Reply With QuoteThings change, people need to adapt.
Not surprised that Daily Fail readers will object. Few of ‘em on here sadly.
In case you missed it......
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-drivers.html
can only see this causing more fatalities....time will tell
Things change, people need to adapt.
Not surprised that Daily Fail readers will object. Few of ‘em on here sadly.
Doubt even a third of motorists are aware of the new rules TBH. Should be more widely publicised.
Will only cause more fatalities though if cyclists/pedestrians are aware of the changes.
Have I misunderstood this …… if a car is indicating to turn left , it’s the drivers responsibility to check if cyclist with a death wish is going for the undertake , if so said driver has to wait for the cyclist to complete the manoeuvre before turning left , wtf
Not sure that’s quite the interpretation and read it that they can sit in the middle of the road to make themselves more visible, I’m more worried about the pedestrian aspect tbhOriginally Posted by spanner monkey
A lot of drivers have no clue on the Highway Code, any changes will largely go unnoticed or be followed.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Yes you have misunderstood. But if turning left you will have to give way to pedestrians in cars and on bikes.
Indeed but I don’t understand the pedestrian aspect, seems dangerous to me.
About time, and hopefully the roads will become safer for everyone. As someone who drives, has a full motor bike license and used to race road bicycles and MTB's, and now cycles recreationally it really is a scary place on the roads for a cyclist. I have several close passes per trip, a lot of car drivers are completely out of order and enjoy the security of their two tonne metal boxes. Also, not sure many people read their highway code after they pass their driving test but loads of myths pop up around cycling and the self entitlement of car drivers to own 'their' roads.
I do think over here in N. Ireland we are nowhere near the congestion battles that I see in London via my twitter feed, but a bit of respect from all users would go a long way.
I really don't follow your explanation ?
Seems sensible to me. It just sets out priorities...doesn't mean either party should make assumptions on the other though. To be honest, if there is a pedestrian looking ready to cross and, as a motorist, you don't already anticipate them potentially stepping out, then you are playing a dangerous game anyway. Similarly, it's only idiots on foot that would assume a car is going to stop and purposely step out in front of them...I can imagine two types...one glued to their phone and the other "I'm a hard chav, all traffic yields to me".
Im not disagreeing with you but I fail to see how the new regs will address any of that. I can only see it making it worse where impatient motorist behind will get fed up of a cyclist in the centre of the lane.
You'd have to be a pretty stupid pedestrian to assume that any motorist is going to give way because the highway code says so. I'll always practice self preservation before assuming the highway code is going to help me.
As other have said, I suspect it will be business as usual and most sensible people will exercise due care and attention, while a minority will carry on driving and cycling like utter bell ends.
I find the real problems arise with all the new road layouts and cycle paths in weird places like the one near us on the inside of a 3-bus bus stop, which then suddenly emerges into the road. When the buses are parked up you can't always see the Bradley Wiggins wannabe until he jumps out right on your wing mirror. It's made me start a couple of times but I know to expect it now.
The other thing we have are these Copenhagen crossings where the give way line for cars is set well back from the road, with pedestrian and cycle lane across and in front. This is fine in principle except at some point you have to cross that line to be able to see the road traffic and get out. To do this means blocking cyclists and pedestrians and they invariably just walk/ride in front of the car and onto the road. It can be a minefield trying to work out when to go and who to annoy the least - other drivers, pedestrians or cyclists. I've not hit anyone yet, but come close.
My local council introduced 20mph restrictions on a number of local residential roads previously 30mph. I’m now regularly overtaken which is very dangerous. Point is, unintended consequences where rules are changed with no enforcement and thick drivers. Now less safe.
Sorry. Poorly worded. If you are turning left in your car or on your bike you must give way to a pedestrian.
This. no driver knows what rule 170 is, top of my road is a turning off an A road, the pavement is busy because of shops/homes etc, the corner is obscured by railings/salt bin/illegally parked taxis.
its busy at rush hour as it becomes a rat run for motorists who feel that getting home 30 seconds earlier is more important than anyones safety, i regularly get beeped/shouted/sworn at because i have the temerity to want to cross the road, having a foot on the queens highway while technically giving me a right to cross without impediment is not something the motorist wishes to acknowledge.
a complete and utter waste of time.
Ignorance, entitlement and poor quality driving is a major issue in the uk.
Plus a lot of people really are quite thick.
You need to move to a better area.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
The other thing to realise is many drivers don’t indicate. Making it even harder for a cyclist or pedestrian to know what a driver intends .
Many a time I’ve looked back made eye contact with a driver , verified no indicator and crossed a road only for them to suddenly turn left and barely miss me with barely an acknowledgement. On a couple of times I reckon this was done deliberately.
I was taught to always give way to pedestrians when turning left and to double check for cyclists and motorbikes. And use your indicators.
I can see a lot more ‘cash for crash’ claim opportunities for clued up pedestrians who might want to take advantage.
Cheers..
Jase
If a cyclist is in the middle of the lane, I can no longer overtake whilst providing them a full car width of space whilst I do so. Not been thought through there.
Pedestrian wise, I just see the driver following the car turning left not being prepared for a sudden stop if there is a pedestrian in the road.
I do not read the Daily Mail and I still think the new ‘rules’ are stupid and dangerous
For me, it's a bit like the French "Priorité à Droite" thing in France, where it's the responsibility of the driver on the faster road to yield to the emerging vehicles. Sounds like madness (and arguably has been widely eradicated), but it puts the onus on the faster drivers to reduce their pace and be attentive.
I've long been an advocate of the theory that roads are a lot safer and work a lot better if everyone using them just chilled out a bit. There are a hard core of car drivers, motorcyclists and cyclists that make progress in an entitled way and this change to the highway code won't change that.
As an aside, regarding people becoming aware of the changes, everyone that has passed the test and has a licence is obliged to keep up to date with the highway code. The piece of paper that we sign at the end of the test - when you are paying attention to nothing as you're so excited at passing your test - says on there that you are committing to do so. No-one does of course.
Seems to me that this group of people grows in numbers all of the time.
The only proactive traffic policing that I can see seems to happen in a minimal way on motorways. Most other places its like a free for all - aggressive tailgaiting, no use of indicators etc .
You can make as many rules as you like but if no one enforces them then the only people that benefit are the post incident lawyers and claims companies.
IMO.
Sadly true, arguably some enforcement would achieve more than new rules.
To be fair though pedestrians crossing a non traffic-lighted road near the junction are asking for trouble anyway - best to cross a bit further away from the junction surely to avoid being hit by a car blindly turning into the road. Re the cyclists, makes sense, hopefully they also indicate with their arms to avoid confusion when turning. Most larger cities have dedicated cycle lanes anyway so we should avoid the situation whereby cyclists are on the main road preventing cars from overtaking as that will be where the danger lies (with cars making a very close pass to overtake with just a tiny gap to do so - seen it many times).
Enforcement by police is dead and gone. If and when enforcement happens, it is via road cameras, AI to assess the offence and automatic fine, plus a fee if you want a review.
The system will just spread with more and more cameras until the human driver realises that he can't get away with it, or the car is self driving.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
ALL road-users could do with using a bit more consideration and courtesy to others, coupled with the new guidance being given blanket coverage it should ultimately make the roads safer for all.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
There's quite a long road in Cheltenham where (broadly) the approach in the revised highway code is already in place, where the cycle path/pedestrian walkway is given priority where it crosses a side road and it is clearly marked on the road.
Cars coming off of the main road are required to give way to those on the path and similarly cars approaching the main road are also required to yield.
So few do though that for a pedestrian or cyclist to assert their right of way would be exceptionally foolhardy.
One other thing I've just noticed here
in the non-highlighted bit is that on a cycle track separated from the pedestrians by a white line, the cyclist "MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists". As it's a "must" that means that it's going to be law rather than guidance, so where pedestrians are happily wandering along in the cycle lane, I'll not be allowed to venture across the white line to go round them but will have to slow down or stop and (as the new rule 63 says) ring my bell or by call out politely
Isn't that what you do anyway?
I mean, I learnt that the pedestrian side was considered pavement, or rather than when there was a cycle lane on it that lane was not pavement (probably a language thing) but other than that it seems fairly normal. In other news, a polite "excuse me" and a smile work a lot better than an angry shout with accompanying bell ringing to get pedestrians on the correct side of their white line.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
I see lots of rear enders where the car in front pulls away, realises there is a cyclist there and hits the brakes.
We were in London last week, more cyclists were ignoring traffic lights than obeying them.
In Denmark they have a box for cyclists at traffic lights, a much safer way of doing it.
I think one of the problems here stems from the proliferation of traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings. When I was a kid no 'zebra' crossings as we called them had traffic lights, and so generally car drivers looked out for pedestrians waiting to cross as they approached them.
Now with nearly all of them traffic light controlled that semiautomatic driver alertness has gone. When I do come across the occasional no traffic light crossing as a pedestrian extreme caution (way beyond not jay walking) has to be used, like in your example above. In fact the crossing may aswell not be there, as most cars simply don't stop when you are waiting.
From what i can see the changes are well intended, but i don't see it having a huge impact as most people won't read or understand them.
You can't win though. You ring your bell and some people get angry. I was with my kids the other day and i said "excuse me" to a woman with a dog on an extendable lead. She didn't hear me. So i said it again but a bit louder. And then again. She turned round and said "doesn't that have a bell?" Some people like a friendly shout, some a bell, some get annoyed with either. Shared use paths work for no-one.
Fact is the world is full of arseholes. Some of them drive vans, some cars, some lorries, some buses, some taxis, some cycle and some walk.
What is interesting is that everyone sees at least one arsehole driver a day, but all drivers aren't arseholes. The same courtesy isn't shown to cyclists. Whenever a thread like this comes up thre are always those who cite examples of arseholes on bikes that aren't representative of the whole population.
There is a lot to be said for everyone just chilling out a bit. If it were up to me everyone would be forced to do at least a CBT before getting a car licence too.
Note : Donkey is a car enthusiast, motorbike license holder and cyclist. Probably not an arsehole but then, i guess that's in the eye of the beholder
Last edited by Lazydonkey; 21st December 2021 at 10:36.
Neil Greig, Policy Director, IAM RoadSmart:
"IAM RoadSmart are concerned the new Highway Code will increase conflict on the road rather than reduce it. Informing every road user in the UK about the new rules will be a huge task particularly when most drivers think they are competent and don’t need to refresh their skills.
Getting the communications right will be critical when some cyclists start exercising their new rights to undertake traffic and put themselves at risk.
Vulnerable road users deserve the highest protection from motorised vehicles but simply changing a book no one reads is unlikely to deliver the impact hoped for. In our view investment in segregated facilities remains the best way to encourage people to consider active travel as a real alternative.”
I have to agree with him, although I find his use of the phrase "unlikely to deliver the impact hoped for" a little unfortunate.
Last edited by hogthrob; 21st December 2021 at 10:44.
This is very true - I just wasn't aware of it before - I mistakenly thought that the lanes were guidance, so SHOULD in HC parlance, rather than MUST.
I learn how to ride a motorbike some 13 years after passing my car test. I thought i knew the highway code and it would be simple. I realised just how much i didn't know.
I must have been lucky, unless my grey (turning white) hair, beaming smile and former flanker frame made the right impression
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
aaah thanks, me being thick, age is my excuse :)
theres a new roundabout on the route back from my partners, its a vast improvement as before cyclists had to sit in a little box in the middle of the road that pedestrians also used which was pretty useless, now the roundabout seperates the cyclists and has them cross next to the peds and loop round to turn right.
however the beacon post is to the right of the cyclist with the ped crossing on their left.
what this means is a car on the roundabout going straight across will see you turn left but then immediately right to cross. you are perfectly within your rights to do this but it’s asking to be wiped along the tarmac when a motorist is going straight across the roundabout! they just aren’t going to process all the details in time to work out the priority is with the bike that on an ordinary roundabout would be stopped and looking right to enter the roundabout.
I’m all for it but it only works if the motorist is paying attention which is never going to happen.
its here (sattelite pic shows the old layout)
https://goo.gl/maps/gQsJUG3b6SsBew7cA
I think some elements of the revisions are ill-considered but it is worth reading all the of changes. For example, the cyclist in the middle of the lane should not stay there if there is traffic that needs to pass.
Bring back the Tufty Club and train pedestrians to think and take some responsibility.
If you are giving the cyclist the same room you'd give a car (as you should) then it doesn't matter if they are in the middle of their lane or not. Keep to the right of the white line in the centre and i'd be happy with your overtake.
No, that's not what I'm saying (and neither is the highway code) - what I'm referring to is the slightly misleading picture that every form of media seems to print with the cyclist in the middle of the lane while suggesting that's where they should cycle at all times...the revision to the code doesn't actually say that.
[New] Rule 72 (for cyclists)
Road positioning. When riding on the roads, there are two basic road positions you should adopt, depending on the situation.
1. Ride in the centre of your lane, to make yourself as clearly visible as possible, in the
following situations:
• on quiet roads or streets – if a faster vehicle comes up behind you, move to the left
to enable them to overtake, if you can do so safely
• in slower-moving traffic - when the traffic around you starts to flow more freely
move over to the left if you can do so safely so that faster vehicles behind you can
overtake
• at the approach to junctions or road narrowings where it would be unsafe for
drivers to overtake you
2. When riding on busy roads, with vehicles moving faster than you, allow them to overtake where it is safe to do so whilst keeping at least 0.5 metres away, and further where it is safer, from the kerb edge. Remember that traffic on most dual carriageways moves quickly.
Take extra care crossing slip roads.
Last edited by Stanford; 21st December 2021 at 16:33.
Does the article not say the rules will come into force subject to parliamentary approval?
What are people arguing about?
The crash for cash scammers are going to have a field day.
I'm not sure those revisions challenge the picture the media is painting. The issue is the "typical angry car driver" thinks you shouldn't be allowed to be in the middle of the lane at any time and that's why that picture is put out. Above is stating you can if it's not safe to move to the left.
On my commute i pass a long line of parked cars where there are frequent doors opening, people doing unannounced u-turns and etc etc. On that section of road I ride in the middle of the lane and i don't see anything in the above regs that say i'm not able to do that. It's a 30 mph zone and i'll usually be doing 20ish mph.
As i said above the highway code states bikes should be given as much room as a car. If there isn't room to pass when the cyclist is in the middle of their lane then there isn't enough to safely pass. Doesn't stop people doing it mind you.
That’s a very car centric view demanding segregation. It’s never going to be universally possible so what we need is the ability for road users of all types to get along in a considerate way. Generally this is my experience but sadly there are a few selfish loons that spoil it for the majority.
It seems enforcement has gone so the only real control is the threat of conviction. With the proliferation of dash cams we will see more of that but someone getting fines isn’t much use if you kid had been killed.
Last edited by Montello; 21st December 2021 at 18:43.
So, which of the 'fab3' vulnerable highway users has priority over the other 2? A facetious question obviously, as is my wont.
But seriously, isn't it about time someone looked at separating the various forms of locomotion? After all, cyclists, horses or pedestrians hardly ever get killed on motorways due to not being allowed on them.
It's probably completely daft to even consider such a thing.
The original designers and architects of the road systems could surely never have considered 60 tonne lorries, 30mph road bikers, e scooters, horses, disability/mobility scooters, runners and walkers et al fighting for room on badly maintained but constantly excavated highways.
The only solution is mutual respect and consideration. Segregation isn’t a practical option.
It’s not hard if people can just be nice to each other.
Would be a solution but forlorn hope springs to mind
Posting Permissions
