previous entry: Monday links | Main page | Next entry: Jerry Falwell »

May 15th, 2007

Cycling petition

The government here in the UK is revising the Highway Code. The Highway Code, for those who don’t know, is the booklet which tells you how to behave on the roads in the UK. It always used to look a bit like the famous evangelistic booklet ‘Journey into Life’, but was more expensive. There is a test on the Highway Code when you take your driving test in the UK (Many Evangelical Churches conduct a test on ‘Journey into Life’ before you are allowed to join the coffee rota, but I digress).

Anyway, the serious bit. The plans for the new Highway Code will be very bad for cyclists. Among the problems with the proposed changes is the fact that cyclists will be forced to stick to the cycle lanes and paths rather than the road. This is a bad thing for all sorts of reasons – the CTC, the Times and the Guardian explain it better than I can do here. This really is going to happen – the new Highway Code will ‘become law’ within the next 40 days if I understand things correctly.

There is something you can do if you act quickly. The Cambridge Cycling Campaign has encouraged their MP to present a petition to parliament which anyone can sign. See Actions every cyclist must take to safeguard their right to use the road. You can print off the petition from this page – it does need to be printed and posted, and it does need to be done straight away as the deadline is Thursday. The petition is as follows:

The Presenting Member: David Howarth MP

PETITION FROM Cllr Ian Nimmo-Smith and others

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

The Humble Petition of Cllr Ian Nimmo-Smith and others of like disposition

Sheweth

That there is significant concern that the proposed changes to the Highway Code will force cyclists to use sometimes inadequate cycle facilities and that the proposal to require cyclists to ride on the left-hand lane on roundabouts will place cyclists in greater danger.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House shall urge the Department of Transport to reconsider the proposed revisions to the Highway Code so that cyclists are not required to use cycle facilities ‘wherever possible’.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c

Just for into, the e-mail I received about it:

> Cambridge MP David Howarth has an opportunity at very short
> notice to present a petition in the House of Commons opposing the
> changes detrimental to cycling in the new Highway Code which is now
> before parliament.
>
> Anyone can sign the petition: it is not specific to Cambridge
> constituency voters.
>
> Unfortunately though it has to be physically signed with an
> original signature on the correct form. Therefore, please can
> we ask you to print the form which you can find at
>
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/issues/highwaycode/petition.html
>
> (make sure you have the whole link including the .html that might be
> truncated in this email)
>
> fill it in and send it by post *to ARRIVE by this THURSDAY morning*
> at the absolute latest (Wednesday if possible) to
>
> David Howarth MP
> David House, Room 4/11
> Norman Shaw North
> House of Commons
> London SW1A 0AA
>
> (n.b. not just to the usual House of Commons address, please, as
> that mail would then end up back in Cambridge)
>
> Please ask friends and colleagues who you can contact to fill in the
> form as well. Please feel free to circulate this as widely as you can.
>
> Further details about the highway code issue can be found at
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/issues/highwaycode
>

Please pass this on, blog it etc. Thanks to Paul Roberts for telling me about it.

[An unrelated petition is this one: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Listen to cyclists and not approve the revised highway code", but the petition above is, I think, far more important.]

Unrelated diagram for reference purposes:

highway code journey into life

17 Comments »



This is a single Cartoon Blog entry, posted by Dave on Tuesday, May 15th, 2007 at 1:38 pm.

If you enjoyed this post you might also enjoy these (possibly) related articles:

Know someone else who might enjoy this post? Click here to send this to a friend. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

The technologically advanced may like to trackback from another site, follow responses to this post via the RSS 2.0 feed, or bookmark this post on del.icio.us or digg.

17 Responses to “Cycling petition”


  1. joe says:

    Dave,

    Isn’t the wording already that cycles should use cyclepaths ‘wherever possible’? Maybe I am missing something.

    May 15th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
  2. Dave says:

    Joe – to quote the Times link:

    “In the version drafted in 1999 cyclists are required to use cycle routes “where practicable”; in the latest version they are required to use them “wherever possible”.”

    My understanding is that, despite appearances, legally this is quite a significant change.

    May 15th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
  3. ruth says:

    Hi there

    I’m someone who has to drive a car. I don’t unless I must, and I’ll walk long distances rather than take the car, but, the way my life is at present, I have to drive at least two journeys every day.

    I hate cars. I wish there were none. I wish everyone rode bikes instead.

    So, in a nutshell, I’m anti-car and pro-bike. But I don’t think that the two mix. The whole bike AND car thing on the same road just seems so dangerous to me.

    There was a local news item recently which stated that school children were being taught to ride bikes safely on the roads somewhere (I didn’t think that this was news, but there you go – maybe the old cycling proficiency test thingy has taken a dip recently and is on the increase again now). Anyhow, I saw this as concerning – children on bikes on roads with cars speeding by….. shudder.

    May 15th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
  4. joe says:

    I know a very bad joke.

    Two bits of tarmac walked into a pub. They were very childish bits of tarmac and enjoyed throwing chips and laughing at the wimpy girly bits of tarmac at the bar.

    Suddenly the room went silent. A huuuuge bit of tarmac with tattoos around his waste pushed them aside to order his drink.

    Quivering in the corner, the one bit of tarmac whispered to the other “…don’t mess with him, he’s a cyclepath…”

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    psychopath? Well, I did say it was a bad joke!

    May 15th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
  5. Dave says:

    Ruth – I share your concerns. I tend not to cycle on any road with a speed limit greater than 30mph these days – around here a 40mph limit means you can go at 50mph, and most people do.

    Having said that I believe that to erode the rights of cyclists to cycle on the road is absolutely the wrong thing to be happening. Cyclists need to be taking over the roads in these days of clmate change and suchlike, not being forced off them.

    May 15th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
  6. Dave says:

    P.S.

    Joe. Thank you :)

    May 15th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
  7. John says:

    Ruth,
    The problem is that there are some truly awful and dangerous “cycle paths” around the country. There’s one here in Cambridge that is famously only 8 inches wide, and runs down the middle of a very busy road between two lanes of traffic. The new regulations would require all cyclists on that road to use it – despite its danger (it’s nowhere near wide enough, for a start), whereas the older version left the judgement of whether to use it to the cyclist.

    The other thing that concerns me about this is the roundabouts. There are lots of roundabouts whose left-hand lanes funnel all traffic down the first exit – not what the cyclist might want! And, either way, if you’re cycling on a roundabout and wanting to turn right, you do not want to be sideswiped by a car. Having the right to position yourself on the road so as to avoid this danger is surely something that should not be eroded.

    FWIW, I’ve printed out the petition and got a few signatures here at work. I’ll get a couple more tonight from some friends and then post it off tomorrow. Should still get there in time on Thursday…

    pax et bonum

    May 15th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
  8. bimble says:

    As a cyclist (so I include myself here) I can’t honestly say when the last time I actually saw a cyclist fully obeying the Highway code in the first place.

    Be it clothing, condition of bike, position on road, even speed. I would also be highly sceptical of anyone who claimed that they did fully conform to all the rules and regulations that are in the Highway Code.

    In a word (or four, actually) – I Am Not Worried.

    May 15th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
  9. Paul G says:

    I hope you’re not basing the comparisons of wording on the copy of the Highway Code you’ve photographed. I think there have been a few editions since it was last possible to buy it for one and thruppence – about 6.5p for those, like Dave, too young to remember.

    May 15th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
  10. Neil says:

    As a car driver and a cyclist I feel that both should be allowed use of the public highways (and horses too, but I am showing my rural location a little there). When in a car I fully respect the rights of the cycling to go cycle speeds, i wait until I can safely pass. As a cyclist I know how it feels to be in a car stuck at a slow speed, so make every effort to let the car pass me.

    In short I think it would be best if every car driver were a cyclist, and vice versa… not sure how practible this is though…

    May 15th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
  11. Dave says:

    Thanks for plugging this John.

    Bimble – you may not be worried, but perhaps we should be worried on behalf of people who, in the future, find themselves on the wrong side of the law when they have an accident whilst cycling on the road.

    Paul – I found the image of the old highway code randomly on the internet. And the old ‘Journey into life’ for that matter. They are both the designs I remember from my childhood, though, not, as you cotrrectly state, the prices.

    Neil – you are (as I have always said) a model citizen.

    May 15th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
  12. Philip of Samaria says:

    run em all down – they wobble, hide in your blind spot and lurk round that juicy bend you just took too fast…

    May 15th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
  13. thomas bushnell, bsg says:

    today i was again (as a pedestrian) nearly struck by a bicyclist. i am with you in spirit, but only on condition that bicyclists grant to pedestrians all the things they want from cars. it’s only fair.

    if bikes can be in auto lanes (as they have a right to be), then pedestrians can be in bike lanes. if cars must go slowly and safely around bikes, then bikes must go slowly and safely around pedestrians. if cars must not ride on bike paths, then bikes must not ride on sidewalks and pedestrian walkways. and bikes must stop at every stop sign just the way cars do and yield to pedestrians in cross-walks rather than careening around them.

    May 15th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
  14. Paul Roberts says:

    Hi folks – the Highway Code’s advice becomes significant in the case of claims for damages either by or against cyclists. In a case where a car seriously injures a cyclist (even when the car driver is mostly or exclusively at fault), there is a chance that the claim for damages for injury against the driver’s insurance company would fail if there happened to be a badly overgrown, glass-infested or badly maintained cycle-path available, which the cyclist chose not to use. There’s even a danger of counter-claims against the cyclist in the case of such an accident. The present wording gives cyclists discretion on which they judge the safer route. The new words remove that discretion. Get your signatures to David Howarth today! (The debate is tomorrow, by which time it’s too late.)

    May 16th, 2007 at 7:25 am
  15. Paul Roberts says:

    … ps, Again, if the blessed council has provided a “joint use pedestrian/cycle track, and it’s filled with pedestrians, children, etc. – again, the cyclist would not be legally protected if he or she chose to use the adjacent road in order to avoid the pedestrians. Like Thomas, as a cyclist I’m no great fan of joint-use pathways, especially when they are too narrow.

    May 16th, 2007 at 7:28 am
  16. Gregory Porilo says:

    I agree with Thomas. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve almost been hit by a cyclists who are either colour-blind, totally blind, or just don’t know the meaning of a red light. My understanding was that the Highway Code, even the early versions, has always applied to BOTH motorists and cyclists. There needs to be more policing on the roads, especially at busy junctions, and cyclists who run red lights should be given instant fines of at leat £100. That’s my opinion. I’ve nothing against cyclists but sadly many of them seem to have a lot against pedestrians.

    May 16th, 2007 at 11:07 am
  17. Catherine Ebenezer says:

    It’s a shame that I’ve only just seen this, as it will be too late now to send the printed petition form in to David Howarth MP. I’ve signed the online one, though.

    I have been a cycle-commuter in London for the last nine years. Cycle paths in London are often of questionable usefulness. I’d hate the idea of being obliged to use them rather than to use my road sense and discretion.

    May 16th, 2007 at 10:47 pm