Here are some general principles about the HC we plan to incude in our paper. Any though/feedback would be great
General principles:
3.1 The introduction to the HC highlights its importance to all road users suggesting that all are considerate to each other and that it
‘applies to pedestrians as much as drivers and riders. The
introduction goes on to outline the legal status of the HC guidance
explain that rules identified by MUST/MUST NOT are legal requirements.
The introduction concludes that knowledge and application of the HC
‘could significantly reduce road casualties.
3.2 There ought to be a stronger statement regarding the status and aims of the HC in the introduction. A mission statement which
establishes some key principles which will inform the tone of
subsequent guidance. So while it is important that all road users be
considerate to each other, there needs to be a principle that road
users capable of causing more harm to others have more responsibility.
People in motorised vehicles should be responsible for looking out for
people on bicycles and on foot, people on bicycles should watch out
for people on foot.
3.3 A second guiding principle should be to encourage people to use benign means of travel where possible. This in light of issues around
public health, pollution and how we would like the places we live and
work to feel like. The HC should suggest that people could consider
walking or cycling for short trips. This second principle would mean
the removal of terms like ‘vulnerable road user’ which generally
refers to people out of cars. That term itself may actually discourage
people from walking and cycling because by being called vulnerable
they may perceive the way they move around is more risky than driving.
3.4 Throughout the HC the term ‘safe’ and ‘dangerous’ are used, particular infrastructure is described as hazardous. The word
‘traffic’ is used throughout often referring to drivers/road users yet
dehumanising them . (Rule 19: “Give traffic plenty of time to see
you”. Rule 74 about turning right states “...check the traffic to
ensure it is safe … wait for a safe gap...”. Rule 76: “Roundabouts are
hazardous and should be approached with care” etc). The use of such
terminology should be avoided. Not only because these terms are vague
and don’t offer any clear guidance, they also create a sense of
danger, again to people not in cars, so do not help encourage use of
benign modes.
3.5 The status of cyclists need to be clarified. Bicycles are vehicles capable of speed, and in urban spaces can often equal or exceed the
speed of motor vehicles which often makes it easier for cyclists to
share roads with people in cars than to share footways with
pedestrians. Drivers need to be made aware of this and perhaps to be
guided that it is not always necessary to overtake a cyclists. Further
clarification needs to made in the section for all vehicles if all the
rules should apply to cyclists (such as rule 163 ‘only overtake on the
left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right’.) In
addition any guidance for cyclists must adhere to guidance in the
National Standard for cycle training (Bikeability) and drivers must be
made aware of such guidance which would significantly minimise
conflict.
3.6 A final general principle is that there needs to be much more clarity as what is law and what is advice or suggestions. Perhaps by
separating the MUST/MUST NOT laws from the ‘shoulds’. There should
also be more clarity as to who in law is responsible in different
situations. So while a pedestrian should ‘look out for traffic’ at
junctions (Rule 8), drivers should give way to pedestrians crossing
at junction (Rule 170). Who has more responsibility? (Point 3.2 above)
@David
Here are some general principles about the HC we plan to incude in our paper. Any though/feedback would be great