New highway code rules

[bluealf]

New highway code hierarchy explained - and cyclists get priority over drivers

DRIVERS now have to give extra priority to cyclists that are travelling on UK roads. The new rule, which came into force today, means drivers won’t have as much power on the road when it come…

www.thesun.co.uk

Some dangerous new rules imo none more so than allowing pedestrians the right to cross on a junction you are turning into, people will be knocked over as they just walk out in front of cars, how will this work in a big city where there are people waiting to cross roads every minute of the day, of course, you stopping as you are half way through the action of turning will surely mean a greater chance of somebody else running into the back of you.

Discuss.


ps I used the sun as it isn't behind a paywall and has diagrams lol

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

New highway code hierarchy explained - and cyclists get priority over drivers

DRIVERS now have to give extra priority to cyclists that are travelling on UK roads. The new rule, which came into force today, means drivers won’t have as much power on the road when it come…

www.thesun.co.uk

Some dangerous new rules imo none more so than allowing pedestrians the right to cross on a junction you are turning into, people will be knocked over as they just walk out in front of cars, how will this work in a big city where there are people waiting to cross roads every minute of the day, of course, you stopping as you are half way through the action of turning will surely mean a greater chance of somebody else running into the back of you.

Discuss.


ps I used the sun as it isn't behind a paywall and has diagrams lol

Looks idiotic.

 

[Brightwell’s left peg]

New highway code hierarchy explained - and cyclists get priority over drivers

DRIVERS now have to give extra priority to cyclists that are travelling on UK roads. The new rule, which came into force today, means drivers won’t have as much power on the road when it come…

www.thesun.co.uk

Some dangerous new rules imo none more so than allowing pedestrians the right to cross on a junction you are turning into, people will be knocked over as they just walk out in front of cars, how will this work in a big city where there are people waiting to cross roads every minute of the day, of course, you stopping as you are half way through the action of turning will surely mean a greater chance of somebody else running into the back of you.

Discuss.


ps I used the sun as it isn't behind a paywall and has diagrams lol

In Canada, pedestrians have the right of way already, and you won’t believe the numbers who will walk out into a road without looking. Had to slam the anchors on quite a few times.

Canada has far quieter roads and far less pedestrians on average. I suspect carnage if pedestrians start behaving that way in the Uk.

 

[RobMCFC]

In case anybody was in any doubt, the human race has peaked and is now on the way down.

We are devolving rather than evolving, and this is just a small example.

 

[Dirty Harry]

Rules ?
The Highway Code was never the law, and was only intended as a guide, and much of it advisory at that, has something changed ?

Those ‘proposals’ seem idiotic and almost like a cyclist/pedestrian has done it.

 

[RandomJ]

Better set off an hour earlier for work then if we're all going to be stuck behind cyclists riding at 1mph in the middle of the road with no hope of getting enough clearance to overtake them.

 

[bluealf]

Rules ?
The Highway Code was never the law, and was only intended as a guide, and much of it advisory at that, has something changed ?

Those ‘proposals’ seem idiotic and almost like a cyclist/pedestrian has done it.

You're right it isn't law but it can be used in court against you, so don't get hung up on the word rules, there isn't a need tbh I was just making a thread about some major change to the 'guide' that 99% of drivers will not have heard, I certainly hadn't until 5 minutes before my post in here.

The highway code is being updated to improve road safety for vulnerable road users, but there will be no changes to the law. The rules of the highway code are advisory, meaning a person won’t be prosecuted for not complying with them.

However, the highway code can be used in court to establish liability in the event of an accident under the Road Traffic Act. This includes rules which say ‘should/should not or do/ do not.’

If you are found to be at fault in an accident as a result of not complying with the Highway Code, you may face charges in court.

 

[Dirty Harry]

You're right it isn't law but it can be used in court against you, so don't get hung up on the word rules, there isn't a need tbh I was just making a thread about some major change to the 'guide' that 99% of drivers will not have heard, I certainly hadn't until 5 minutes before my post in here.

The highway code is being updated to improve road safety for vulnerable road users, but there will be no changes to the law. The rules of the highway code are advisory, meaning a person won’t be prosecuted for not complying with them.

However, the highway code can be used in court to establish liability in the event of an accident under the Road Traffic Act. This includes rules which say ‘should/should not or do/ do not.’

If you are found to be at fault in an accident as a result of not complying with the Highway Code, you may face charges in court.

I know how it works mate, there’s a lot backed up by law, but it depends on the wording, like ‘must’ and ‘must not’, from that article it says :-

The new Highway Code says: "‘At a junction you SHOULD give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning."

So I’d take that as advisory personally rather than it being one backed up by law .

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

Better set off an hour earlier for work then if we're all going to be stuck behind cyclists riding at 1mph in the middle of the road with no hope of getting enough clearance to overtake them.

*in certain situations, they are advising, and has actually been the advice to cyclists for some time. Surely it's better to make yourself more visible than risk being crushed under a vehicle.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Rules ?
The Highway Code was never the law, and was only intended as a guide, and much of it advisory at that, has something changed ?

Those ‘proposals’ seem idiotic and almost like a cyclist/pedestrian has done it.

Cards on the table: I am a pedestrian, cyclist and driver (I've driven Cat's B, C1E, D1E) so I have a good spread of experience of road use, both in the UK and overseas. I passed my test in 91, but I've ridden cycles on the road from the age of about 10.

The highway code is a quasi-legal document which details guidance as to the interpretation of the law laid down in the Road Traffic Act 1988. The proposals are nothing new. More of a rewording to clarify the hierarchy of responsibility and it makes perfect sense. Too often drivers put their convenience ahead of the safety of more vulnerable road users by behaving irresponsibly. They seem to forget that the people outside of their 5-star NCAP safety bubble are actually incredibly vulnerable. EVERYONE shares the space and nobody has any more entitlement to be on the road than anyone else (although uninsured drivers can f*ck right off). It's only right that the more vulnerable road users be protected from potential harm from vehicles which have the ability to do more damage.

 

[bluealf]

I know how it works mate, there’s a lot backed up by law, but it depends on the wording, like ‘must’ and ‘must not’, from that article it says :-

The new Highway Code says: "‘At a junction you SHOULD give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning."

So I’d take that as advisory personally rather than it being one backed up by law .

Okay, what if you don't stop and 9 witnesses say you didn't even attempt to stop for them to cross, how would that pan out in court if you hit one?

It says you 'should' stop at the end of the day.

I just think it is a really dangerous change of 'advice/rules/whatever the correct phrase is' we all know there are certain types of pedestrians and cyclist's who will take this as making them the boss of the road, they will be stepping out in front of cars or driving down the centre of every road saying it is their right to do so etc.

As for turning left, I would never cut a cyclist up now, in fact I wouldn't even overtake them to then just turn across them 30 yards down the road in the first place so that rule isn't much of a hassle but I am more bothered about having to give way to pedestrians as you turn in off a road onto another road, only to then have the possibility of people just crossing right on the junction, it is a bizarre change to the highway code IMO but no doubt one made by a person who hates cars and motorists.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

Cards on the table: I am a pedestrian, cyclist and driver (I've driven Cat's B, C1E, D1E) so I have a good spread of experience of road use, both in the UK and overseas. I passed my test in 91, but I've ridden cycles on the road from the age of about 10.

The highway code is a quasi-legal document which details guidance as to the interpretation of the law laid down in the Road Traffic Act 1988. The proposals are nothing new. More of a rewording to clarify the hierarchy of responsibility and it makes perfect sense. Too often drivers put their convenience ahead of the safety of more vulnerable road users by behaving irresponsibly. They seem to forget that the people outside of their 5-star NCAP safety bubble are actually incredibly vulnerable. EVERYONE shares the space and nobody has any more entitlement to be on the road than anyone else (although uninsured drivers can f*ck right off). It's only right that the more vulnerable road users be protected from potential harm from vehicles which have the ability to do more damage.

That's true BUT the new rule that you have to give way to a pedestrian who, in a safe (-ish) position on the pavement waiting to cross, should be given priority over a vehicle already moving seems at odds to me. The complication is that I may have seen them and given them priority but another vehicle user may not, therefore I have put them in danger.

 

[bluealf]

Cards on the table: I am a pedestrian, cyclist and driver (I've driven Cat's B, C1E, D1E) so I have a good spread of experience of road use, both in the UK and overseas. I passed my test in 91, but I've ridden cycles on the road from the age of about 10.

The highway code is a quasi-legal document which details guidance as to the interpretation of the law laid down in the Road Traffic Act 1988. The proposals are nothing new. More of a rewording to clarify the hierarchy of responsibility and it makes perfect sense. Too often drivers put their convenience ahead of the safety of more vulnerable road users by behaving irresponsibly. They seem to forget that the people outside of their 5-star NCAP safety bubble are actually incredibly vulnerable. EVERYONE shares the space and nobody has any more entitlement to be on the road than anyone else (although uninsured drivers can f*ck right off). It's only right that the more vulnerable road users be protected from potential harm from vehicles which have the ability to do more damage.

Do you not think it is dangerous to allow pedestrians to just cross a road as a car is turning in off of another main road for instance?
It really is like a huge game of chance, you're waiting for chance to turn in, a gap in the traffic appears, you go to turn right and a pedestrian appears out of nowhere (as they can do, walking along not even looking like they want to cross the road and then just step off the kerb) you are now across the the wrong side of the road and are being told to give way to pedestrians who are wanting to cross as if they are on a zebra crossing, it just seems dangerous on many levels, the pedestrians who step out and are not seen by the bad drivers in the world, the car driver who stops mid-turn and has an artic heading for him( I know, worst casing for effect lol) or when you are turning left then stopping and the car behind ramming you up the rear because 'WTF did you stop for' I just think it is going to be carnage.

 

[citizen_maine]

Hasn't it always been that you don't turn right unless your exit road is clear?

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

That's true BUT the new rule that you have to give way to a pedestrian who, in a safe (-ish) position on the pavement waiting to cross, should be given priority over a vehicle already moving seems at odds to me. The complication is that I may have seen them and given them priority but another vehicle user may not, therefore I have put them in danger.

Do you not think it is dangerous to allow pedestrians to just cross a road as a car is turning in off of another main road for instance?

I don't think the new rules give pedestrians carte blanche to just cross the road regardless of what's coming. The new rule merely states that they should be given priority to cross the road when clear to do so. Same with green traffic lights and motorists. Green does not automatically mean go, it means 'proceed with caution'.

 

[manchester blue]

*in certain situations, they are advising, and has actually been the advice to cyclists for some time. Surely it's better to make yourself more visible than risk being crushed under a vehicle.

I always cycled away from the kerb to avoid close passes, most of the time unless not safe.

The rule about pedestrians is not all that different to what we have now. Rule 170 I think. If a pedestrian is crossing you should give way. Not sure why it should be changed though. Perhaps pavements should be extended across junctions.

Surprised nobody has mentioned road tax for cyclists yet! Usually comes up in these things!

 

[bluealf]

Hasn't it always been that you don't turn right unless your exit road is clear?

It is but if you start your turn and then a pedestrian thinks he has the right to just walk out as he has heard that cars have to give way to pedestrians who are waiting to cross the road then the exit road is now not clear.

It is also if you're turning left though.

The point I was really making is it going to have the opposite affect that they are trying to achieve.

More confusion, more danger to both pedestrians and car drivers where there was very little to either.

Unless they stick a pelican crossing on the end of every junction I don't think it particularly safe to have pedestrians just walking out in front of cars that they may not have even seen themselves turning in from another road.

 

[bluealf]

I always cycled away from the kerb to avoid close passes, most of the time unless not safe.

The rule about pedestrians is not all that different to what we have now. Rule 170 I think. If a pedestrian is crossing you should give way. Not sure why it should be changed though. Perhaps pavements should be extended across junctions.

Surprised nobody has mentioned road tax for cyclists yet! Usually comes up in these things!

I am sure somebody will indulge you now.

The cyclist part of this change isn't the big thing for me, as I stated earlier it is just common sense driving of not cutting somebody up that you can see or have likely already overtaken 100 yards down the road, maybe I'm not so keen on the cycling in the middle of the road part, only due to the smart arse cyclist who will think it is his right to cycle dow the middle of the road for 8 miles with a million cars stuck behind him, rather than just taking control of the road at an oncoming junction to protect themselves, untaxed cunts :)

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I always cycled away from the kerb to avoid close passes, most of the time unless not safe.

The rule about pedestrians is not all that different to what we have now. Rule 170 I think. If a pedestrian is crossing you should give way. Not sure why it should be changed though. Perhaps pavements should be extended across junctions.

Surprised nobody has mentioned road tax for cyclists yet! Usually comes up in these things!

Road Tax hasn't been a thing since 1937. Vehicle owners (myself included) pay a levy based on how polluting their vehicle is.

Roads and infrastructure are paid for out of general taxation and driving is actually subsidised in terms of how much tax is collected to how much tax is spent.

 

[domalino]

In case anybody was in any doubt, the human race has peaked and is now on the way down.

We are devolving rather than evolving, and this is just a small example.

When do you think the high water mark was?