Painfully bad cycle lane makes us laugh (you'll cry if you don't); Jackass does cycling; Santander Cycles seen in Jamaica and Australia; Bike shop celebrates 100th birthday; Irn Bru gels; Bike rack fail; Helicopter bunny-hopping + more on the live blog

Slappers66 wrote:

....

Hmm....

I'm here all week, Laideez and Gennlemen!

Captain Badger wrote:

Slappers66 wrote:

Vile thought... maybe I'm the only Scotsman that doesn't like Irn Bru

No Scotsman tru would eschew the Bru....

Is this some dig that folks north of the border are dole moles (etymology here)?

chrisonatrike wrote:

....

Is this some dig that folks north of the border are dole moles (etymology here)?

Love a bit of etymology, me.

I don't think I've ever tasted Irn Bru...

brooksby wrote:

I don't think I've ever tasted Irn Bru...

You haven't lived.

Steve K wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I don't think I've ever tasted Irn Bru...

You haven't lived.

Or died...

chrisonatrike wrote:

Steve K wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I don't think I've ever tasted Irn Bru...

You haven't lived.

Or died...

20-odd years ago I spent a long night at Hogmanay drinking vast quantities of Irn Bru and whisky - haven't really been able to face the stuff since.

[Oddly, it didn't take me long to be fine with the whisky again, though...]

mdavidford wrote:

20-odd years ago I spent a long night at Hogmanay drinking vast quantities of Irn Bru and whisky - haven't really been able to face the stuff since.

[Oddly, it didn't take me long to be fine with the whisky again, though...]

Are you sure it wasn't the kebab?

chrisonatrike wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

20-odd years ago I spent a long night at Hogmanay drinking vast quantities of Irn Bru and whisky - haven't really been able to face the stuff since.

[Oddly, it didn't take me long to be fine with the whisky again, though...]

Are you sure it wasn't the kebab?

I don't actually remember eating anything. That may not have helped.

I've drunk In Bru as a hangover cure in the past.

It made a great hangover cure, needed the fully sugared version though.

WKD did an alcopop version back when alcopops were a thing.

Unless there is some paint by the edge of the road, in which case we should be cycling in the gutter instead.

She probably read Littlemind's column from yesterday and believed it!

On a more positive front, I see the not as laddish as it used to be Top Gear website has a reasoned view on the HC changes, with most of the comments so far supporting this approach.

Edit - I see the motion is actually supportive of better accurate info about the changes.

brooksby wrote:

I was looking around the Parliament website to find when they're voting on the HC changes.

The only reference to it I could find this week was "Revision of the Highway Code - motion to regret" in the House of Lords on Friday, by Baroness Jones of Moulescombe (Jenny Jones, Green).

Googling a 'motion to regret' says

"When the Lords considers a statutory instrument (SI), any member can introduce a motion to regret it. The motion usually gives specific reasons for the regret.

Even if agreed, the motion cannot stop or amend the SI, but gives members an opportunity to put on record their dissent."

I thought that the Commons had to actually vote on the changes to put them through.  Have I got it wrong, and they'll just go through regardless?  And I wonder why does Jenny Jones 'regrets' it?

No doubt she is dubious about the bit that says that cyclists should single out or stop for cars wanting to overtake.......

brooksby wrote:

And I wonder why does Jenny Jones 'regrets' it?

"Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb to move that this House regrets the draft Revision of the Highway Code because, despite making important changes to protect road users from harm, Her Majesty's Government has failed sufficiently to educate the public on the changes."

mdavidford wrote:

brooksby wrote:

And I wonder why does Jenny Jones 'regrets' it?

"Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb to move that this House regrets the draft Revision of the Highway Code because, despite making important changes to protect road users from harm, Her Majesty's Government has failed sufficiently to educate the public on the changes."

Thanks!  Clearly I was looking in the wrong place

mdavidford wrote:

brooksby wrote:

And I wonder why does Jenny Jones 'regrets' it?

"Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb to move that this House regrets the draft Revision of the Highway Code because, despite making important changes to protect road users from harm, Her Majesty's Government has failed sufficiently to educate the public on the changes."

That makes more sense, than objecting to the substance of the changes as she is a member of the green party.

I believe it will come under 'business without debate', so a standing order is presented to approve the amendments in the chamber & it's just nodded thru in the debating chamber by people shouting aye, theres no division vote on it, & I was expecting it to happen today actually based on their 56day sequence since the changes were laid down that other amendments to regulations had been hitting lately. But they did a 40day one yesterday, albeit a change of people on a committee so maybe slightly different process for that.

But could be today or tomorrow I think.

The Highway Code changes have been introduced as a Statuatory Instrument. 

In general SIs are not debated or voted on in parliament.  The transport select committee is essentially responsible for approving the changes which will occur on 29th January.

So unless Grant Shapps and his committee pull the plug at the last minute the SI should pass on the 29th Jan.

I haven't heard any demands in and around Parliament for the changes to be stopped.  Thankfully there is plenty of other stuff occupying MPs minds at the moment.

Parliament process here 

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/secondary-legislation/statutory...

sean1 wrote:

The Highway Code changes have been introduced as a Statuatory Instrument. 

Oh, right.  I'd forgotten how much our current Govt (I'm presuming we'll have a different one at some point?) loves SIs.

brooksby wrote:

sean1 wrote:

The Highway Code changes have been introduced as a Statuatory Instrument. 

Oh, right.  I'd forgotten how much our current Govt (I'm presuming we'll have a different one at some point?) loves SIs.

To be fair, it's not this government that made the Highway Code approval work in that way - it's the 1988 Road Traffic Act (and I think that probably just replicated the previous legislation in that regard).  Relevant bit:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/38

sean1 wrote:

The Highway Code changes have been introduced as a Statuatory Instrument. 

In general SIs are not debated or voted on in parliament.  The transport select committee is essentially responsible for approving the changes which will occur on 29th January.

So unless Grant Shapps and his committee pull the plug at the last minute the SI should pass on the 29th Jan.

I haven't heard any demands in and around Parliament for the changes to be stopped.  Thankfully there is plenty of other stuff occupying MPs minds at the moment.

Parliament process here 

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/secondary-legislation/statutory...

Broadly right, though the Select Committee don't have anything to do with it.  (And the Select Committee is most certainly not Shapps's committe - they are a cross party committee and it is their job to scrutinise what he and his Department do and hold them to account.)

Yes that is more accurate.  Shapps is just Minister for Transport and not on the select committee itself.

I am not sure how they Highway Code changes could be stopped now in Parliament unless many MPs created such as fuss that Shapp's et all would back track and withdraw the changes.

Fingers crossed that at the moment there doesn't seem to much controversy around the changes amongst MPs so the SI should go through.

sean1 wrote:

Yes that is more accurate.  Shapps is just Minister for Transport and not on the select committee itself.

I am not sure how they Highway Code changes could be stopped now in Parliament unless many MPs created such as fuss that Shapp's et all would back track and withdraw the changes.

Fingers crossed that at the moment there doesn't seem to much controversy around the changes amongst MPs so the SI should go through.

There's not time for it to be stopped now.  One or other of the House of Commons or Lords would have to schedule a debate and then vote down the changes.  That pretty much never happens with SIs laid under the negative resolution such as this.  (Some SIs have to be laid under the affirmative resolution procedure, which means there has to be a debate/vote in both Houses - but most are negative; and which it is defined by the relevant Act)

sean1 wrote:

The Highway Code changes have been introduced as a Statuatory Instrument. 

I don't think the changes  have been introduced as a Statutory Instrument.  The Code itself is not a statutory instrument (see para 3.1), so it does not require secondary legislation to make changes to it.  It is required to be laid before Parliament for 40 days, the process for laying papers is explained here.  Unless anybody can point me in an authoritative direction.

That sounds right. The equivalent explanatory memorandum for these changes is here (opens PDF) and describes the same process

GMBasix wrote:

sean1 wrote:

The Highway Code changes have been introduced as a Statuatory Instrument. 

I don't think the changes  have been introduced as a Statutory Instrument.  The Code itself is not a statutory instrument (see para 3.1), so it does not require secondary legislation to make changes to it.  It is required to be laid before Parliament for 40 days, the process for laying papers is explained here.  Unless anybody can point me in an authoritative direction.

Yes, I think you're right that it's statutory guidance rather than a statutory instrument, but the Parliamentary approval process is broadly the same.