View Full Version : Highway Code changes
From Jan 29th car drivers (and bikers) must yield to cyclists who must yield to pedestrians at junctions.
As a pedestrian, if you're waiting to cross a road at a junction then a car or bicycle must wait for you to cross even if you haven't started to cross. The old rule was that they only had to yield if you were already on the road (not that anyone did).
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/latest-changes-highway-code-could-145953418.html
This was (widely) publicised earlier in the year - I never saw it and, reading the article, I am not alone. This should make life fun for city folk.
Sir Trev
18-12-21, 12:22 PM
I can foresee a right mess and court action arising from this. Already-militant pedestrians (and mobile phone zombies) will be claiming for fictitious injury and "hurt feelings" if we as road users do not magically guess what they're about to do. This effectively gives pedestrians the belief that they don't have to have any duty of care for others they may impact by acting selfishly or stupidly. I'm not saying the current system is perfect but expecting a line of traffic to miss an entire traffic light phase because one belligerent pedestrian insists on crossing a road without waiting for a sensible gap is not necessary.
I was taught common sense pedestrian manners while still in pre-school half a century ago (anyone else remember Tufty and the Green Cross Giant?) and similar at primary school when the local police seargent did a cycling proficiency course for us. It worked just fine and I still use the lessons I learned back then. Just because people today are too stupid or selfish to care about anyone else and cannot look further than their own shoes/screen does not mean the rules need to change. Putting more Rozzers on the streets to enforce the existing and perfectly adequate rules would be a LOT more sensible than demonising drivers/riders of powered vehicles.
[/RANT]
I can foresee a right mess and court action arising from this.
I see problems too but mainly because many people will be unaware of the change. Similar rules are used in the US and even in parking lots the pedestrian has right of way over a vehicle.
its all to do with not having to put lights up which = less spending.
pedestrians have right of way pretty much everywhere already as they dont have to abide by the "code". someone i know got his licence taken away for 6 months due to someone walking out at the back of his van (blind spot) and he ran them over in a car park.
Craig380
18-12-21, 05:12 PM
One of the biggest issues will be vehicles turning left off a major road onto a side-road. The new law shifts the onus onto the vehicle to stop and give way to any pedestrians - which means the turning vehicle is a LOT more likely to get shunted from behind by drivers assuming they're going to make the turn.
ToryBlaker
03-01-22, 07:59 AM
I can foresee a right mess and court action arising from this. Already-militant pedestrians (and mobile phone zombies) will be claiming for fictitious injury and "hurt feelings" if we as road users do not magically guess what they're about to do. This effectively gives pedestrians the belief that they don't have to have any duty of care for others they may impact by acting selfishly or stupidly. I'm not saying the current system is perfect but expecting a line of traffic to miss an entire traffic light phase because one belligerent pedestrian insists on crossing a road without waiting for a sensible gap is not necessary.
I was taught common sense pedestrian manners while still in pre-school half a century ago (anyone else remember Tufty and the Green Cross Giant?) and similar at primary school when the local police seargent did a cycling proficiency course for us. It worked just fine and I still use the lessons I learned back then. Just because people today are too stupid or selfish to care about anyone else and cannot look further than their own shoes/screen does not mean the rules need to change. Putting more Rozzers on the streets to enforce the existing and perfectly adequate rules would be a LOT more sensible than demonising drivers/riders of powered vehicles.
[/RANT]
I totally agree with you on that, most accidents where a motorist runs over a pedestrian are mostly caused by careless pedestrians unlike the popular believe that it's the motorist at fault.
Thankfully, I'd heard about the new rules (due to channels to do with other two-wheel interests) although I didn't recall the implementation date.
I share the strong concern about confusion, that I suspect could lead to more accidents and 'intense situations' due to varied understanding and interpretation, somewhat counter-productive. After an accident is not the best time to figure out the rights and wrongs of any situation.
As far as I can ascertain, it's not universally being received with celebration anywhere. For example, there are many in the cycling community who are equally unhappy about the proposals. There's already enough conflict between types of road user so prioritising entitlement by that sort of categorisation is not going to help with that.
My opinion is pretty much aligned with Sir Trev's 'rant': Wrong answer to the right problem IMHO.:smt017
screen bathers, junkies and ambulance chasers are going to love this new law.
svenrico
07-01-22, 09:02 PM
One of the biggest issues will be vehicles turning left off a major road onto a side-road. The new law shifts the onus onto the vehicle to stop and give way to any pedestrians - which means the turning vehicle is a LOT more likely to get shunted from behind by drivers assuming they're going to make the turn.
Quite agree. It's asking for an accident. As a pedestrian I would always wait for a vehicle turning left off a main road and not expect them to stop for me.
Adam Ef
07-01-22, 09:22 PM
It's been in the Highway Code for years that you give way if you turn into a road that someone is already crossing on foot. In practice, no one has paid any attention to it. The more dangerous presence always gets priority on our selfish roads. Same as when HGVs decide they want priority coming onto a roundabout in front of me on the (motor)bike. Happened loads of times and you put the brakes on even though you know you have priority as you know you'd lose, or at least be arguing about it from a hospital bed.
It's been in the Highway Code for years that you give way if you turn into a road that someone is already crossing on foot. ...
Yes, except previously there was always a reasonable expectation that the 'someone' would have been expected to look and check that there was nothing coming before stepping into the road and taking the right of way. After this change there is no need any more (in law at least) - just step out, it's fine, if they hit you it's automatically their fault.
... The more dangerous presence always gets priority on our selfish roads. Same as when HGVs decide they want priority coming onto a roundabout in front of me on the (motor)bike. Happened loads of times and you put the brakes on even though you know you have priority as you know you'd lose, or at least be arguing about it from a hospital bed.
Generally true, I agree, and disappointing of course. But now the ability to 'argue' about the nuance of any actual incident will be much more limited. Type of road user could be taking precedence over behaviour of that road user. This rule change has taken away some personal responsibility from some road users and placed extra, challenging burden on others. I can see it from many perspectives but I'm not yet sure it's definitely a good change. Time will tell.
Biker Biggles
08-01-22, 06:55 PM
This is part of a general trend towards making the powered vehicle automatically liable for any collision and its financial consequences. That way cyclists and pedestrians will always get paid out by the insurance company rather than have to rely on the state for compo and medical bills. Insurance premiums will continue to rise accordingly.
svenrico
09-01-22, 12:33 AM
Hopefully most pedestrians will have the common sense to not step out in front of a moving vehicle (but don't bet on it !)
...(but don't bet on it !)
Indeed!
Luckypants
10-01-22, 08:57 AM
Time to buy a dashcam.
keith_d
10-01-22, 09:25 AM
Time to buy a dashcam.
Dashcam already installed in the car after watching a few 'crash for cash' programs.
Small memory card installed in case it gets siezed at some point. I don't want some deskbound PCSO going through it looking at how many speeding offenses I committed in the last 12 months of video.
I learned to drive a loong time ago, and even then I was told to give way to pedestrians when turning in to a minor road. So nothing new really. Just creating laws to publicise a problem with stupid pedestrians.
Adam Ef
10-01-22, 11:10 AM
Has anyone ever been hit by a car? I wouldn't advise it. I had two months of being unable to breath anything above a very shallow breath without severe pain, smashed up arms and eventually found out it also caused me a year of PTSD. Still haunts me now. That was a failry slow hit too. Still enough to throw me 30m down the road head over heals. If anyone's thinking of doing it to get compensation I really wouldn't advise it.
As mentioned a very similar law was already in place but widely ignored. The new changes seem to be to try and make people aware / pay attention to it.
More kind, considerate and patient use of our roads would make all our time using them a lot better. It's a pity we need laws to make people care about each other.
Sir Trev
10-01-22, 06:25 PM
. It's a pity we need laws to make people care about each other.
So true and so sad.
Like Mr D I now have a dashcam in the car and already have a saved clip of a food delivery moped rider getting fed up of filtering so took to the pavement to avoid the queue...
daktulos
10-01-22, 09:36 PM
Late to the discussion, I know ... I don't have a problem with giving way to pedestrians when turning left, but the rule also covers turning right across another lane of traffic. There's one near us where it's hard enough to cross the traffic, without taking pedestrians into account.
You'd either have to wait an eternity to cross or put yourself in danger by going half way and blocking traffic in the other direction while waiting for the pedestrians to clear.
More kind, considerate and patient use of our roads would make all our time using them a lot better. It's a pity we need laws to make people care about each other.
i agree to some extent about being considerate/patient, however people need to be aware of how their driving affects others on the road. The volume of incompetent driving is getting worse - i'm pretty sure most people around here actually have their Speedometer in KM/H the way they drive . . . .
- Vehicles driving along roads far too slowly (eg 40mph in a 60/30 in a 50) causing a back up of traffic - these are on roads where the speed is clearly signposted, and the road is safe to do that speed (good visibility, lack of junctions etc).
- Lack of planning ahead/being in the correct lane ahead of time. EG If you're going to turn right at the roundabout in 100 yards, at the traffic lights get into the right hand lane . . . . don't go into the left lane and try to cut across in the last 20 yards.
keith_d
12-01-22, 09:01 AM
- Lack of planning ahead/being in the correct lane ahead of time. EG If you're going to turn right at the roundabout in 100 yards, at the traffic lights get into the right hand lane . . . . don't go into the left lane and try to cut across in the last 20 yards.
I think you'll find that in the new highway code, "Get in lane early" has been replaced with "Drive like a **** and push in at the front of the queue every time. Then get really p1$$y when nobody will let you in."
I think you'll find that in the new highway code, "Get in lane early" has been replaced with "Drive like a **** and push in at the front of the queue every time. Then get really p1$$y when nobody will let you in."
That's been happening for years - more so since the rise of the SUV . . . . .
Sir Trev
12-01-22, 07:25 PM
... more so since the rise of the SUV . . . . .
I cannot see the attraction, except maybe the slightly elevated driving position. Bigger and heavier so in theory less efficient, uses more resources to make so less sustainable and, in my opinion, they're vulgar "look at me, I can't afford this but I've taken out a PCP deal" statements for people who love to follow trends.
The elevated driving position & the big mirrors would be great, for drivers who utilise them to their advantage. However, it is simply a fashion statement for those who buy them. Most are a reverse Tardis - giant on the outside, and very little room on the inside as a trade off. Lose-Lose. Well worth 10k a year on PCP :D
daktulos
12-01-22, 10:00 PM
I cannot see the attraction, except maybe the slightly elevated driving position. Bigger and heavier so in theory less efficient, uses more resources to make so less sustainable and, in my opinion, they're vulgar "look at me, I can't afford this but I've taken out a PCP deal" statements for people who love to follow trends.
I used to own (many years ago) a Toyota RAV4, the old three-door version which had a tiny boot - but with the back seats down had enough space. I used to dive at the time, and being able to load equipment in flat (there was no lip to the boot) was really useful.
Being four-wheel drive and having large tyres made such a difference in bad weather. The first time it snowed heavily after selling it was a major shock.
The higher driving position was nice, but really no big thing.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.