Walking and biking prioritised in new Highway Code |
Walking and biking prioritised in new Highway Code |
Sat, 31 Jul 2021 - 15:35
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
New changes to the Highway Code will give pedestrians greater priority over cars at junctions and crossings, the transport secretary has announced.
Under the current code, motorists only have to give way when pedestrians step onto a crossing. The new code will also ensure cyclists have priority when travelling straight ahead at junctions. And a "hierarchy of road users" puts more responsibility for road safety on more dangerous modes of transport. The Department of Transport said the changes, along with a £338 million funding package to boost cycling and walking, will help to sustain the increase in active travel during the pandemic. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58021450 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 31 Jul 2021 - 15:35
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 31 Jul 2021 - 16:07
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Under the current code, motorists only have to give way when pedestrians step onto a crossing. Are they talking about zebra crossings? I’m not aware of the law changing. I can see more arguments that a motorist is automatically at fault in a collision with a pedestrian or cyclist. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sat, 31 Jul 2021 - 16:15
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Under the current code, motorists only have to give way when pedestrians step onto a crossing. Are they talking about zebra crossings? I’m not aware of the law changing. I can see more arguments that a motorist is automatically at fault in a collision with a pedestrian or cyclist. It looks to me like they are just writing down what is common sense for most of anyway, such as when turning left let cyclists on the inside go ahead (instead of striking them down!) and giving way to people crossing in places such as junctions and maybe speed humps etc (which in 20mph zones is standard behaviour round my way among most decent motorists). The new code hasn't been published yet it seems. |
|
|
Sat, 31 Jul 2021 - 16:18
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
I've not seen yet where some common groups are:-
Mobile Phone zombies who step out without looking. Schoolkids who have to walk 6 abreast, often with two in the carriageway. Cyclists who jump red lights. Delivery riders who turn across traffic without looking There are many more..... I have always been taught that safety on the road comes down to me, that I have no express rights, only rules I should follow. Like stopping at junctions (or at least slowing down and looking) Like Stop, Look and Listen when crossing a road. Like clear signals and obey the rules of the road on my Cycling Proficiency Test. And now the pirrocks will be able to point to the Highway Code and say "I was in the right!" Darwin was right but we keep protecting the twassocks that natural selection would cull. |
|
|
Sat, 31 Jul 2021 - 16:29
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Darwin was right but we keep protecting the twassocks that natural selection would cull. How does changing the priorities change that? It also most certainly doesn’t excuse jumping lights. You seem to be reading into it what you want to read into it instead of what it actually says? -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Sun, 1 Aug 2021 - 10:46
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Darwin was right but we keep protecting the twassocks that natural selection would cull. How does changing the priorities change that? It also most certainly doesn’t excuse jumping lights. You seem to be reading into it what you want to read into it instead of what it actually says? I've read the proposals and the published results of the consultations.... can't read what it actually says yet as it has not been published. Take one aspect, that drivers should give way to pedestrians crossing at a junction. Inherently a good driver does that anyway, if the pedestrian is already crossing. However the new rules seem to be saying that if a pedestrian is waiting to cross, the driver ought to give way. Which to me is reducing the onus on pedestrians to keep themselves safe and to apply safe practices when crossing. And likely to lead to an increase in insurance claims with the balance of fault now automatically against the driver, doesn't matter that some twassock jut steps out without looking, driver should have known and stopped. |
|
|
Sun, 1 Aug 2021 - 11:16
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
Case law already places a higher duty of care on road users with a greater potential for causing harm - drivers are required to be alert to the possibility that pedestrians who have no interest in looking after their own safety step out in front of them without looking. Personally, I think that that is totally fair, provided that both parties are on the pavement.
If the highway code merely expresses what the law already says, then it is essentially a non-issue. However if it changes priorities so that vulnerable road users are entitled to cut up less vulnerable road users, somebody needs punching in the face, repeatedly. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Sun, 1 Aug 2021 - 13:53
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
...somebody needs punching in the face, repeatedly. There are a few issues with that, starting with The Statute of Marlborough 1267. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 1 Aug 2021 - 19:56
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,300 Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,602 |
And now the pirrocks will be able to point to the Highway Code and say "I was in the right!" The current version of the HC says "The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance ...". I haven't (yet) seen any suggestion that that will change. |
|
|
Sun, 1 Aug 2021 - 21:27
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
The Highway Code says a lot of things which are somewhere between vague and utter bollox.
That phrase appears to have unilaterally defined "right of way" as an absolute right to plough on regardless (which does not exist), presumably renaming the rational meaning of "right of way" as "priority" or somesuch. Careless driving is often assessed with reference to the rules of the Highway Code, as is accident liability. Otherwise the rules of the Highway Code (other than the "must" rules which (in theory at least) reflect legislation) would be no more than a set of suggestions. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Sun, 1 Aug 2021 - 22:50
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Not to mention the reference to restricted roads, which is vague as f**k. The actual rules are quite simple so I don't understand why they don't just have a paragraph to spell it out.
This post has been edited by cp8759: Sun, 1 Aug 2021 - 22:51 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 2 Aug 2021 - 12:10
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 488 Joined: 1 Jun 2021 Member No.: 112,875 |
Interesting though that most people who read the changes and responded to the consultation did approve of them. Most of the detail in the objections seems to have been around specific wording or the risks that it could encourage dangerous behaviour. They claim to be adjusting the wording around these.
There seems some confusion about what the changes are. Take Zebra Crossings as an example. The law is that you must give way if a pedestrian is on the crossing. So if you are approaching then you need to slow down so you can give way if a pedestrian starts to cross. The update just makes it clear that you should do this. In the pedestrian section it states that the pedestrian should wait until the traffic both ways has stopped before starting to cross. With the old code the pedestrian would never start to cross because the traffic wasn't advised to stop. Now the driver should stop and pedestrian can cross. If a pedestrian runs into the crossing without looking and is hit then the pedestrian will still be at fault because they will have not followed the code and the driver will have. |
|
|
Sun, 8 Aug 2021 - 22:25
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
If a pedestrian runs into the crossing without looking and is hit then the pedestrian will still be at fault because they will have not followed the code and the driver will have. The pedestrian may be at "fault" in the sense of being a silly sod and ending up in hospital. But I assume the driver's insurance would pay as in the end they were the ones who contravened legislation, rather than HC guidance. Back in the real world unless some muppet has parked on zig-zags there should be enough visibility at crossings so that you see someone running towards the crossing and stop anyway, unless you are driving on the same road as a coked up Usain Bolt. If you are a new driver or are rubbish at driving you should slow down at all zebra crossings to allow you sufficient time to stop. |
|
|
Mon, 9 Aug 2021 - 11:06
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
If a pedestrian runs into the crossing without looking and is hit then the pedestrian will still be at fault because they will have not followed the code and the driver will have. The pedestrian may be at "fault" in the sense of being a silly sod and ending up in hospital. But I assume the driver's insurance would pay as in the end they were the ones who contravened legislation, rather than HC guidance. Back in the real world unless some muppet has parked on zig-zags there should be enough visibility at crossings so that you see someone running towards the crossing and stop anyway, unless you are driving on the same road as a coked up Usain Bolt. If you are a new driver or are rubbish at driving you should slow down at all zebra crossings to allow you sufficient time to stop. Rules have not changed at crossings AFAIK. If I see someone waiting at a Zebra crossing I give way, stop. That has always been the case. I don't slow down for every zebra just in case but I do look. If someone is running along the footway, I tend to be careful, especially if a kid as they tend to be more unpredictable but there are usually signs, veering towards kerb, looking over their shoulder etc. But I don't see that I should be penalised as a driver cos Usain Bolt shoots across the footway onto a crossing and gives me no chance. As a new driver, I was driving along a local high street, drizzle so roads were wet, under the speed limit but not by much. Saw a pair of cops walking towards a crossing so I hit the anchors. Too hard, gracefully slid across the crossing with all 4 locked up. Pair of cops shaking their heads as they watched me slide by. Nothing came of it but it was a lesson to learn, sometimes you can be too keen to do the right thing. |
|
|
Mon, 9 Aug 2021 - 12:50
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,300 Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,602 |
If a pedestrian runs into the crossing without looking and is hit then the pedestrian will still be at fault because they will have not followed the code and the driver will have. The pedestrian may be at "fault" in the sense of being a silly sod and ending up in hospital. But I assume the driver's insurance would pay as in the end they were the ones who contravened legislation, rather than HC guidance. Back in the real world unless some muppet has parked on zig-zags there should be enough visibility at crossings so that you see someone running towards the crossing and stop anyway, unless you are driving on the same road as a coked up Usain Bolt. If you are a new driver or are rubbish at driving you should slow down at all zebra crossings to allow you sufficient time to stop. Rules have not changed at crossings AFAIK. If I see someone waiting at a Zebra crossing I give way, stop. That has always been the case. What you describe is sensible, but it is NOT what the rules say. "As you approach a zebra crossing - look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross - you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing - allow more time for stopping on wet or icy roads - do not wave or use your horn to invite pedestrians across; this could be dangerous if another vehicle is approaching - be aware of pedestrians approaching from the side of the crossing." [Rule 195] |
|
|
Mon, 9 Aug 2021 - 23:30
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
But I don't see that I should be penalised as a driver cos Usain Bolt shoots across the footway onto a crossing and gives me no chance. So basically you look out for people running because they might be about to use the crossing, but you shouldn't be penalised if you hit one because you didn't anticipate that the runner would be running? Whether or not you think it is fair of course you would be penalised because you broke the law. Either you go slowly enough to ensure you don't break the law, or you accept you will get a penalty if you are caught out. In reality the stopping distance at 30mph in the HC clapped out car is 23 metres - less than two seconds of travel time at 30mph. Back in the real world in a decent car will be quicker than that. So the runner would have to go from appearing not to be crossing to being on the crossing in less than two seconds in a 30mph zone. Just doesn't happen. What does happen is pedestrians "coming out of nowhere" and "gave me no chance to stop" by drivers who didn't look properly. This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Mon, 9 Aug 2021 - 23:31 |
|
|
Tue, 10 Aug 2021 - 06:29
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
What does happen is pedestrians "coming out of nowhere" and "gave me no chance to stop" by drivers who didn't look properly. Sadly that really does happen. I went to a fatal accident where the driver was blameless - absolutely nothing they could have done to avoid it. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Tue, 10 Aug 2021 - 08:24
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 72 Joined: 14 Sep 2010 Member No.: 40,521 |
What does happen is pedestrians "coming out of nowhere" and "gave me no chance to stop" by drivers who didn't look properly. Sadly that really does happen. I went to a fatal accident where the driver was blameless - absolutely nothing they could have done to avoid it. It really does. Even if you slow down because someone might cross, if a pedestrian walking perpendicular to the crossing, without giving any indication that they may cross such as by turning their head to assess what's on the road behind them, decides to step straight out, a driver may have reached the point of no return where they can't stop before the crossing. |
|
|
Wed, 11 Aug 2021 - 02:09
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
It really does. Even if you slow down because someone might cross, if a pedestrian walking perpendicular to the crossing, without giving any indication that they may cross such as by turning their head to assess what's on the road behind them, decides to step straight out, a driver may have reached the point of no return where they can't stop before the crossing. Except the law doesn't mention "turning their heads". The law is that if they are on the crossing, they you must have stopped. I may be in a crazy, tiny minority but if there is a busy pavement with pedestrians walking immediately alongside a zebra crossing, I slow down. To 10mph if needed. On a purely selfish point I would rather add 20 seconds to my journey then deal with an insurance claim. I would never sail through at 30mph relying on someone turning their head. Obviously st 3am in the morning with no-one around you can proceed at 30mph. Just need to get away from the lazy idea most of my peers seem to have is that the speed limit is the safe speed to drive, rather than the maximum speed you can drive. Not helped by the council plastering roads with 50mph limits because there are a couple of bends you need to take at 50mph. |
|
|
Wed, 11 Aug 2021 - 11:12
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
I may be in a crazy, tiny minority but if there is a busy pavement with pedestrians walking immediately alongside a zebra crossing, I slow down. To 10mph if needed. That's what I do. I assume anyone walking near a crossing will want to cross. About the only situation you can't anticipate is where there is a blind passageway right by the crossing and you can't see if someone is running out. Some crossings on wide roads don't have islands, which is very poor and often means drivers go across when people are on the crossing. Not me because I slow down and look. Another scenario is where there is queuing traffic coming the other way and you can't see if someone is on or about to be on the crossing. A lot of drivers simply don't bother slowing and looking. This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 - 11:13 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 11:41 |