Know your place. The new hierarchy of road users.

[Janos]

Highway code gets updated shortly.
Roads users hierarchy is now as follows:

1. Pedestrians

2. Cyclists

3. Horse riders

4. Motorcyclists

5. Cars/taxis

6. Vans/minibuses

7. HGV's.

Takes effect Saturday. Also, new rules allow cyclists to take their own initiative. They can cycle in the middle of the road if it feels safer, and two abreast if they like, and there is no obligation to use a cycle lane either.

Is it not ironic that these new rules will be shoved down our throats by Highway Code book waving lycra clad [zb]s. This is from somebody who cycles too! I just hate the smug sense of entitlement some cyclists have. This latest move will make them even worse. Only somebody who drives a HGV for work purposes knows how irritating and dangerous it is driving whilst these people bob and weave around your truck.
What about our health and safety..and sanity?

[ringfur]

SMILES
I am a robot

[sweepster]

I believe you should always give the more vulnerable road users priority, no matter how much of an idiot a minority are.
I am four of the categories out of that list. Pedestrian, Motorcyclist, Car and HGV.

[Buckstones]

I would not be surprised to see an increase in cyclist injuries and deaths.
Many of them have no common sense or instinct for self preservation now, this idea will give them a feeling of invulnerability.
Some will have a rude and painful awakening to the laws of physics and realities of reaction time when asserting their new Highway Code right to pull in front of other traffic

Or am I being pessimistic?.

[Juddian]

Or am I being pessimistic?.

Far from it, being in the right whilst in traction or in a mortuary fridge would be some sort of victory one supposes.

We have to remember the people who make the rules up have little or no idea of the realities of life for us plebs, what's an ideal in Islington 'working' from home for an hour or two wishing that work didn't interfere with your social life is a far cry from the realities of people actually grafting all their lives in the world of industry.

In the wise words of Alf Bradshaw, 'and another bus went past'.

[Monkey241]

I can see what these changes are meant to do, but they will likely have the opposite effect.
A good place to start would be in educating cyclists just how vulnerable they are, and how they can best protect themselves.
I think this will lead to more accidents - but the HGV will bear the brunt of the blame.

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

[the maoster]

I often visit sites that have somewhere in them a full length mirror with a caption on it that reads “this person is responsible for your safety”. Succinct, to the point but sadly ignored by many.

[Conor]

Even more reason to make sure you've got a dashcam now to be fair. We now live in a society where it's everyone elses job to be responsible for you, not your own, where if something happens due to your own actiions it wasn't your fault but the fault of the person who didn't prevent you from being able to do it or read your mind so they could pre-empt and account for the stupid you were going to do.

[Winseer]

Does this mean that if a pedestrian pulls a cyclist off their bike, they are now no longer arrested?
...And if a Cyclist runs under an artic's wheels, the cyclist doesn't then get arrested if the trucker then dies of a heart attack?

I await the inevitable legal arguments in court

"My brudder's car (actually a transit van) had priority over that cyclist towing that small trailer, whom I've just killed"

[ezydriver]

What if a pedal rickshaw was involved in a prang with an Uber all because a horse-drawn hearse cut them up (but got away unscathed)?

I suppose the nearest HGV driver would go for tea and biscuits with a TC for not preventing it.

[Uncleskid]

Next update they’ll move e scooters up the list, especially if they ride them at night with no lights and dressed in black

[M65Chris]

I've always given cyclists a wide berth. Not particularly out of courtesy but on the assumption they are complete and utter morons with a death wish.

I don't want them on my conscience.

[merc0447]

None of the new rules or the hierarchy particular bother me, expect the new pedestrian one about giving way at a junction. I really do think this one is a minefield and will lead to rear end accidents, confusion and even possibly people getting knocked down.

[Carryfast]

I believe you should always give the more vulnerable road users priority, no matter how much of an idiot a minority are.
I am four of the categories out of that list. Pedestrian, Motorcyclist, Car and HGV.

So as a pedestrian anyone can just walk out in front of a cyclist and it's the cyclists responsibility to avoid the collision.Also a collision between a cyclist ignoring a red light or give way line colliding with a motorcyclist will be just as bad for both.
This is the type of road rules expected in Venezuela.

[Carryfast]

I believe you should always give the more vulnerable road users priority, no matter how much of an idiot a minority are.
I am four of the categories out of that list. Pedestrian, Motorcyclist, Car and HGV.

So as a pedestrian anyone can just walk out in front of a cyclist and it's the cyclists responsibility to avoid the collision.Also a collision between a cyclist ignoring a red light or give way line colliding with a motorcyclist will be just as bad for both.
This is the type of road rules expected in Venezuela.

[stu675]

When I was learning to drive a car 30 odd years ago, I was asked, when do pedestrians have priority. The answer was always.

[toonsy]

I get the theory behind it but its a fundamental change to everything that is current and long standing. Ignore cyclists for a bit and focus on pedestrians. I can see many rear end shunts as drivers stop to let a pedestrian across but the car behind doesn't twig and I can also see many instances where a drivers stops and the pedestrian doesn't know.

How many near misses have you seen where a driver has let someone cross but the vehicle in the outside lane or going the opposite way doesn't read the situation. I seen one just this weekend in fairness.

Moving onto cyclists.... I can obviously see that cyclists will always stop to allow for pedestrians to cross...

[eagerbeaver]

If we had all listened at school, none of this would be a problem.

[cooper1203]

all this reminds me of a film i saw years ago where a guy gets put into a cryogenic pod and wakes up to a world where everyone is stupid. we are getting closer and closer to it happening more an more rules to protect the dim.

Im not saying we should go back to the old days with the village idiot with a bell around his neck but making it so that the muppet crossing a busy road that cant be bothered or hasnt the intelegence to remove his eyes from his mobile for 5 secs to see if its clear to cross is a step too far.

[ERF-NGC-European]

When I was learning to drive a car 30 odd years ago, I was asked, when do pedestrians have priority. The answer was always.

Absolutely. It was the same when I passed my test 53 years ago. It's probably been in the Highway Code since 1925. I can't understand why the Media keep flagging it up as a 'new rule'. When pedestrians are already (or about to) crossing the road at a road junction you must give way if you are driving.

[Carryfast]

When I was learning to drive a car 30 odd years ago, I was asked, when do pedestrians have priority. The answer was always.

Absolutely. It was the same when I passed my test 53 years ago. It's probably been in the Highway Code since 1925. I can't understand why the Media keep flagging it up as a 'new rule'. When pedestrians are already (or about to) crossing the road at a road junction you must give way if you are driving.

The Green Cross Code campaign says otherwise.I was nearly run over as child running across the road in front of a car in what is now a 20 mph limit but when 30 was regarded as too slow by most.
My Dad saw it and apologised to the shaken driver and thanked him for managing to stop in time.

[ERF-NGC-European]

When I was learning to drive a car 30 odd years ago, I was asked, when do pedestrians have priority. The answer was always.

Absolutely. It was the same when I passed my test 53 years ago. It's probably been in the Highway Code since 1925. I can't understand why the Media keep flagging it up as a 'new rule'. When pedestrians are already (or about to) crossing the road at a road junction you must give way if you are driving.

The Green Cross Code campaign says otherwise.I was nearly run over as child running across the road in front of a car in what is now a 20 mph limit but when 30 was regarded as too slow by most.
My Dad saw it and apologised to the shaken driver and thanked him for managing to stop in time.

The Green Cross Code does not say otherwise. Firstly, it didn't come out till the '70s and secondly it was aimed entirely at educating children crossing the road, not at legislating for drivers

[whisperingsmith]

The Guardian has a useful piece on the changes:-

Common myths about what UK Highway Code changes will mean
Cyclists won’t be ‘in the middle of the road’ and there is no new rule on riding two abreast.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/24/common-myths-about-what-uk-highway-code-changes-will-mean

[ROG]

Give way to pedestrians who might want to cross the road

So .... You intend to turn into a side road but someone on their phone etc is near the kerb edge and the new HC says wait for them to cross BUT they are quite happy to talk on their phone for longer before crossing - how is a driver supposed to know that?

[ERF-NGC-European]

Give way to pedestrians who might want to cross the road

So .... You intend to turn into a side road but someone on their phone etc is near the kerb edge and the new HC says wait for them to cross BUT they are quite happy to talk on their phone for longer before crossing - how is a driver supposed to know that?

It sounds like a classic 'be ready to stop and prepared to go' scenario like the amber light situation or covering the footbrake as you approach minor crossroads. The same obtains at a zebra crossing: if they're chatting and not paying attention or facing the wrong way you drop another gear and creep across with full observation and anticipation.

[stu675]

I .

How many near misses have you seen where a driver has let someone cross but the vehicle in the outside lane or going the opposite way doesn't read the situation. I seen one just this weekend in fairness.
l:

Going along a straight road you should never let someone cross. Just don't hit them if they have decided to cross, everything is still their responsibility.

The new rule where they have priority at a junction = it's a junction so you shouldn't have the outside lane or opposite direction problem.

[Carryfast]

When I was learning to drive a car 30 odd years ago, I was asked, when do pedestrians have priority. The answer was always.

Absolutely. It was the same when I passed my test 53 years ago. It's probably been in the Highway Code since 1925. I can't understand why the Media keep flagging it up as a 'new rule'. When pedestrians are already (or about to) crossing the road at a road junction you must give way if you are driving.

The Green Cross Code campaign says otherwise.I was nearly run over as child running across the road in front of a car in what is now a 20 mph limit but when 30 was regarded as too slow by most.
My Dad saw it and apologised to the shaken driver and thanked him for managing to stop in time.

The Green Cross Code does not say otherwise. Firstly, it didn't come out till the '70s and secondly it was aimed entirely at educating children crossing the road, not at legislating for drivers

Stop, look both ways before starting to cross and while crossing.Treat roads with traffic islands as two seperate roads.
The definition of pelican crossings and zebra crossings is all the antithesis of 'priority' to pedestrians.
If pedestrians supposedly have priority what are they stopping for and why bother with pelican and zebra crossings .The idea of 'priority' to most vulnerable road users is a satanic idiocy worse than removing hard shoulders on motorways and which can only end in tears.

[BE5T D4D]

Nothing like seeing a MAMIL riding his £1000 pushbike (with no helmet) going through a red light and giving me the finger for beeping at him

He was clearly a special kind of ****er!

[driveress]

it's a junction so you shouldn't have the outside lane or opposite direction problem

Not the outside lane no, but surely you do have the opposite direction problem. A pedestrian crossing at a junction would still have to check for traffic coming from two other directions in order to cross the whole junction safely.

***ok, I’ve just actually read it and the key words are “turning into” when I had assumed “turning out of”, so ignore the above.

[Janos]

The Guardian has a useful piece on the changes:-

Common myths about what UK Highway Code changes will mean
Cyclists won’t be ‘in the middle of the road’ and there is no new rule on riding two abreast.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/24/common-myths-about-what-uk-highway-code-changes-will-mean

Reading this confirms my belief there is an ideological slant to the changes.
The changes have come after intense lobbying by cycling organisations.
The rule to ride two abreast, where it is safe to do so has always existed, but now it is being pushed front and centre as a means to controlling the traffic behind. Allowing vehicles to overtake only when the cyclists deem it safe.
This is a recipe for disaster. How many motorists or truck drivers are prepared to be patronised like this?
Where is our representation when the code is revised? At the very least we should insist that if there is a cycle lane, then it must be used.