New highway code rules

[Barry14UK]

I suspect it will not be long before a driver finds him/herself having to defend what is an unreasonable action of a cyclist or pedestrian that precipitated an accident.

As well as likely increase in journey times cause by motorists having to give way whenever a pedestrian decides to step out, this is going to result in more pollution.  

[NemesisUK]

Shame we don't have the same strict jay-walking rules as the Germans. 

[Linas.P]

14 minutes ago, NemesisUK said:

Shame we don't have the same strict jay-walking rules as the Germans. 

I sense irony in your statement 😄

To be fair I don't know any country where they get it right, countries which have "jay-walking" as offence seems to overuse it, the ones that don't have it have no rules at all. As well it seems that countries which enforce "jay-walking" as offence then have to put pedestrian crossings every 20 metres. So I think it is best to let pedestrian cross the road, but be responsible themselves for making it safe.

UK now gone to the extreme on this - let the pedestrians cross the road and then make drivers responsible for it?! Idiotic. 

For me it seems that fair rule for "jay-walking" should be that pedestrian can cross the road only after making sure it is safe to do so, but fines should only be issued if they cause "dangerous" situation. I would further define that dangerous situation would be any case where such crossing causes other road users to react in any way to avoid collision (brake, steer, stop, beep, slowdown etc).

Because otherwise it causes comical situation where police stops pedestrians crossing empty street at night and issues fines, despite there being no cars or other road users around. 

[wharfhouse]

16 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

We should not confuse the two things - if you already driving on the road and pedestrian walk into it, then you can't be at fault for hitting pedestrian. However, if pedestrian started to cross the road before you turned into that road, then they have right to complete crossing it. This has always been the case. 

But that's the point - the old wording made sense - now the driver is expected to stop for a pedestrian waiting to cross at a junction when they are stood on the pavement (not only when they are already in the road) and if that pedestrian steps into the road the driver should have stopped for them and so the driver is at fault if the driver hits them. Your logic makes absolute sense. The Highway Code now makes no sense... 

[Linas.P]

3 minutes ago, wharfhouse said:

But that's the point - the old wording made sense - now the driver is expected to stop for a pedestrian waiting to cross at a junction when they are stood on the pavement (not only when they are already in the road) and if that pedestrian steps into the road the driver should have stopped for them and so is at fault if the driver hits them. Your logic makes absolute sense. The Highway Code now makes no sense... 

Yes, but only when turning - if you going straight through junction then this does not apply. I do agree with you that addition of "waiting" adds nothing, but confusion. 

[wharfhouse]

Just now, Linas.P said:

Yes, but only when turning. I do agree with you that addition of "waiting" adds nothing, but confusion. 

Agreed, only when turning into a junction 

[LenT]

17 hours ago, wharfhouse said:

Isn't a dash cam more likely to incriminate you though with these changes. If the pedestrian now decides to step off the pavement into the road and you hit them then these changes appear to mean that you should have stopped first to let them cross as you should have seen them at the side of the road waiting to cross and stopped before they stepped off into the road. The dash cam will be witness to that whereas previously it would have been witness to a pedestrian stepping out into the road when you were passing thereby putting the pedestrian at fault as they should have waited until you had passed before crossing?

As a dashcam advocate I would rather have the possibility of video evidence to support, for example, my contention that the errant pedestrian dithered, ignored my halting at the junction and then stepped out when they had apparently rejected my offer to cross. And then there are the pedestrians who just seem to like to stand at such corners apparently to admire the traffic.

I can also envisage situations in which there are collisions involving following traffic in congested situations who are simply caught out by sudden stops.

But equally concerning is the attitude I heard expressed by someone apparently representing a cycling organisation.  He maintained that a cyclist should now occupy the centre of the road, ostensibly to make them more visible (!) and to prevent the motorist attempting a potentially dangerous overtaking.manoeuvre.

This seemed to be a flawed argument on many levels.  The concept that all traffic now proceeds at the speed of the slowest cyclist is surely not tenable.  Self-evidently, the overwhelming number of motorists are perfectly capable of safely passing a correctly positioned cyclist.  I suspect that those errant few who get featured on cyclists’ Go-Pros are unlikely to be deterred by a cyclist in the middle of the road.

[LenT]

17 hours ago, royoftherovers said:

Even Pedestrians must exercise due care and attention. A pedestrian waiting at a designated crossing is. A Pedestrian waiting at a busy point in the road within sight of a recognised crossing is not.

Let`s organise an Official Petition to sack the person(s) who advocated the introduction of a vulnerability hierarchy of road users?

I did wonder, John, if some of this new thinking originated from the same giant intellects who thought that Smart Motorways were a clever idea?

”Let’s divert motorway traffic down the emergency lane designed for stationary, broken down vehicles.  What could possibly wrong?”

[royoftherovers]

8 minutes ago, LenT said:

I did wonder, John, if some of this new thinking originated from the same giant intellects who thought that Smart Motorways were a clever idea?

”Let’s divert motorway traffic down the emergency lane designed for stationary, broken down vehicles.  What could possibly wrong?”

I would not be surprised Len.

No doubt that a dashcam is necessary, notwithstanding the fact that it reveals one`s own errors.

Acceptance of one`s errors is called "taking ownership" and too few people subscribe to that.

A hierarchy based upon vulnerability is lunacy. The current Highway Code says all that needs to be said apart from reminding drivers of their responsibilities to ALL road users.

[LenT]

And another thing…..

I meant to add that where dedicated cycle lanes have been provided their use should be compulsory.  This was also a point that the cycling organisation representative I heard didn’t seem to agree with.  And yet the value of such dedicated lanes has been demonstrated for decades.

I can recall as a lad cycling from London to Southend almost entirely down the cycle lane - and often speeding past the slow moving traffic on the main road.

One danger, as I recall, was remembering the location of a rather significant pothole !

[Hamish2015]

18 hours ago, wharfhouse said:

Isn't a dash cam more likely to incriminate you though with these changes. If the pedestrian now decides to step off the pavement into the road and you hit them then these changes appear to mean that you should have stopped first to let them cross as you should have seen them at the side of the road waiting to cross and stopped before they stepped off into the road. The dash cam will be witness to that whereas previously it would have been witness to a pedestrian stepping out into the road when you were passing thereby putting the pedestrian at fault as they should have waited until you had passed before crossing?

I was thinking more along the lines of someone doing something stupid like just stepping out giving me no time to react. Any time a vehicle is involved in a collision with a cyclist or pedestrian the driver will be under intense scrutiny, if it’s not my fault the dash cam will prove it. If it is my fault then I’ll be in the wrong and would admit that anyway, I wonder how many rear end shunts will happen when someone slams the brakes on thinking a pedestrian is about to cross the road? Introducing this ambiguity into road safety is counterproductive in my opinion and will lead to more incidents happening. 

[LenT]

2 minutes ago, Hamish2015 said:

 I wonder how many rear end shunts will happen when someone slams the brakes on thinking a pedestrian is about to cross the road? Introducing this ambiguity into road safety is counterproductive in my opinion and will lead to more incidents happening. 

Indeed so, James, a point I made earlier.  Another great opportunity for the ‘Crash-for-Cash’ merchants.

[ALAW]

Where i live its flat so quite a lot of cyclists and a fellow motoring friend of mine has the same gripe as me. Hardly any have lights on the cycle honestly on a night its unbelievable. During the day many ride on the pavements even in pedestrian areas. There appears to be no law enforcement. It,s ok the new code but if its night and you cant see the cyclist.

[Linas.P]

27 minutes ago, ALAW said:

Where i live its flat so quite a lot of cyclists and a fellow motoring friend of mine has the same gripe as me. Hardly any have lights on the cycle honestly on a night its unbelievable. During the day many ride on the pavements even in pedestrian areas. There appears to be no law enforcement. It,s ok the new code but if its night and you cant see the cyclist.

Cyclists are required to have lights at night, so highway code is not the problem.

The problem again comes from stupid "hierarchy", meaning that if you lower down on hierarchy then every smallest mistake is jailable crime, but if you up on ladder like cyclists are, then all your faults are ignored. How many times I have seen drunk cyclists? Dark clothes and no lights in the dark? Or the lights which can be barely seen like a candles, or opposite - tactical flashlights made to be a "defensive" weapon used as headlights outright blinding everyone in front? It is strange how anyone can expect mutual respect, when drivers are clearly discriminated and treated differently?

Now I must admit - when I cycle, I rarely use road unless there is dedicated cycling lane, I rather pay fine than risk being inconvenience on the narrow street and as result putting myself in danger. Besides enforcement is very difficult, because cycling lanes start and stop randomly, there are cycling infrastructure in the middle of the pavement and so on. So even if stopped, challenged and fined I think I would easily beat any penalty in court with ton of mitigating circumstances and excuses. I guess that is why police ignores these rules as they are practically unenforceable. 

My personal opinion is that solution is very simple - if there is no dedicated cycling infrastructure present, then cyclist should be treated same as pedestrian and act as pedestrian. This is safest for everyone and most efficient. Pushing cyclists on the roads doesn't work for either side and implementing almost entire third type of infrastructure everywhere just for cyclists is not viable.

[VFR]

I also found it strange that it went Pedestrian - Cyclist - Horse Rider, when to my mind the horse rider should be after the pedestrian as you can never be quite sure what a horse will decide to do (well I guess so)

[doog442]

1 hour ago, VFR said:

I also found it strange that it went Pedestrian - Cyclist - Horse Rider, when to my mind the horse rider should be after the pedestrian as you can never be quite sure what a horse will decide to do (well I guess so)

Its probably based on risk, number of accidents, Injuries and deaths. 

My guess is the word hierarchy has rattled a few cages. No matter what, we are all pedestrians. So as a pedestrian I assume there will be a point blank refusal to entertain these new rules from the learned members who have expressed their disproval.

Will you simply stand on the kerb and give way...confusing the hell out of motorists who are actually complying with the new rules ? Personally I can't wait to give it a go. Of absolute importance to my safety ( and the no claims discount of said victim motorist )  will be eye contact, an acknowledgement and a thankyou. 

That said, today I was almost run down when halfway across a road when visiting the hospital..note halfway and the driver should have slowed down but didn't and that is a longstanding rule...how many of us step into a road when its safe and clear only to end up skipping across quickly as if we're somehow in 'the wrong'. 

[Linas.P]

40 minutes ago, doog442 said:

how many of us step into a road when its safe and clear only to end up skipping across quickly as if we're somehow in 'the wrong'. 

If you ended-up skipping, then I would argue your judgement calling it "safe" was wrong. 

Safe in my mind is when time it takes for car to reach my location is 2x longer than it takes for me to cross. By the time car reaches the point where I was crossing I should have fully crossed with some time to spare - that would be safe.

Now think about this example and railroad crossing. You can assume to be anything you like - pedestrian, cyclists, car driver, large truck driver... anything you want. And think about it - how much safety margin you would leave before saying it is safe to cross ahead of upcoming train? 

Besides words are important and hierarchy means exactly that - some are considered more important than others. That is opposite of what mutual respect means. On top of that - competency based hierarchy is good thing and clearly justified, vulnerability based hierarchy is fundamentally flawed concept. 

[Bluemarlin]

6 hours ago, doog442 said:

That said, today I was almost run down when halfway across a road when visiting the hospital..note halfway and the driver should have slowed down but didn't and that is a longstanding rule...how many of us step into a road when its safe and clear only to end up skipping across quickly as if we're somehow in 'the wrong'. 

I find myself hurrying up if a car appears as I'm crossing, not because I feel I'm wrong, but out of a sense of courtesy. I even walk a little quicker than normal on a zebra crossing, for the same reason. Nothing annoys me more than when I stop at a crossing and the person waiting to cross dawdles across, playing with their phone. It's just plain bad manners.

[doog442]

7 hours ago, Bluemarlin said:

I find myself hurrying up if a car appears as I'm crossing, not because I feel I'm wrong, but out of a sense of courtesy. I even walk a little quicker than normal on a zebra crossing, for the same reason. Nothing annoys me more than when I stop at a crossing and the person waiting to cross dawdles across, playing with their phone. It's just plain bad manners.

I'm of the generation that can't dawdle and play with a phone, I need to stop and play with it. I'm sure its an acquired art by youngsters to do both things at the same time, notwithstanding both activities seem to cut them off from the outside world as you suggest. The Highway code is specific in its instructions to pedestrians on how to cross a road not that any of us are obliged to read it which kind of defeats the object. My daughter teaches primary school children, I'll ask her what if anything they're taught about road safety nowadays and how they'll approach these new rules.   

[DBIZO]

On 1/23/2022 at 3:57 PM, Bill Dawes said:

What do you guys make of the new rules.

From what I have read they mostly seem sensible enough, what any good driver should be doing anyway, what was called roadcraft when I had my driving lessons many moons ago. However the one that bothers me is giving way to a pedestrian if you are turning left into a side road, we have all experienced i'm sure other cars approach from behind at a rate of knots when we are turning left, suddenly stopping half way through a turn manoeuvre is inviting a shunt up the rear in fast moving traffic, potentially injuring the pedestrian as well, many of those pedestrians, particularly those with a mobile welded to their face, seem to have a death wish anyway, stepping of the pavement without a glance.

I know the vehicle approaching from the rear should be driving in a manner such that they can stop safely but my bet is we will see an increase in this type of accident.

Bill D.

I'm late to this party, but I cannot help myself - I'm perplexed as to how this is even a discussion.

This is not a new rule. The rules have not changed. Giving way upon turning has always been the rule, as it is in other European countries as well as the US. I found the Highway Code from 1959. It's there! 

The Highway Code (1959) (archive.org)

"26. When turning at a road junction, give way to pedestrians who are crossing."

Yet, somehow UK motorists seem not to know what this means. I don't know why that is, I did not get my licence in the UK. But it looks like a complete misreading of what the intention of the original rule was, which is to keep pedestrians safe, hence the rules original place is in the section entitled "The safety of pedestrians".

Claiming that only those pedestrians who are already on the road qualify to be those "who are crossing" is not a reasonable position, and against the spirit of the rule. If they are about to step onto the road, but a few steps away, they are crossing. 

Why do I know this? After a few quite scary experiences across the UK when cars did not even slow down let alone give way upon turning in while we were about to step on the road, which is the norm everywhere else as far as we can remember, I looked up the highway code years ago. Then the same thing happened again and again, and I had loud exchanges with some drivers about it too.

Now reading the news, I'm confused by this confusion. There is no rule change. Only clarification to wording. Which should not have been necessary. 

I find the argument by the president of AA about rear-ending so utterly absurd it is plain bizarre. Let's not stop then at marked pedestrian crossings either because what if I get rear-ended, right?

If keeping pedestrians safe creates accident risk because there are high-speed carriageways with junctions together with pavements alongside, then I've got tough news: we need better, safer roads, and safer pedestrian crossings.

The demands of rules and safety are clear.

 

[Bluemarlin]

On 1/25/2022 at 5:10 PM, wharfhouse said:

And furthermore the situation with bikes is now that if you are indicating to turn (left or right) into a junction and a bike comes up your inside or outside (and they often ride at speed in towns and cities) the driver is at fault even if they are indicating to turn and the bike runs into them as they make that turn whereas the sensible thing is that if a driver is indicating and a bike comes up behind them it should wait for the car to make the turn it is indicating to do. Expecting a driver to watch both ahead for traffic to turn across and behind through mirrors at the same time for fast moving bikes when indicating their intention is just plain lunacy - the bike brigade with their head cams are going to have a field day!

I'm not sure that's entirely true Phil, and possibly a case of the press presenting only one side of the picture in order to wind people up, as that is just the rule for motorists. Having read a little more, there's also a corresponding rule for cyclists, which requires they do just as you suggest:

Rule 74

"Turning. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left."

So it seems that cyclists don't have an automatic right of way, and are required to not just plow on ahead if it's apparent a driver is about to turn.

When reading both sides, I now understand it to mean that, when approaching a junction, a vehicle should not overtake/cut across a bicycle in order to turn left, and a bicycle should remain behind a vehicle appearing to turn left. In other words, giving right of way to whoever happens to be in front on the approach to a junction. So, in its full context, it seems to make sense.

 

[wharfhouse]

6 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

I'm not sure that's entirely true Phil, and possibly a case of the press presenting only one side of the picture in order to wind people up, as that is just the rule for motorists. Having read a little more, there's also a corresponding rule for cyclists, which requires they do just as you suggest:

Rule 74

"Turning. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left."

So it seems that cyclists don't have an automatic right of way, and are required to not just plow on ahead if it's apparent a driver is about to turn.

When reading both sides, I now understand it to mean that, when approaching a junction, a vehicle should not overtake/cut across a bicycle in order to turn left, and a bicycle should remain behind a vehicle appearing to turn left. In other words, giving right of way to whoever happens to be in front on the approach to a junction. So, in its full context, it seems to make sense.

 

Yes agreed with what you are saying and having read a bit more myself there is quite a bit more guidance for cyclists than has appeared in the media - this issue now is are the cyclists reading what their responsibility is of just going by the largely one-sided coverage in the media? 

[Bluemarlin]

I believe they are Phil. I don't think they're happy about having to yield to pedetrians either.😀

So unlike the media to try and stir things up by only giving half the story.

[GMB]

I reacted with dismay to the new "rules".

We lived in S of France for many years and the prospect of the Tour de France coming up filled ordinary motorists with dread.

Bolshy, agressive  cyclists, who imagined they were pro's,  blocking roads and riding dangerously. The Sunday "peloton" idiots who were looking for trouble usually found it.

OMG it nearly turned me into a potential mass murderer.

I have seen many incidents since coming back to the UK that remind me of the same attitude and it is sad to see.

Pedestrians have always had right of way in France and I cannot count the times having stopped to let someone cross who then turned around and walked in the opposite direction. They just made all the motions of crossing but their mind was elsewhere.

The trouble is that it is a matter of judgement. A cyclist pulls right in front of a car at a roundabout and gets knocked off. Was he 10 yards or one yard from the front of the car when he made his suicidal decision?

It will all end in tears😭.

 

[Moleman]

Just a joke but hope you find it funny.