New highway code rules

[Linas.P]

2 hours ago, DBIZO said:

I'm late to this party, but I cannot help myself - I'm perplexed as to how this is even is 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. It happened after that, 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.

If you were about to step into the road, then they should not given you the way and that will continue not to be the case even in new rules - few steps ... how far is that? 2 metres? So you were long way away from the kerb and you expected car to stop... why? It is not how it works. Let's start from pedestrian own responsibilities - pedestrian should stop at the side of the road, look both ways and only start crossing when safe. If pedestrian is not yet on the side of the road (literally with foot on the kerb), or if they have not looked around, then they are not crossing the road and should not expect cars to stop or even slow down. Motorists who are skittish and brakes at every sight of pedestrian 10 meters away from the kerb drives me mad as well, not to mention they confuses pedestrians as well. 

Nobody has an issue with letting pedestrians finish crossing the road, even if it is slightly annoying because by definition this means pedestrian started crossing without making sure it was safe. The issue is with vague language used, specifically "waiting" to cross, and in practice that is nearly impossible to tell. Sure when I am on foot, then one would know if I am waiting because I would stop right on the corner and look in the direction of oncoming car trying to make eye contact with the driver to try to somehow convey this intent... but pedestrians like that are exception, most are stuck in their phone and it is absolute guesswork to figure out what they do next. 

Now I understand in the spirit of the law, what they meant by "waiting" is this point where pedestrian has stopped and is looking around... however there is massive issue here. This rule assumes pedestrians will do what they must, but majority pedestrians don't ever stop and even fewer look around. So realistically there is never such thing as "waiting".

Literally today I have seen pedestrian who was crossing the pedestrian crossing through red (for him) and ambulance was driving with lights, but without sirens (doesn't need it because it was green). The pedestrian stepped into the road probably 20m in front of speeding ambulance and the ambulance then slowed down and turned on sirens. The guy was looking at his phone, got scared by sirens and then slowly finished crossing after flipping-off the ambulance and ambulance was waiting! 

[doog442]

On 1/26/2022 at 9:18 PM, Linas.P said:

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

 

There are plenty of 30 mph roads with bends, junctions and the like where a vehicle has no appreciable line of site ahead. Many motorists speed. If you haven't come across the same scenario then I'm calling complete BS. However to comment on my own situation when you weren't there is absolutely ridiculous, give your head a shake. 

[Moleman]

11 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

 Sure when I am on foot, then one would know if I am waiting because I would stop right on the corner and look in the direction of oncoming car trying to make eye contact with the driver to try to somehow convey this intent...

I still remember my first day briefing in Ho Chi Minh City about crossing the road, the complete opposite. Step forward and keep walking, the traffic will go round you. Never look any driver in the eye, they will assume you have seen them and expect you to stop.

Funny thing is it works. Different culture.

[Linas.P]

26 minutes ago, doog442 said:

There are plenty of 30 mph roads with bends, junctions and the like where a vehicle has no appreciable line of site ahead. Many motorists speed. If you haven't come across the same scenario then I'm calling complete BS. However to comment on my own situation when you weren't there is absolutely ridiculous, give your head a shake. 

Not really... There were situation where I was "brave" or stupid... and where I decided that I want to cross the road more than being safe and alive... and therefore I have decided to run in front of vehicle instead of waiting few more seconds. So that is on me.

There were few situations where car was not indicating, but just turned right into me and I had to jump out of the way. So that is on them.

As well I note that you brush it of under excuse "car was speeding"... it may be true, but not an excuse. It is pedestrian responsibility to make sure it is safe to cross... regardless of speed of the vehicle. You can't just assume they driving at the limit. If it was speeding and you assumed it wasn't then your judgement was wrong. Speeding is not your problem - there is police to sort this out (you in particular should know better)... I have made such mistake as well, especially because driving with headlights on is not mandatory in UK (and it is proven that this makes it harder to estimate speed of the car). But again I would count that as my mistake in estimating.

But I honestly have never been in situation where I was waiting to cross the road, looked around, decided it is safe, started crossing and then car just appeared out of "nowhere". Just doesn't happen to me. If you were in such situation, then you doing something wrong.

14 minutes ago, Moleman said:

I still remember my first day briefing in Ho Chi Minh City about crossing the road, the complete opposite. Step forward and keep walking, the traffic will go round you. Never look any driver in the eye, they will assume you have seen them and expect you to stop.

Funny thing is it works. Different culture.

It seems majority of British pedestrians were briefed in Ho Chi Minh City as well 😄

[doog442]

38 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

It is pedestrian responsibility to make sure it is safe to cross... regardless of speed of the vehicle. You can't just assume they driving at the limit. If it was speeding and you assumed it wasn't then your judgement was wrong.

The pedestrian can only do so much. You can only look so far and you're completely ignoring the duty of drivers to keep to the speed limit, not drive dangerously or without due care and attention. When a pedestrian is struck and killed, seriously Injured or just run over resulting in injury, if there's any indication that the vehicle was speeding they are more often than not more culpable than the poor sod they hit.   

One is guidance (Highway code for pedestrians), the other is law for motorists. 

[doog442]

duplicate

[DBIZO]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

If you were about to step into the road, then they should not given you the way and that will continue not to be the case even in new rules - few steps ... how far is that? 2 metres? So you were long way away from the kerb and you expected car to stop... why? It is not how it works. Let's start from pedestrian own responsibilities - pedestrian should stop at the side of the road, look both ways and only start crossing when safe. If pedestrian is not yet on the side of the road (literally with foot on the kerb), or if they have not looked around, then they are not crossing the road and should not expect cars to stop or even slow down. Motorists who are skittish and brakes at every sight of pedestrian 10 meters away from the kerb drives me mad as well, not to mention they confuses pedestrians as well. 

Nobody has an issue with letting pedestrians finish crossing the road, even if it is slightly annoying because by definition this means pedestrian started crossing without making sure it was safe. The issue is with vague language used, specifically "waiting" to cross, and in practice that is nearly impossible to tell. Sure when I am on foot, then one would know if I am waiting because I would stop right on the corner and look in the direction of oncoming car trying to make eye contact with the driver to try to somehow convey this intent... but pedestrians like that are exception, most are stuck in their phone and it is absolute guesswork to figure out what they do next. 

Now I understand in the spirit of the law, what they meant by "waiting" is this point where pedestrian has stopped and is looking around... however there is massive issue here. This rule assumes pedestrians will do what they must, but majority pedestrians don't ever stop and even fewer look around. So realistically there is never such thing as "waiting".

Literally today I have seen pedestrian who was crossing the pedestrian crossing through red (for him) and ambulance was driving with lights, but without sirens (doesn't need it because it was green). The pedestrian stepped into the road probably 20m in front of speeding ambulance and the ambulance then slowed down and turned on sirens. The guy was looking at his phone, got scared by sirens and then slowly finished crossing after flipping-off the ambulance and ambulance was waiting! 

I can see how it is not clear for you, but that does not make you right. The rule is clear - as a motorist, you bear the responsibility to look out for pedestrians around the junction and judge if you are able to make the turn safely and comfortably, which means them not stopping but carrying on walking, feeling safe. That will mean coming to a full stop sometimes, I'm afraid.

You are perfectly wrong in your suggestion that pedestrians either should or can be expected stop before crossing every road all the time to have a careful look. That's simply not how it works. In 3 seconds, which is a few steps, a car from about 30-40 metres behind would catch up with you in town, but in 40mph areas it could be 50+ metres. It is most ludicrous to suggest the risks and responsibilities is symmetric for motorists and pedestrians. They are not a risk to you, but you are to them. That means one thing: you give them space.

This 2022 update is a clarification, unfortunate it was necessary in the first place, but the rule has not changed. I'm dumbfounded by the brouhaha around it.

Somehow, it's well understood and practiced in many other countries. It's high time UK motorists studied their own Highway Code and understood what it means.

 

[Moleman]

59 minutes ago, Moleman said:

I still remember my first day briefing in Ho Chi Minh City about crossing the road, the complete opposite. Step forward and keep walking, the traffic will go round you. Never look any driver in the eye, they will assume you have seen them and expect you to stop.

Funny thing is it works. Different culture.

Of course in most of the Middle East there is no need for rules of any kind - inshallah.

[DBIZO]

On 1/26/2022 at 8:41 PM, 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'.

 

The shocking thing is, not only most motorist would be surprised that it's not you, already crossing the road, but them, who needs to stop. Some of them will even try and squeeze past. Which makes it clear, that not even in this incorrectly narrow interpretation has been the rule widely known or understood. Appalling.

[Linas.P]

21 minutes ago, DBIZO said:

I can see how it is not clear for you, but that does not make you right. The rule is clear - as a motorist, you bear the responsibility to look out for pedestrians around the junction and judge if you are able to make the turn safely and comfortably, which means them not stopping but carrying on walking, feeling safe. That will mean coming to a full stop sometimes, I'm afraid.

You are perfectly wrong in your suggestion that pedestrians either should or will stop before crossing every road all the time to have a careful look. That's simply not how it works. In 3 seconds, which is a few steps, a car from about 30-40 metres behind would catch up with you in town, but in 40mph areas it could be 50+ metres. 

This 2022 update is a clarification, unfortunate it was necessary in the first place, but the rule has not changed. I'm dumbfounded by the brouhaha around it.

Somehow, it's well understood and practiced in many other countries. It's high time UK motorists studied their own Highway Code and understood what it means.

Not sure you have provided any objective argument apart of your own opinion. That is fine - we can both have our own opinions, but it neither makes me wrong nor you right.

Suggestion that driver with limited view, multiple blind-spots and muted sounds could look around the junction whilst traveling at ~30MPH, controlling the car, indicating, looking at traffic lights, signs and following other rules is ridiculous and requires superhuman perception. Not to mention there could be dozens or hundreds of pedestrians all doing random things. 

However, suggestion that pedestrian with perfect 270 degree+ view and clear 360 degree hearing can stop for split second from what is probably around 3MPH and just look around for their own safety, before blindly stepping into the road is just common sense (which you clearly don't have).

What you said is typical blind entitlement and expectation for rights without duties or responsibility. As well I love how you ignore the rules which are against your "belief":

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/rules-for-pedestrians-crossing-the-road.html

Rules for pedestrians are quite explicit and includes all the things I have mentioned:

• Choose right spot (this would really help for Doog)
• Stop
• Make sure you can see approaching cars
• Look around
• Listen
• When it is safe - only then cross

There are no BS expectation for safety or for drivers to care for you. 

[DBIZO]

12 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Not sure you have provided any objective argument apart of your own opinion. That is fine - we can both have our own opinions, but it neither makes me wrong nor you right.

Suggestion that driver with limited view, multiple blind-spots and muted sounds could look around the junction whilst traveling at ~30MPH, controlling the car, indicating, looking at traffic lights, signs and following other rules is ridiculous and requires superhuman perception. Not to mention there could be dozens or hundreds of pedestrians all doing random things. 

However, suggestion that pedestrian with perfect 270 degree+ view and clear 360 degree hearing can stop for split second from what is probably around 3MPH and just look around for their own safety, before blindly stepping into the road is just common sense (which you clearly don't have).

What you said is typical blind entitlement and expectation for rights without duties or responsibility. No I won't take responsibility for pedestrians, it is first and foremost their responsibility to care for themselves. I hope knowing you were "right" will make it feel better after being run over by the car. 

How is this even a debate, beggars belief. It's not an opinion. It's the rules codified in the Highway Code since time eternal; also common sense and empathy.

All I did was I provided the reasoning, using my own words, that underpin this rule. You might not like the rule, or not like my reasoning - it's all irrelevant what you like, when it comes to following the rules of road safety.

Now, with the latest clarification, it cannot be any clearer (it should always have been), it is now beyond reasonable doubt:  It is your responsibility to check upon approach if there are pedestrians (or cyclists/motorbikes, etc, right?) around the corner before you make a turn. Which means you must judge if you can make the turn safely for them (keeping good, comfortable distance), or need to slow down/come to a stop to make sure they can carry on safely. You carry responsibility for their safety insomuch that you present a danger to them - and only for that danger, nothing less, nothing more. Just because you don't like that, you cannot abdicate. It does not mean you bear all the responsibilities either. 

I'll have you know this is not a rule in isolation. If there are blind spots (parked cars, bus, etc) - you must slow down and watch in case of sudden emergence of people, so you have a chance of stopping, and them avoiding you. Also, if there people walking on the pavement but very close to the kerb, particularly if it's a group of people, you also must slow down or pass them at a larger distance. I vividly remember having been taught that 20+ years ago, also having been told off for not keeping large enough distance from a group of teenagers walking on the pavement. 

If you don't accept that, all I can ask is that you ask someone of authority, probably someone at the Highway Code, or a traffic cop to talk you through what's demanded of you - or just stop driving.

[doog442]

29 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Not sure you have provided any objective argument apart of your own opinion. That is fine - we can both have our own opinions, but it neither makes me wrong nor you right.

Suggestion that driver with limited view, multiple blind-spots and muted sounds could look around the junction whilst traveling at ~30MPH, controlling the car, indicating, looking at traffic lights, signs and following other rules is ridiculous and requires superhuman perception. Not to mention there could be dozens or hundreds of pedestrians all doing random things. 

However, suggestion that pedestrian with perfect 270 degree+ view and clear 360 degree hearing can stop for split second from what is probably around 3MPH and just look around for their own safety, before blindly stepping into the road is just common sense (which you clearly don't have).

What you said is typical blind entitlement and expectation for rights without duties or responsibility. As well I love how you ignore the rules which are against your "belief":

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/rules-for-pedestrians-crossing-the-road.html

Rules for pedestrians are quite explicit and includes all the things I have mentioned:

• Choose right spot (this would really help for Doog)
• Stop
• Make sure you can see approaching cars
• Look around
• Listen
• When it is safe - only then cross

There are no BS expectation for safety or for drivers to care for you. 

You are devolving all responsibility of the driver Linas. You clearly stated It is pedestrian responsibility to make sure it is safe to cross... regardless of speed of the vehicle.

This simply isn't true.

Pedestrians come in all shapes and forms. The onus is not on the pedestrian to avoid something they cannot see or hear further up the road or out of sight and who's breaking the speed limit, the onus (backed up by the Road Traffic Act) is on the motorist. That's why you do a driving test, why you have Insurance, that's why you have to adhere to a whole raft of road traffic laws.

 

[Bluemarlin]

4 hours ago, DBIZO said:

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?
 

A very strange thing happened to me today.

I decided to give the car a rest and went out by bike. I was travelling along a main road, in a cycle lane, with a junction ahead. As I approached the junction a car began to come alongside, indicating left. On seeing me, and the proximity of the junction, he slowed, pretty much to a stop as I carried on, and then he made his turn behind me.

So far so good I thought. However, the car behind him wasn't playing ball with the rules at all. According to the experts, he should have rear ended the car in front; but instead, with almost superhuman levels of foresight, he chose to travel far enough behind, and at an appropriate speed, to miraculously avoid a collision.

Whether pure luck, or some kind of psychic ability, this is clearly outside the spirit of the new rules.😉

[Linas.P]

3 minutes ago, DBIZO said:

1. How is this even a debate, beggars belief. It's not an opinion. It's the rules codified in the Highway Code since time eternal; also common sense and empathy.

2. Which means you must judge if you can make the turn safely for them

3. If there are blind spots everyhwere (parked cars, bus, etc) - you must slow down and watch in case of sudden emergence of people

1. Clearly you haven't even bothered to read those rules before making such foolish claim. Just read section for pedestrians and you will see, that pedestrians have long list of responsibilities which are in direct contradiction to this "waiting to cross nonsense". You common sense is just wrong and as for empathy, I only have that to people who did everything right, but still got hurt (that is indeed unfortunate), but I have no empathy for idiots who can't even look around before crossing the road.

2. Yes on the road in front of you, or on the road in which you turning into... not on the pavement 2 metres from the kerb. What happens on the pavement doesn't concern me the slightest and it shouldn't concern anyone. Look at the road in front of you for optimal safety. I hate the drivers when they start looking to the sides of the road where they shouldn't be looking and then crash into the car right in front. Safe driving requires concentration and not babysitting pedestrians who may or may not be "waiting" to cross. 

3. No you don't and I won't. You confusing what is known as "hazard perception" test with the Highway code. Yes it is fact that people can emerged behind parked cars or from blind spots, there is risk it may happen. So caution needed. I personally not overly cautions, certainly not good place to be speeding or having argument with the girlfriend, but I look into it this way - if some idiot runs into the road and dies... sad, but that is on them. 

[DBIZO]

31 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

 

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/rules-for-pedestrians-crossing-the-road.html

Rules for pedestrians are quite explicit and includes all the things I have mentioned:

• Choose right spot (this would really help for Doog)
• Stop
• Make sure you can see approaching cars
• Look around
• Listen
• When it is safe - only then cross

There are no BS expectation for safety or for drivers to care for you. 

You don't understand the concept behind all that you're reading...which is very concerning.

Here is how it works: if a pedestrian does all this above, sees your car approaching, indicating for a turn into that street, then, and please grab the arms of your chair, they have the right of way and it's you, who MUST give way, be it slowing down or coming to a full stop. The only exception, as always, if that forces emergency braking/sudden evasion.

[Linas.P]

9 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

As I approached the junction a car began to come alongside, indicating left.

Don't really see anything wrong with that, because it was the car which came along side you. The issue with is other way around... when car is indicating and slowing down for the turn before the junction and bicycle comes along side and starts undertaking. 

[DBIZO]

9 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

1. Clearly you haven't even bothered to read those rules before making such foolish claim. Just read section for pedestrians and you will see, that pedestrians have long list of responsibilities which are in direct contradiction to this "waiting to cross nonsense". You common sense is just wrong and as for empathy, I only have that to people who did everything right, but still got hurt (that is indeed unfortunate), but I have no empathy for idiots who can't even look around before crossing the road.

2. Yes on the road in front of you, or on the road in which you turning into... not on the pavement 2 metres from the kerb. What happens on the pavement doesn't concern me the slightest and it shouldn't concern anyone. Look at the road in front of you for optimal safety. I hate the drivers when they start looking to the sides of the road where they shouldn't be looking and then crash into the car right in front. Safe driving requires concentration and not babysitting pedestrians who may or may not be "waiting" to cross. 

3. No you don't and I won't. You confusing what is known as "hazard perception" test with the Highway code. Yes it is fact that people can emerged behind parked cars or from blind spots, there is risk it may happen. So caution needed. I personally not overly cautions, certainly not good place to be speeding or having argument with the girlfriend, but I look into it this way - if some idiot runs into the road and dies... sad, but that is on them. 

As they say, you are entitled to your own views, but you are at a disadvantage of being completely wrong on all accounts. What you are describing is reckless. Please consult an authority.

I think I said all I can, I'm off.

[Linas.P]

2 minutes ago, DBIZO said:

You don't understand the concept behind all that you're reading...which is very concerning.

Here is how it works: if a pedestrian does all this above, sees your car approaching, indicating for a turn into that street, then, and please grab the arms of your chair, they have the right of way and it's you, who MUST give way, be it slowing down or coming to a full stop. The only exception, as always, if that forces emergency braking/sudden evasion.

I may not understand the concept, but it seems you don't know how to read at all.

[DBIZO]

3 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I may not understand the concept, but it seems you don't know how to read at all.

I think we better end it here. Again, all I ask is that you consult some authority that help interpret the rules.

[Bluemarlin]

11 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Don't really see anything wrong with that, because it was the car which came along side you. The issue with is other way around... when car is indicating and slowing down for the turn before the junction and bicycle comes along side and starts undertaking. 

There was nothing wrong with it LInas, he and I both did the right thing. Read the whole post through a filter of sarcasm.😀

[Linas.P]

12 minutes ago, DBIZO said:

I think we better end it here. Again, all I ask is that you consult some authority that help interpret the rules.

I can read the rules and they are in plain English, so no need to consult any authorities. Even thought it is not my first language highway code is pretty straight forward. Sometimes I disagree with what it says, sometimes I don't like it and sometimes, but those are the rules and I follow them. However, sometimes there are things which are plainly stupid - like including term "waiting" which is undefined, vague and thus confusing. 

However, I am not making my own rules like you are and I am not including non-existent context between the lines. I really don't know where you got such attitude and who indoctrinated you, but I have better things to do than babysit pedestrians who can't even be bothered to look around before crossing (frankly highway code does not require me to do it either).

Pedestrians are the ones who should look around and make sure that it is safe to cross. There is this "exception" around junctions and I never said I have an issue to wait for pedestrian to cross if they already started crossing. However, because it is impossible to tell when they are "waiting" to cross, I won't slow down and I won't bother figuring it out. In short pedestrian does not exist to me before their foot crosses the line between pavement and the road. And when they do, it doesn't give them right of way automatically so I won't necessarily stop.

[Moleman]

Whatever your interpretation of wording nothing beats the truth that all aspects of life require personal responsibility. Having I was right or it was my right of way on your head stone will be cold comfort. That applies to everyone.

[Linas.P]

4 hours ago, Moleman said:

Whatever your interpretation of wording nothing beats the truth that all aspects of life require personal responsibility. Having I was right or it was my right of way on your head stone will be cold comfort. That applies to everyone.

That is doubly true if you pedestrian or cyclist, not protected by 14 airbags and metal frame.

[doog442]

10 hours ago, Linas.P said:

However, because it is impossible to tell when they are "waiting" to cross, I won't slow down and I won't bother figuring it out. In short pedestrian does not exist to me before their foot crosses the line between pavement and the road. And when they do, it doesn't give them right of way automatically so I won't necessarily stop.

It's usually pretty obvious to tell if a pedestrian is waiting to cross a side road. I've got this great idea for teaching schoolkids. It's called 'Think Linas' before you cross. The guy who by his own words won't slow down, won't bother figuring anything out, thinks you don't exist, won't stop even when you do start to cross  and has no comprehension of the Highway code or Road Traffic Act.  Remember Linas is protected by 14 airbags and a metal frame (his words), you are simply flesh, bone and someones son or daughter. 

 

[Linas.P]

47 minutes ago, doog442 said:

It's usually pretty obvious to tell if a pedestrian is waiting to cross a side road. I've got this great idea for teaching schoolkids. It's called 'Think Linas' before you cross.

Yes and for that reason you need to take care about yourself first, before expecting others to care for you - they don't, just a fact. At least I am honest enough to admit it.

As well thanks for misconstruction my statements again - nothing new, it seems you like to do that quite a bit.