Cyclists Touring Club

Right to Ride Network

www.ctc.org

Dear Mr Heald,

Highway Code Consultation

You may recall that I wrote to you in February and March last year, asking  you to support the CTC’s campaign for removal of the rules requiring cyclists to use cycle “infrastructure” irrespective of condition and practicality (rule 61). If you need to refresh your memory, you can find copies of my letters to you and to the DSA at the following location:

http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/Cycle_Hitchin/files/Highway Code Consultation

As you will recall, 11,000 people signed the CTC’s petition. Of the consultation responses received by the DSA, 70% came from cyclists. This is an extraordinary proportion given the relatively depressed level of cycling in this country, and gives a measure of the level of concern amongst cyclists at the proposed changes.

Britain’s cyclists have given an unqualified vote of no confidence in the proposed rule changes. If the changes are forced through it will be the unwelcome imposition of rules on cyclists, without their consent, and ignoring their interests and safety.

This is a shame. There are in fact many positive changes in the new code and we would love to be able to welcome them, but the adverse consequences of the rule changes on “dress” and on “cycle infrastructure” are far too serious to simply overlook them.

The Highway Code is not an appropriate vehicle to give cyclists advice, however well meaning, if that advice can then become an onerous responsibility, enforceable in courts, and with a price tag if you do not comply. Dare we say that the Driver Standards Agency is not the organisation best qualified to advise what is, and is not, in the best interests of cyclists.

For the DSA to ignore the advice on cycling matters of the country’s largest cycling organisation, and of so many individual cyclists, is frankly arrogant and irresponsible. We do not need any new rules for cyclists unless those rules make it SAFER, EASIER, QUICKER, LESS INTIMIDATING and MORE ATTRACTIVE to cycle. We do not need rules that give aggressive drivers new excuses for harassing cyclists.

Ming Campbell has tabled an Early Day Motion calling for the new Highway Code to be rejected because of its implications for cyclists. As our MP, and as a member of the Opposition, we ask you sign the EDM and call upon the Government to remove or re-word the offending passages to make it clear that cyclists are entitled to use the road, and to do so without suffering intimidation or harassment, either from other road users or from the police and courts, irrespective of whether their local council have painted cycle logos on the adjacent footpath.

It must always remain unquestionably the cyclist’s own decision as to whether a particular piece of infrastructure is safe, convenient or practical to use. We should neither be forced, nor bullied, into using “facilities” that may be neither safe nor convenient.

For more information see the CTC’s article at:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4568

and the Cycle Campaign Network article at:

http://www.cyclenetwork.org.uk/latest/latest.html #hcedm

If you have any questions, or would like to discuss any of the issues in greater depth, please feel free to contact me. A pdf version of this letter is attached for ease of reading.

Alasdair DV Massie CEng MIStructE

Right to Ride Representative, North Herts