The HC in parliament again.

On the 15th of June:

Statutory Instruments (Standing Order 71)

The following negative instruments, having been laid before the House on 15 June, were ordered to lie on the Table:

1 Education (M

2 Education (S

3 Alterations to the provisions of rules 61 and 63 of the Highway Code proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for Transport, laid under the Road Traffic Act 1988. (—)

Which means they are looking at the new version etc.

On the 19th of June:

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

[No debate after 10.00 p.m.]
Mr Jack Straw

That the alterations in the provisions of the Highway Code proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for Transport, dated 28th March 2007, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.
If opposed, this item cannot be taken after 10.00 p.m.

and

10 Delegated Legislation,—Ordered, That the alterations in the provisions of the Highway Code proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for Transport, dated 28th March 2007, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Mr Frank Roy.)

I'm not sure what this means, but it sounds suspicious.
i.e. are they looking at the March 28th version again to
keep it or throw it out of update it with the rule changes.

Martin Dann wrote:

On the 19th of June:

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

That the alterations in the provisions of the Highway
Code proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for
Transport, dated 28th March 2007, be referred to a
Delegated Legislation Committee.
If opposed, this item cannot be taken after 10.00 p.m.

Order of business for tomorrow:

The Third Delegated Legislation Committee will meet on
Tuesday 26th June at 10.30 a.m. to consider Alterations to
the Provisions of the *Highway Code* Proposed to be made
by the Secretary of State for Transport.

Martin Dann wrote:


Sorry for being the only one to post in this thread.
The highway code was debated in a delegated legislation
committee yesterday (in Parliament).

For those of you that are interested and understand
political speak it is at
http://www.publications.parliament.u...7-01.htm#start
http://tinyurl.com/2h9zfd

I have only read the first few paragraphs, but it appears
that they did not debate the wording of rules 61 and 63,
just debating the rest.

AIUI this committee has met due to the early day motion
against the code, and other MPs/Lords requesting a debate.

Martin.

Martin Dann wrote:

For those of you that are interested and understand political speak it
is at
http://www.publications.parliament.u...7-01.htm#start


The principal concern expressed by cyclists and others
about the original version was that it would introduce a
new statement, or a new slant, on the question of
contributory negligence. Following the ruling in Pepper v.
Hart, it would be helpful if the Minister could state that
that was not the Department’s intention and that it would
not be appropriate for the Department for Transport to
alter the law on something as important and wide-ranging
as contributory negligence. I always felt that some of the
concerns in question were over-stated, but as they have
been put in the public domain it would be helpful if the
Minister could say something.

Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his concern
again? I am not quite sure that I understood it. What he
said seems so overblown that I am confused.

Mr. Carmichael: I am saying that the principal concern of
many of those who commented—I think that 11,000
representations were made to the Minister’s Department by
cycling organisations—was that the proposed wording before
the Committee would have an impact on the law relating to
contributory negligence. Although it is accepted that it
will not now be used when the new Highway Code is
published, the concern was that a cyclist who followed the
procedures would have been in some way contributorily
negligent. I accept that we have moved on from there, but
I think that it would help everyone if the Minister
confirmed that that was not and, indeed, never was the
position.

Dr. Ladyman: I can give the hon. Gentleman that absolute
assurance: it was never the intention that that should be
the case. In fact, the wording of rules 61 and 63 that is
before us was arrived at as a result of consulting
cyclists. Following many of the comments that were made,
we refined the wording in the old version of the code. I
met the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on
cycling, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South
and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who represented to me a
further view of these matters. I was under the impression
that I had agreed with her a form of wording that would
meet cyclists’ concerns, which is the wording before us in
the March version of the Highway Code.

There was no intention to try to change the law. We
thought that we had a version that would satisfy cyclists.
When this version was tabled, I was surprised to discover
that it did not meet cyclists’ concerns, because I thought
that I had gone out of my way to meet those and the people
who were making representations. We withdrew it
subsequently and replaced it with a new version, which we
are not in a position to debate today.

Mr. Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for that. We
have probably dealt with that point.

Mr. Brazier: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon.
Gentleman’s point. The concern is exactly the same as that
of the British Horse Society about riders. The problem is
that the new wording could be used as an aggravating
factor in a negligence case in court. As I said, it is
exactly the same concern, which is why I looked to the
Minister for evidence that the Government have moved on
the BHS’s concerns.

Mr. Carmichael: I will come to the BHS concerns in a minute.

I should commend the Minister for having met, eventually,
the CTC—the UK’s national cyclists organisation—and taken
its concerns on board. My impression of it as an
organisation is that it is responsible and prepared to
engage, and I hope that the Minister would concur with
that. However, further to the point made about the
process, it is unfortunate that it took so long to get
around the table with the CTC. There is a residual feeling
in that organisation and among many of its members that
the effort required to get their point across should have
been unnecessary.

I hope that when we come to deal with this situation in
the future, the Minister, his successor or successors will
be mindful of the fact that such organisations have a good
understanding of what they are talking about—possibly even
better than some of those who are advising him or her—and
that, as is evidenced by the fact that the Government’s
position has changed on rules 61 and 63, they have a
contribution to make.

This has been a long, drawn-out process. It should not
have necessitated last-minutes changes. Part of the
concern was that the wording before the Committee would
force cyclists to use cycle facilities that are sometimes
inadequate, perhaps because they have not been maintained
or were not appropriately installed in the first place.
That needs to be addressed perhaps well beyond the scope
of the Highway Code.

My other concern about cycling provisions in the code
relates not to rules 61 and 63, but to rule 77, in respect
of which no alteration has been made. It concerns the
correct approach to roundabouts by cyclists. I shall read
it into the record for the benefit of the Committee. It
states:

“You may feel safer walking your cycle round on the
pavement or verge. If you decide to ride round keeping to
the left-hand lane you should”

follow the instructions in three bullet points that
follow. My concern, which I know is shared by many
cyclists, is that that seems to suggest that cyclists
should ride round only in the left-hand lane. There must
be safety concerns about that if a person is turning right
at a roundabout. It seems a somewhat inelegant form of
wording. I know what the Minister will say about how he
interprets it, but we should not just be thinking about
how we here interpret it. We should consider how the
ordinary man or woman in the street will interpret it,
which was my initial point about the nature of the Highway
Code. Rule 77 could have been much better worded.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The
wording of that rule seems extraordinary. Does he agree
that it would be better if the words

“keeping to the left-hand lane”

were simply omitted so that it read, “If you decide to
ride round you should” and so on?

11.1 am

Mr. Fabian Hamilton (Leeds, North-East) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr. Pope. I will make a few brief points about cycling, but not detain the Committee for too long. I am a keen and regular cyclist, and try to commute as often as I can to this building by bicycle.

Rob Marris: From your constituency?

Mr. Hamilton: Not from my constituency—although I have done it once.

Well done.

I welcome the fact that cycling helmets are recommended in
the Highway Code. I know that they are not compulsory and
nor perhaps should they be. However, I am horrified that
many cyclists venture on to the roads of London and other
cities without helmets. A helmet saved my life once and
will save the lives of many others if worn correctly.

Nooooooo.

Mr. Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for giving
way. He has been generous with his time.

I hold no brief for the CTC. I am not a member, and I
hardly ever risk my dignity by getting on a cycle.
However, I want to read an e-mail that I received this
morning from the CTC. It states that the history leading
to the necessity for the changes to rules 61 and 63

“apparently happened because they”—

officials in the Minister’s Department—

“had refused to meet CTC the national cyclists’
organisation (who had led on this issue with the full
support of other cycling organisations). Instead they hid
behind spurious excuses relating to parliamentary protocol
as a reason for not doing so. Whether this was out of
spite for the sheer volume of the consultation response,
or an unwillingness to admit they had got it wrong, is
unclear.”

The e-mail continued:

“Lessons need to be learnt both about the way
consultations of this kind are conducted, and also in
terms of DfT officials’ understanding of cycling.”

The Minister said that the CTC should have asked for
meetings, but the CTC says that it sought meetings, which
were refused.

Dr. Ladyman: I have been advised that that is not true. (snip)


Dr. Ladyman: I imagine that my hon. Friend gave that
information in his maiden address to the House when we all
include odd things about our constituencies. I was not
aware of what had happened in his constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East referred
to cyclists and their lights. About 12 months ago, we
changed the law to allow cyclists a flashing light as a
result of representations from CTC and others because a
flashing rear light is more visible and attracts the
motorist’s attention more easily. It was a popular
decision. However, we advise people to have a stable
light, too, although that is not mandatory. A flashing
light satisfies the law.

If people are riding around a busy city, whether Leeds or
London, especially in winter when visibility is reduced,
my advice is to have a flashing light as well as a stable
light. We do not allow flashing lights at the front
because the purpose of the front light is not only to
catch people’s eyes and make sure that they see the
cyclist, but that it allows the cyclist to see them. A
flashing light would not be the best way in which to
achieve such a result.

I hope that I have satisfied the concerns of colleagues.
Our version of the Highway Code is not perfect, but it
will evolve. We shall continue to engage with all groups.
The CTC and the British Horse Society, in particular, will
be involved closely in developing any changes that may be
made to the next version. On that basis, I hope that
members of the Committee can allow the version that we
have been discussing to go into print and be used.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the Alterations in the
Provisions in the Highway Code proposed to be made by the
Secretary of State for Transport.

Martin Dann wrote:


I am earning some serious netiquette naughtpoints in this
thread.


Dr. Ladyman:
If people are riding around a busy city, whether Leeds or London,
especially in winter when visibility is reduced, my advice is to have a
flashing light as well as a stable light. We do not allow flashing
lights at the front because the purpose of the front light is not only
to catch people’s eyes and make sure that they see the cyclist, but that
it allows the cyclist to see them. A flashing light would not be the
best way in which to achieve such a result.

He says that flashing lits are not legal at the front is
this the case?
He also quite rightly points out people should have a
flashing and stead lit.


On that basis, I hope that members of the
Committee can allow the version that we have been discussing to go into
print and be used.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the Alterations in the Provisions in
the Highway Code proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for
Transport.

SO this version will go into print once they have
discussed rules 61 and 63.

In article , Martin Dann
says...
snip
A helmet saved my life once

The only way to prove that is to go back and do it again without a
helmet. If you're not prepared to do so you should probably moderate
your claim about the effectiveness of the helmet.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:13:47 +0100, Rob Morley
wrote:

In article , Martin Dann
says...
snip
A helmet saved my life once

The only way to prove that is to go back and do it again without a
helmet. If you're not prepared to do so you should probably moderate
your claim about the effectiveness of the helmet.


Errm, I don't think Martin was saying that. He's been giving
quotations (from Hansard?) of the discussions in the HoC of the
Highway Code revisions. The line in question was said by Mr. Fabian
Hamilton (Leeds, North-East) (Lab). Mind you I can't find theoriginal
message on my newsfeed, although Googlegroups has it.

MID is the kiddy.



Tim

On Jun 27, 9:19 pm, Martin Dann wrote:
Martin Dann wrote:

I was surprised to discover
that it did not meet cyclists' concerns, because I thought
that I had gone out of my way to meet those and the people
who were making representations.


I think this statement says a lot about Ladyman. As minister for
_transport_ he thinks that consulting _cyclists_ about changes to the
_cycling_ sections of the highway code is not a normal part of what
would be expected of him.

Some of the other politicians though seem to have a clue, which
surprised me.

LN