We need your support to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can continue to hold their elected representatives to account.

Donate to our crowdfunder

Reporting a comment

Here's the annotation you're reporting. Please enter a brief reason why you think it should be deleted in the form beneath. Thanks for your help!

Chris Beazer
Posted on 24 May 2007 11:40 am

It is clearly the case that proposed changes to the highway code are shifting the balance in favour of the motorist. The wording possible instead of practicable means that dangerous or extremely inconvenient facilities will have to be used because they are 'possible' - previously they could be avoided. Many insurance companies have tried to use the fact that a cyclist was not wearing a helmet, despite helmets not being mandatory, as a reason for reducing damages after a claim when a motorist who was at fault was sued by the cyclist. The same will now happen when any cyclist involved in an accident which is not his fault doesn't use a 'facility' no matter how inappropriate, simply because it is 'possible' to use it.


Why should this annotation be deleted?
Check our House Rules and tell us why the annotation breaks them.