Highway Code changes 29/01/22 - what do you think about it?

[richardmorris]

2 hours ago, Missy Charm said:

The only trouble I've had thus far with rules regarding crossing the road, as a pedestrian, is that cyclists consider themselves above stopping.  

What all? Don't tar everyone with your biggotry.

[UltraWomble]

2 hours ago, 3VOM said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/14/cyclist-charlie-alliston-killed-pedestrian-blamed-crash-kim-briggs-court-told

You appear to be correct. It was also London not the south west.

See also:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56320121

However these incidents are very few and far between compared with pedestrians and cyclists injured by vehicles. I suppose the moral is that people need to slow down a bit and try to be more observant of their surroundings.
This is of course easier said than done - I was in Manc a week or three ago and frankly the mass of signage on Deansgate which was confusing and near impossible to read when driving was distracting to say the least. I very nearly wiped out a Deliveroo rider who decided to ride in front of me as I was turning right. Of course if you voice an opinion like this on Twitter you instantly get a pile on from the Mike Van Erp brigade telling you to send your licence back to the DVLA.

[sutty2006]

As a child in the 90s I was taught to STOP, LOOK and LISTEN at junctions and crossing the road. I will continue to do the same and continue to stop for traffic. Just because the blame has been shifted, doesn’t mean I want to be in hospital with potential life threatening injuries. Thanks for the concern though. 

[808 Estate]

3 minutes ago, sutty2006 said:

As a child in the 90s I was taught to STOP, LOOK and LISTEN at junctions and crossing the road.

Indeed.

People who walk obliviously across roads wearing headphones and with their face buried in their phone do deserve a right good shoeing though.

[mintwth]

22 minutes ago, UltraWomble said:

...the mass of signage on Deansgate which was confusing and near impossible to read when driving was distracting to say the least.

Various studies have shown that less road markings, road signs and other road furniture can lead to safer roads.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/removal-road-markings-safer-fewer-accidents-drivers

[davocano]

 I haven't read the new regs from source, is there any mention of this amulet for self-preservation?

"Always assume that the driver has not seen you".

 

[beko1987]

5 hours ago, New POD said:

 

Or maybe it was just my dad who said "for fucks sake mind that dickhead pedestrian who is about to step out" 

Someone at work was talking about this earlier and I was struggling to work out the real changes... 

There's going to be arse holes who will just stroll out with zero warnings on poor cars because 'they were on the junction and the highway code says I have right of way(on a 40/50/60 Road etc) " and that makes me cross already

 

As newpod says though, my dad and stepdad both taught me to drive like everyone on the road is out to get you/a dickhead (depends who says it) and it's done me right. 

7/10 waving the cyclist/horse/whatever in front has usually done me well as they pull over pretty soon after and the road is clear/karma let's me out of a junction further down the line etc

[New POD]

2 hours ago, davocano said:

If a pedestrian is engrossed in a smartphone while crossing a road into which or from you are turning, is it OK to floor the accelerator while leaning on the horn?

Asking for a friend*

No.to the accelerator.

Yes to.the horn. But You are assuming that they have hearing. Although I suspect the deaf, will be ready for quiet electric cars as it won't change thier ability to hear them coming. 

[davocano]

I'm assuming.. sorry, MY FRIEND is assuming they are sighted, heared and have a good selection of the human mental faculties.

Can't I (I mean HE/SHE/TRANSITION/ETCETERA) scare the fuck out of these lemmings purely for shits and giggles?

It's  a no, isn't it?

*sigh*

[GeorgeB]

5 hours ago, colino said:

Defensive driving means you always know what is around you

I disagree with this.

Defensive driving means that you assume that you don't always know what's around you so you make allowances for the unexpected.

 

[MikeR]

having run over a few living things myself ... and seen it done

I find its best to stay out of the way of some soft cunt driving a big motor ....

even if the law is on your side ..

[Isaac Hunt]

I often wonder how long it takes updates to the Highway Code to reach community immunity.   

I was following a van the other day, not too close, and it seemed to slow down, no brake lights shown.   Then it was clear it was slowing significantly, easily measured by the diminishing gap in front of me.  I then noticed the drivers hand out of the drivers window, the arm and hand being rotated in a circular motion.  I thought, ahah, brake lights an indicators are out, it's not often you see hand signals these days, well not a left turn hand signal anyway, plenty of others.

I relayed the story to a variety of age folk, and demonstrated the hand signal.  not one knew what the hand signal was.  Many offered more modern examples of hand signals that they had seen.

[wuvvum]

7 hours ago, Spurious said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/14/cyclist-charlie-alliston-killed-pedestrian-blamed-crash-kim-briggs-court-told

Yes it was a gobshite on a fixie. 

The annoying thing about that case is that the bloke fundamentally had a fair point about pedestrians just wandering out into cycle lanes without looking.  Sadly he managed to destroy any moral high ground he might have held by being a complete arrogant bell-end.

[AnnoyingPentium]

5 hours ago, sutty2006 said:

As a child in the 90s I was taught to STOP, LOOK and LISTEN at junctions and crossing the road. I will continue to do the same and continue to stop for traffic. Just because the blame has been shifted, doesn’t mean I want to be in hospital with potential life threatening injuries. Thanks for the concern though. 

Even as a child of the 00s/10s for me, I was taught the same thing. Plus I got a pretty stark lesson since I was nearly taken out by a Punto crossing the road as a wee lad.

[PhilA]

Always been the rule here. 

Crossroads, say. You have the right of way (green light), if you are turning into the road that effectively has the red light crossing pedestrians have the right of way to cross the road that has the red.

That's the only way you are allowed to cross the road as a pedestrian if the intersection doesn't have a dedicated crosswalk button. 

I forget the rules there now, but here if you cross the road outside the crosswalk you're jaywalking; you get hit you get a visit from plod in the hospital for a court summons and a fine if you live.

Having that tightened down would likely help the argument for heavily enforcing this rule.

 

Phil

 

[High Jetter]

2 hours ago, AnnoyingPentium said:

 I was nearly taken out by a Punto crossing the road as a wee lad.

Why did the Punto cross the road? 

[Metal Guru]

Please someone who knows the law ( police , lawyer etc NOT you just read the Daily Mail), answer these cases. Yes or no, not depends or maybe.

1. I’m waiting at the lights , pull away gently on green , no Grand Prix start, and a Lycra enthusiast comes full pelt right through a red light and ends up licking the tarmac. Will I be deemed at fault and my insurance picking up the bill? Could I do time if he happens to die?

2. Pisshead at closing time , 10 pints of Belgium’s worst, falls off the kerb under my  wheels doing 29mph. My fault again. Do I pay again? Am I in serious Doo-dah if he dies?
  
3. Im being the arsehole this time. Overtake 10 cars following a slow moving bus. Clip the bus trying to get back in on my side as I’ve misjudged the overtake. Do  I not only escape prosecution, but claim against the bus company’s insurance.

Extreme cases maybe, but I’d like a professional opinion.

Personally I think the law should be “ if you won’t look out for your own safety, why should anyone else bother?”

Regardless of any of the above, not ticking the box for optional legal cover on your insurance, will be a big mistake.

[inconsistant]

2 hours ago, High Jetter said:

Why did the Punto cross the road? 

Because it was the chicken’s day off?

[carburettor]

10 hours ago, tom13 said:

I think everyone can see these are pretty well thought out but as always the biggest thing is getting drivers off their bloody phones. This is the perfect use for unmarked police cars. The amount you see all day everyday!!

Except whenever I see some utter cnut on a phone there’s never a copper about.

I also have a dent in my car caused by an utter fuckwit cyclist who literally rode straight off the pavement and over the entrance to a business park. He was shouting and spitting at me, then when I arrived home a day or so later the police were knocking on my door  “It’s no problem, as it’s your word against his but did you hit a cyclist” etc etc, No he hit me, chatting away about cyclists and electric stand on scooters no lights at 6:30 pm in total darkness. 
No, I don’t read the Daily Fail. It’s just not right wing enough.

[AnnoyingPentium]

5 hours ago, inconsistant said:

Because it was the chicken’s day off?

Fuck, beat me to it! 😆

[beko1987]

7 hours ago, High Jetter said:

Why did the Punto cross the road? 

To get to the garage on the other side? 

[Mally]

13 hours ago, New POD said:

 

 You are assuming that they have hearing. Although I suspect the deaf, will be ready for quiet electric cars as it won't change thier ability to hear them coming. 

I'm deaf, I use an hearing aid, but at times hear very little.

Years ago I had the need to use my son's very expensive car, one of the early hybrids Merc/Bmw? I forget.

Anyway, he said, beware, when the engine stops and electric cuts in it goes quiet. May frighten you at first.

Me...What engine?

[dollywobbler]

18 hours ago, mintwth said:

Similar in aviation: powered aircraft give way to unpowered aircraft, unpowered aircraft give way to balloons. There's a whole hierarchy based on level of control over where you go and ability to stay aloft. 

The more control you have over where you go and the less likely you are to end up as a splat mark on the ground; the more consideration you have to show to others. 

 

My one issue with the new hierarchy is that trucks are now the lowest of the low, and expected to have the most care, but are also the vehicles with the poorest visibility - because they're a truck. I think there should be more mention of truck blind spots, and the acceptance that a truck driver cannot possibly be looking in all places at once - ie everything lower has a duty of care and should assume they HAVEN'T been seen. 

[Talbot]

8 hours ago, Metal Guru said:

1. I’m waiting at the lights , pull away gently on green , no Grand Prix start, and a Lycra enthusiast comes full pelt right through a red light and ends up licking the tarmac. Will I be deemed at fault and my insurance picking up the bill? Could I do time if he happens to die?

That is entirely the cyclist's fault as they have contravened a red light and stop line.  If you were driving reasonably then you've nothing to be concerned about.  A question might be asked as to how come you didn't see said cyclist, but the person who broke a rule is the cyclist.  A dashcam would help a lot to show that.

2. Pisshead at closing time , 10 pints of Belgium’s worst, falls off the kerb under my  wheels doing 29mph. My fault again. Do I pay again? Am I in serious Doo-dah if he dies?

If he dies, there would be a fairly significant investigation, but again if you were driving safely and reasonably, you would not be held responsible for a drunkard falling under your car.  Again, questions would be asked as to whether you saw him and took appropriate action, but fundamentally, not your fault.  Yet again, a dashcam would cover an awful lot of this and would show you'd done nothing wrong.  That said, you can stop a car from 29mph quite quickly, and it would be reasonable to expect that when you saw him falling over near where you're driving, you would anchor up and do everything possible to avoid him. 

3. Im being the arsehole this time. Overtake 10 cars following a slow moving bus. Clip the bus trying to get back in on my side as I’ve misjudged the overtake. Do  I not only escape prosecution, but claim against the bus company’s insurance.

No, the bus owner would claim against your insurance as you'd made the error of judgement.  Depends a lot on how heavy the impact is as to whether you might be prosecuted or not.  Slight tap and take the bumper off would be insurance.  Significant contact, you spin around and block the road, meaning the 5-0 have to be called out?  Expect a prosecution for DWDC.

Comments in the body of your quote.

You can never say for absolute sure what would or wouldn't happen, as every case is dealt with differently.  The same incident could have 6 different outcomes depending on who witnessed it, what they said, who investigated it, etc.etc.  Yes, the law should be applied equally to everyone, but it isn't.  There are variances.

[New POD]

Don't  forget that a green light does not mean GO.

It means Proceed with Caution. 

Commuting to Birmingham every day, through 11 sets of traffic lights, you know to treat a green light as a give way sign. 

If I didn't I'd loose the front of my car on a weekly basis.  How long lights need to be on Red before traffic stops, is something I often wonder. 

[EmperorPigeon]

I doubt anyone will stop for me or any other pedestrian that's looking to cross the road because there'll be instances of "is that person wanting to cross the road?" that will lead to confusion as a person could be waiting for a lift, waiting for the bus at a not so clearly marked bus stop (oh so many!) or you never know your luck...you might be propositioned! 🤣

In any event, I doubt anyone will stop for a pedestrian to cross (unless at an appropriate road crossing and, well, sometimes not even then because prats) and if someone did decide to be a good Samaritan? A lot of bad behaviour from car drivers behind as well. Especially if the guess - which is all it will be - is wrong. Who needs that level of stress on top of all the usual stress?

All I require as a pedestrian, is for myself to be clearly visible along with being careful and predictable in my behaviour to car drivers (and other road users) and likewise in return. Whilst mistakes of varying severity will be made, so long as first and foremost the strive is made to be as safe, careful, and predictable whilst using the roads then we'll all get along just fine.

[bigstraight6]

On 1/26/2022 at 1:05 PM, UltraWomble said:

The only point of concern I have is with cyclists potentially coming up the inside of a vehicle turning left or overtaking a vehicle turning right.
I totally get wait behind a cyclist that is in front if you want to turn rather than cut them up, but do worry that some people will just throw sense out of the window and assume that the vehicle ahead of you and indicating will see you and give way to you.
Im in a car - if I drive over the top of a cyclist I will suffer very little injury (and yes, I get that is the point of the rule changes).

A few weeks ago I had a cyclist passing on the inside of my 44 ton artic while I was joining a roundabout, I only saw him just as he appeared from the blind spot on the nsf corner of the cab as I was slowly edging out onto the roundabout while I was obviously giving way to vehicles coming around the roundabout to my right, absolute stupidity on behalf of that cyclist.

I’m concerned that pedestrians who wonder along fixated to their mobile phone screens and walk straight out onto roads without paying any attention can now do so with impunity.

[mintwth]

6 hours ago, dollywobbler said:

My one issue with the new hierarchy is that trucks are now the lowest of the low, and expected to have the most care, but are also the vehicles with the poorest visibility - because they're a truck. I think there should be more mention of truck blind spots, and the acceptance that a truck driver cannot possibly be looking in all places at once - ie everything lower has a duty of care and should assume they HAVEN'T been seen. 

I agree that the hierarchy shouldn't be taken as removing responsibility from and granting impunity to some. Everyone has a role to play. 

There is always an element of rules being guidelines and they should always be taken with a big pinch of "don't be a dick". 

In aviation, all parties know they have a role in avoiding collisions/accidents (e.g. see and avoid, etc). There the hierarchy is based on ability to avoid the collision/accident. According to the hierarchy a jumbo jet should give way to a paraglider. Is any paraglider pilot deliberately going to put themselves in a position where they could collide with a jumbo? Only if they have a sudden desire to become an ex-paraglider (and/or a pre-cooked and wrapped burger if they go through an engine). 

Aviation is lucky in that it still has a decent element of 'just culture' and recognises that accidents can and do happen without one party specifically being to blame for it. The emphasis tends to be on learning lessons from accidents and trying to reduce the chance of the same/similar accident happening again. 

In driving, the approach is different. It seems someone has to be at fault for an accident. The emphasis tends not to be on preventing future accidents but on finding someone to blame for the accidents that do happen. 

 

A lot of the Highway Code could be boiled down to "be considerate to others and don't be a dick". Unfortunately, that's a concept a lot of people don't seem to be able to put into practice. 

[Dave_Q]

What do I think?

TBH I am already absolutely sick of hearing about this. It's pretty much just a clarification of existing rules and very little new at all. 

The whole thing is just (like everything else tbh) being farmed for people to weigh in with their oh so inventive 2p about how it will cause accidents and they once heard a story about a cyclist who went through a red light. 

If any of the things in the already overposted diagram cause you to have an accident or kill someone, your driving was the problem, and it was a problem whether these minor rules changes happened or not.

[MikeR]

8 hours ago, Mally said:

I'm deaf, I use an hearing aid, but at times hear very little.

Years ago I had the need to use my son's very expensive car, one of the early hybrids Merc/Bmw? I forget.

Anyway, he said, beware, when the engine stops and electric cuts in it goes quiet. May frighten you at first.

Me...What engine?

As my car has got older , it's got quieter , or my hearing has got worse !!!!  , Helps with the parking , wot was that .... Nothing .!