New highway code rules

[Phil xxkr]

5 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.

"Personal Responsibility" ah yes Maurice I remember those heady days before the inexorable slide towards the nanny state and ultimately where  people have no need for individual liability thoughts because the state will take care of you from cradle to grave. 

[doog442]

15 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

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. 

I've quoted you word for word dear Linas, no misconstruing. Can you see in the cold light of day how your words look. I think its apt that children should think 'worse case scenario', its just unfortunate that you are coming over as that very scenario.

I seriously doubt for a minute that you're like that when driving and you're probably a lovely bloke. These threads always follow the same tired route, a debate starts, you get challenged by a few ,you robustly defend your corner then your views get more extreme.

Seriously mate also think of the grannies and grandads out there who simply want to cross the road . Who shouldn't have to presume the speeding motorist they can't see or hear is 'in the right'. They shouldn't have to assume that traffic simply won't slow down on the approach to a junction because they somehow can't convey to you that they're not stood at a junction for any other reason other than to cross the damned thing.

[Linas.P]

32 minutes ago, doog442 said:

I've quoted you word for word dear Linas, no misconstruing. Can you see in the cold light of day how your words look. I think its apt that children should think 'worse case scenario', its just unfortunate that you are coming over as that very scenario.

I seriously doubt for a minute that you're like that when driving and you're probably a lovely bloke. These threads always follow the same tired route, a debate starts, you get challenged by a few ,you robustly defend your corner then your views get more extreme.

Seriously mate also think of the grannies and grandads out there who simply want to cross the road . Who shouldn't have to presume the speeding motorist they can't see or hear is 'in the right'. They shouldn't have to assume that traffic simply won't slow down on the approach to a junction because they somehow can't convey to you that they're not stood at a junction for any other reason other than to cross the damned thing.

It is rather hypothetical scenarios and attribution of intent which you want to hear.

Look at my first post - I said that I don't see like new rules are that much different from what we had. I knew that when turning to side road or at junction pedestrians who are crossing have right of way to continue crossing and I never had any issue to wait for them to do so. 

What I have issue is with new undefined condition of "waiting", what exactly "waiting" means? As I said - based on Highway code pedestrians have to stop and look around before crossing, if that is what "waiting" means then I will stop when I see somebody on the end of the pavement looking around. And that what Highway Code says.

In country where I have learned to drive rules actually says that all edges of junction are equivalent to pedestrian crossing and doesn't need to be marked. That is way better explanation of the rule, because for car drivers it is clear they have to stop, because it is pedestrian crossing and pedestrians have to follow the same rules - "stop, look around, make sure car stopping, before stepping in". 

But there are 2 problems here - first, in my experience no pedestrians ever look around or stop, so they don't "wait" and second... there are people who believe that "waiting" could mean "walking towards the road, but still several metres away from it" and according to them I have slowing down just seeing that pedestrians is walking towards the road. Even worse some drivers thinks this too and may randomly start braking for pedestrians who don't even intend to cross the road. I mean they are clearly confused as there is nothing about that in the rules and just proves my point that "waiting" need to be defined further.

Now you as well add hypothetical scenario, which has nothing to do with the rules we discussing - what if they kids (actually rules says parents are responsible), what if they blind deaf, old, mentally incapacitated etc. Sorry I don't know - rules do not define that. I can't know that from inside of the car if they deaf etc. Perhaps it comes under the advise for pedestrians - "help for people in need".

I said - I won't bother to figure out and slow down, but specifically when people are still far away from the road. The way you interpreted it (I am sure deliberately) - is that I won't slow down when I see pedestrian crossing the road and just run them over. That is misconstruction.

 

[doog442]

That's a better post. As I said I didn't misconstrue anything, I simply repeated almost word for word what you said last night. 

I agree my following post contained a hypothetical situation involving old folk and you now mention blind, deaf, old. mentally incapacitated. 

So here's an idea. Why don't you (or all of us ) assume that every pedestrian at a junction falls into the vulnerable category. For example we allegedly have over 10 million disabled folk in this country for example and 12 million aged under 16. If we assume this and drive accordingly the country will be a better place. I'm not advocating pausing at every junction just in case, slowing up traffic and taking it to the extreme.

I've just driven into town and back to drop someone off. Its Monday the High street is busy and do you know what - the sky didn't fall in.

On that trip I thought of this very subject and although it didn't happen I do foresee what you and quite a few have mentioned. Confusion, not really in the fact that 'is that person waiting to cross' more that person / pedestrian having little or no concept of the new rules. As we know pedestrians don't have to read the highway code, its only used for mitigation one way or the other when accidents or Incidents happen and to highlight if they were in the right or wrong (or their actions contributed to the collision).

So although I generally agree with the new concept, I agree there has been a lack of publicity that will contribute towards said confusion.

Now you may be looking at this from a busy city perspective, where I daresay hordes of pedestrians can make things extremely difficult at uncontrolled junctions or crossings, however in my experience many of these are controlled but appreciate not all are. Football matches and large events will be very Interesting, so yes there will be areas where it just doesn't work where priority will be wrongly assumed and where pedestrians will simply cut corners and take liberties.   

[Phil xxkr]

12 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

It is rather hypothetical scenarios and attribution of intent which you want to hear.

Look at my first post - I said that I don't see like new rules are that much different from what we had. I knew that when turning to side road or at junction pedestrians who are crossing have right of way to continue crossing and I never had any issue to wait for them to do so. 

What I have issue is with new undefined condition of "waiting", what exactly "waiting" means? As I said - based on Highway code pedestrians have to stop and look around before crossing, if that is what "waiting" means then I will stop when I see somebody on the end of the pavement looking around. And that what Highway Code says.

In country where I have learned to drive rules actually says that all edges of junction are equivalent to pedestrian crossing and doesn't need to be marked. That is way better explanation of the rule, because for car drivers it is clear they have to stop, because it is pedestrian crossing and pedestrians have to follow the same rules - "stop, look around, make sure car stopping, before stepping in". 

But there are 2 problems here - first, in my experience no pedestrians ever look around or stop, so they don't "wait" and second... there are people who believe that "waiting" could mean "walking towards the road, but still several metres away from it" and according to them I have slowing down just seeing that pedestrians is walking towards the road. Even worse some drivers thinks this too and may randomly start braking for pedestrians who don't even intend to cross the road. I mean they are clearly confused as there is nothing about that in the rules and just proves my point that "waiting" need to be defined further.

Now you as well add hypothetical scenario, which has nothing to do with the rules we discussing - what if they kids (actually rules says parents are responsible), what if they blind deaf, old, mentally incapacitated etc. Sorry I don't know - rules do not define that. I can't know that from inside of the car if they deaf etc. Perhaps it comes under the advise for pedestrians - "help for people in need".

I said - I won't bother to figure out and slow down, but specifically when people are still far away from the road. The way you interpreted it (I am sure deliberately) - is that I won't slow down when I see pedestrian crossing the road and just run them over. That is misconstruction.

 

I wonder how many pedestrians and cyclists and horse riders own a copy of the highway code and read of their responsibilities? Only motorists are mandated to do so therefore they are the only group likely to know/adhere to the advice. But the other groups are unlikely to adhere because they are ignorant of the advice. This being so how can only one group, the motorist, be solely responsible for any altercation breach of the advice etc.? 

[Linas.P]

14 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

I wonder how many pedestrians and cyclists and horse riders own a copy of the highway code and read of their responsibilities? Only motorists are mandated to do so therefore they are the only group likely to know/adhere to the advice. But the other groups are unlikely to adhere because they are ignorant of the advice. This being so how can only one group, the motorist, be solely responsible for any altercation breach of the advice etc.? 

Exactly my point.

I long said that cyclist in my opinion must go thought at least high level course. Not like driving test, but like a vocational course or presentation. I know some do, but it isn't mandatory.

As well I think kids at school should have "road safety" lessons, before they start studying math and other stuff. I mean we did have road safety subject when I was going to primary school and it was quite detailed - I believe it was once a month for whole year, with practical exercises, paramedics or police officers coming to give presentation and then at the end visiting "road safety museum" with quite "graphical" content from accidents and stories of injuries and similar. I mean it wasn't the pictures of brain on pavement, I think there was one with body covered in blanket. It was shocking for me as a kid, but now I really appreciate it a lot, it was just and appropriate level making us to respect the road. Not hate drivers, not learn our "rights", just respect the force of metal moving at 30MPH+. I just wish we had that course repeated maybe when we were 16 and just about to get into first cars, just to remind of dangers and with more mature content. It is one thing to look at it with 7 years old brain and different when you at least teenager.

These "I have a rights statements" are just silly - tell that to the sea next time in the storm... I am sure "it will cry you a river". Nowadays everything is just about "rights, rights, rights" and when it comes to responsibilities it is "pfff... we let somebody else be responsible".

And as for the drivers that is exactly my point. I do agree that drivers takes liberties sometimes, but they at least knows the rules and consequences. So all in all driver follows the rules say 90% of the time, some may argue 70% of the time... fine. But to be able to follow the rules you must at least know them. Cyclists and pedestrians, unless they have driving license  - I would say maybe only 10-20% knows the rules and most of the time they disregard them. I really don't understand how drivers can be held responsible for the group of people who in most cases don't even know the rules and even less follows them.

[Phil xxkr]

30 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Exactly my point.

I long said that cyclist in my opinion must go thought at least high level course. Not like driving test, but like a vocational course or presentation. I know some do, but it isn't mandatory.

As well I think kids at school should have "road safety" lessons, before they start studying math and other stuff. I mean we did have road safety subject when I was going to primary school and it was quite detailed - I believe it was once a month for whole year, with practical exercises, paramedics or police officers coming to give presentation and then at the end visiting "road safety museum" with quite "graphical" content from accidents and stories of injuries and similar. I mean it wasn't the pictures of brain on pavement, I think there was one with body covered in blanket. It was shocking for me as a kid, but now I really appreciate it a lot, it was just and appropriate level making us to respect the road. Not hate drivers, not learn our "rights", just respect the force of metal moving at 30MPH+. I just wish we had that course repeated maybe when we were 16 and just about to get into first cars, just to remind of dangers and with more mature content. It is one thing to look at it with 7 years old brain and different when you at least teenager.

These "I have a rights statements" are just silly - tell that to the sea next time in the storm... I am sure "it will cry you a river". Nowadays everything is just about "rights, rights, rights" and when it comes to responsibilities it is "pfff... we let somebody else be responsible".

And as for the drivers that is exactly my point. I do agree that drivers takes liberties sometimes, but they at least knows the rules and consequences. So all in all driver follows the rules say 90% of the time, some may argue 70% of the time... fine. But to be able to follow the rules you must at least know them. Cyclists and pedestrians, unless they have driving license  - I would say maybe only 10-20% knows the rules and most of the time they disregard them. I really don't understand how drivers can be held responsible for the group of people who in most cases don't even know the rules and even less follows them.

Absolutely 👍

[paulrnx]

My mum and dad wouldn’t allow me out on the road on my  cycle until I’d passed the cycling proficiency test. They always mandated I couldn’t possibly know how to behave on roads without passing this. Pretty sure that I had to read aspects of the highway code too as part of the test, or perhaps it was a cut down version. Long time ago but I do remember having a good grasp of positioning, signalling and how road junctions work. All of my younger siblings went through the same thing too.

Nowadays we have none of this and we are careering towards an endgame where vulnerable road users can never be at fault and they never have to worry about what is safe and what is not safe. I’m really not sure how that can be safer.

[doog442]

14 minutes ago, paulrnx said:

My mum and dad wouldn’t allow me out on the road on my  cycle until I’d passed the cycling proficiency test. They always mandated I couldn’t possibly know how to behave on roads without passing this. Pretty sure that I had to read aspects of the highway code too as part of the test, or perhaps it was a cut down version. Long time ago but I do remember having a good grasp of positioning, signalling and how road junctions work. All of my younger siblings went through the same thing too.

Nowadays we have none of this and we are careering towards an endgame where vulnerable road users can never be at fault and they never have to worry about what is safe and what is not safe. I’m really not sure how that can be safer.

Its called Bikeability now. 3.5 million children and families have undertaken these courses apparently and a further £18 million was granted for further training last April. Likewise I remember doing the cycling proficiency test, I think we got a badge at the end of it but I was let loose long before that, as we all were back then. Raleigh chopper being the weapon of choice 

[Moleman]

Just now, doog442 said:

 Raleigh chopper being the weapon of choice 

I loved having that bike, seemed so cool at the time.

[paulrnx]

1 minute ago, doog442 said:

Its called Bikeability now. 3.5 million children and families have undertaken these courses apparently and a further £18 million was granted for further training last April. Likewise I remember doing the cycling proficiency test, I think we got a badge at the end of it but I was let loose long before that, as we all were back then. Raleigh chopper being the weapon of choice 

Ha ha! Me too. A purple mark 2. Loved it to bits

[Moleman]

1 minute ago, Moleman said:

I loved having that bike, seemed so cool at the time.

Oh no Doog, perhaps I should have not admitted that! 😅

[doog442]

Just now, Moleman said:

Oh no Doog, perhaps I should have not admitted that! 😅

Haha, no worries . I just remember it was a long way from the handlebar down to that gear shifter, they really couldn't have made it more difficult.  As you say it looked cool and that was all that counted. 

[Moleman]

2 minutes ago, doog442 said:

Haha, no worries . I just remember it was a long way from the handlebar down to that gear shifter, they really couldn't have made it more difficult.  As you say it looked cool and that was all that counted. 

I know but the new ones just do not look the same without that gear shifter.