Westminster Hall Debate on Cycling yesterday

Good News?

see:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...nsrd/cm070523/
halltext/70523h0010.htm#07052361000005

Mr. Tom Harris is "The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Transport"

****
"Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman may inform his constituents that the
Department is confident that in the very near future we will arrive at a
form of words that is less unacceptable to cycling interests than the
current draft."
****
"However, we will not move from the principle that the highway code will
continue to be advisory to cyclists on this matter, and that where it
contains legal information, it will clearly specify that it is legal
advice and a legal requirement. This unexpectedly controversial passage
in the highway code is clearly advisory."


Jim Chisholm

On Thu, 24 May 2007 11:24:12 +0100, J. Chisholm wrote:
Good News?

see:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...nsrd/cm070523/
halltext/70523h0010.htm#07052361000005

Mr. Tom Harris is "The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Transport"

****
"Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman may inform his constituents that the
Department is confident that in the very near future we will arrive at a
form of words that is less unacceptable to cycling interests than the
current draft."
****

Interesting choice of words - "less unacceptable" rather than "more
acceptable".

--
Andy Leighton =
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

On Thu, 24 May 2007 11:24:12 +0100 someone who may be "J. Chisholm"
wrote this:-

Good News?

see:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...nsrd/cm070523/
halltext/70523h0010.htm#07052361000005
****
"Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman may inform his constituents that the
Department is confident that in the very near future we will arrive at a
form of words that is less unacceptable to cycling interests than the
current draft."

I note that he does not offer that his minions will come up with a
form of words that is acceptable to cycling interests.

"However, we will not move from the principle that the highway code will
continue to be advisory to cyclists on this matter, and that where it
contains legal information, it will clearly specify that it is legal
advice and a legal requirement.

That is a sensible approach. Pith they didn't apply it.

This unexpectedly controversial passage

Unexpected by whom?

in the highway code is clearly advisory."

Round objects.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 24 May 2007, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 11:24:12 +0100 someone who may be "J. Chisholm"
wrote this:-

This unexpectedly controversial passage

Unexpected by whom?

DSA minions that think bicycles are toys.

I'm sure they thought they were writing something akin to "don't let
your toddler play on the dual carriageway if there's a playground
nearby". Of course, the debate about who road-space belongs to ought
to think carefully about even that statement, but I can see how they
thought it wouldn't cause bother.

Quite why they still thought that after 70% of respondents objected
to it in the first draft, I can't explain.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Thu, 24 May 2007, J. Chisholm wrote:

Good News?

There was also a written answer from Ladyboy repeating his assertion
that it's not (nor will be) compulsory for any cyclist to use any
cycle facility. As ever, he cites the introduction to the code
without noticing the bits about liability.

The debate is reasonable reading - at least some of the contributors
do seem to have properly grasped the issues.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 24 May, 13:45, Ian Smith wrote:

- snippety snip -

..... I can see how they
thought it wouldn't cause bother.

Quite why they still thought that after 70% of respondents objected
to it in the first draft, I can't explain.

It was a consultation: They publish a preliminary draft, invite
comments and then publish the draft for ratification. They don't
necessarily expect to even read the responses, let alone take them
into account, because they are the experts in the field. The point of
the consultation exercise is to appease, not to inform.

Does that help? I think your expectations may be too high: It's quite
difficult to keep expectations sufficiently low in these situations,
because that level of pessimism is normally associated with clinical
depression.

Cheers,
W.
(with apologies to any depressives reading)

"Ian Smith" wrote
DSA minions that think bicycles are toys.

I'm sure they thought they were writing something akin to "don't let
your toddler play on the dual carriageway if there's a playground
nearby".

That had occured to me.

Of course, the debate about who road-space belongs to ought
to think carefully about even that statement, but I can see how they
thought it wouldn't cause bother.

Most motorists assume it belongs to them, of course.


Mike Sales

Ian Smith wrote on 24/05/2007 13:45 +0100:
On Thu, 24 May 2007, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 11:24:12 +0100 someone who may be "J. Chisholm"
wrote this:-

This unexpectedly controversial passage
Unexpected by whom?

DSA minions that think bicycles are toys.


I put in an FoI request to the DSA asking for just the internal memos,
e-mails and minutes about the change in wording between February and
March. They have responded that they can't supply it without payment as
it would take more than the statutory 3 man days to provide. I feel a
challenge via the Information Commissioner coming on.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Tony Raven wrote:
Ian Smith wrote on 24/05/2007 13:45 +0100:
On Thu, 24 May 2007, David Hansen
wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 11:24:12 +0100 someone who may be "J. Chisholm"
wrote this:-

This unexpectedly controversial passage
Unexpected by whom?

DSA minions that think bicycles are toys.


I put in an FoI request to the DSA asking for just the internal memos,
e-mails and minutes about the change in wording between February and
March. They have responded that they can't supply it without payment as
it would take more than the statutory 3 man days to provide. I feel a
challenge via the Information Commissioner coming on.

Are they not storing their minutes on computers yet?

A

On 2007-05-24, Tony Raven wrote:
Ian Smith wrote on 24/05/2007 13:45 +0100:
On Thu, 24 May 2007, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 11:24:12 +0100 someone who may be "J. Chisholm"
wrote this:-

This unexpectedly controversial passage
Unexpected by whom?

DSA minions that think bicycles are toys.


I put in an FoI request to the DSA asking for just the internal memos,
e-mails and minutes about the change in wording between February and
March. They have responded that they can't supply it without payment as
it would take more than the statutory 3 man days to provide.

Do they say how much they want? A Bad Science style whip-round might be
possible if it's not too much...

http://www.badscience.net/?p=332#more-332
http://www.pledgebank.com/fishoils

I pledge a tenner at any rate.

Regards,

-david