# Highway Code Petition Reply



## Yorkshireman (9 Jul 2007)

Anyone interested in the reply from No 10 re the recent petition to change rules 61 and 63 concerning cycling facilities etc (I think the CTC had most influence though) 
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page12275.asp. Could have been worse.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (10 Jul 2007)

works for me


----------



## Rhythm Thief (10 Jul 2007)

Looks good to me. Well done CTC and everyone else involved.


----------



## Bigtallfatbloke (10 Jul 2007)

Good.



> including advice to motorists to be more aware of vulnerable road users such as cyclists.



I would like this 'advice' to be heavily underlined.

next time some idiot nearly kills me and shouts at me to use the bloody cycle lanes I shall quote the rule numbers he needs to go and read,


----------



## Yorkshireman (10 Jul 2007)

Thinking of this subject (HC). I am wondering how many road users (in the widest meaning of the term term) have a fairly recent copy - and look at it sometimes (my copy is a couple of years old, but I have it on line in Favourites). I understand why its important that we are aware of what`s in there from a legal point, but despite the recent hooha re the rule changes, how many `normal` road users actually know/understand how they are supposed to `conduct` themselves on the roads. Apart from the legal/insurance liability how much use is the HC if not too many are up to date on it... Does it need a higher profile ie advertising?
Comments welcome


----------



## Cab (10 Jul 2007)

Yorkshireman said:


> Does it need a higher profile ie adverizing?



Yes. To the extent that those who frequently break the rules should have them tatood on the inside of their eyelids


----------



## alecstilleyedye (10 Jul 2007)

can we now have a big ad campaign to make the cagers aware of this piece of advice?


----------



## Tetedelacourse (11 Jul 2007)

How familiar are you with the laws of the land and their various connotations?

The HC is no different, obviously apart from its is status not as law but rather as guidance. I signed this petition and am glad of the change in revision but advertising the HC is not going to change anything.

It's not due to lack of knowledge of the HC that people commit motoring offences but rather the culture of road use that we presently have. We do advertise about drink driving, speeding, not looking out etc but I don't think adverts about the new version of the HC will be of benefit.


----------



## Yorkshireman (11 Jul 2007)

I realised after posting, that the advertising comment was a bit u/s. I was thinking more on the lines of the old public information mini films that we used to see where a particular theme was used in each, eg Dip - Don`t Dazzle, Clunk Click Every Trip etc (I dread to think what might be shown regarding safe cycling). Judging by the (not infrequent) queries that pop up in forums and cycling newsgroups along the lines of "Am I allowed/is it legal if/for (me/them) to ... when the answer is often in the HC, there must be a significant number of road users who have forgotten that there is such a publication :?: .


----------



## Keith Oates (13 Jul 2007)

It's good to see the new proposal and does show correct campaigning can work. One of the things it also does is prevent insurance companies of using the HC to get out of genuine claims!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Yorkshireman (13 Jul 2007)

It also shows how ill advised our `leaders` are by their `advisers` (and how our `leaders` sometimes seem to be lacking common sense) :?:


----------



## Keith Oates (14 Jul 2007)

Since when has any government won an election on Common Sense :?: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Yorkshireman (14 Jul 2007)

Politicians (and senior civil service bods) have it removed at the same time that the `other language` is installed :?: .


----------



## barq (16 Jul 2007)

I had two thoughts about this:

1. I've been pretty cynical about the petitions to government (although I did sign that one), so it's nice to see some notice being taken of an issue like this. A reasonable case was made, people signed the petition and the powers that be have acted. Good stuff!

2. I agree that many (most?) drivers aren't terribly up to date with the HC. I do sometimes wonder whether it would be better to make people resit their driving test every x many years (or more frequently if they start racking up points on their driving license). I'm sure this would do wonders for keeping people in touch with what the HC _actually_ says rather than what they would _like_ it to say!  It would also foster a different attitude towards the 'right' to drive - i.e. that it isn't for life and passing the test isn't a one-time thing.

However, I don't ever expect to see the UK government pushing that idea - it would be suicide by ballot box.


----------



## monnet (18 Jul 2007)

Barq, that is a brilliant idea. I've often thought that on reaching a certain age people should be tested regularly but I think your idea is even better. When working in a profession that affects other people (or even when it doesn't) you are subjected to frequent tests of competence so why not drivers? 

Just because you learn how to be a lifeguard aged 18 it doesn't mean you can save lives effectively at the age of 28 let alone 58. Consequently you are retested. The same principle works in so many fields - in most cases due to advances in technology and/or knowledge. In the case of cars technological advances are frequent so users should be tested regularly for their competency. 

I'm sure you've thought all that through long ago but it struck a chord with me and I wanted to tell people!


----------



## Arch (19 Jul 2007)

Something I've thought of, which would be an interesting experiment, and perhaps do a small amount of good, would be that the BBC should do one of those "Test the Nation" things they do, entirely on roadcraft - questions on the Highway Code, and also on hazzard perception, and traffic law - the sort of things we often take the trouble to find out, in order to protect ourselves, or to inform the ignorant. The general public love doing quizzes, generally, I think expecting to find out how good they are, and a few people might just get a surprise, and a few illusions shattered... it might also give people cause to think, if they find out that a lot of other people are ignorant - I think most people assume most people are competent.

That said, I'm all in favour of regular retesting...


----------



## simon l& and a half (19 Jul 2007)

the contributory negligence consideration is the big one - as Keith said. Sad to see Ladyman go............


----------



## sheddy (20 Jul 2007)

many cagers seem to think that the HC is only for people sitting the L test...


----------

