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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ironically amber means stop just like the situation at a zebra crossing if anyone is waiting to cross.It doesn’t matter if they delay you are still supposed to wait.
Ths rule clearly creates a situation of approaching a zebra crossing everywhere so what’s the point of them when the same rule now applies everywhere.
Pedestrians are already asserting that priority and not bothering to use pelican crossings and zebra crossings.Why wouldn’t they and why would they want to walk to a crossing point.It also makes central pedestrian refuges pointless because now they expect traffic to stop for them in both directions and not waiting in the refuge.
The truth is vulnerable road users are deliberately being put in danger with the clear intention of disincentivising vehicle use by criminalising drivers.
Can just see it now,in a town centre at rush hour and want to turn right, there’s a constant stream of people crossing said road I want to turn into, after a few mins of waiting for no one crossing (which doesn’t happen) all the horns start going, ,do I say bollox to I’ll get in bed till 10 o’clock till the pedestrians have calmed down
nedbro:
Can just see it now,in a town centre at rush hour and want to turn right, there’s a constant stream of people crossing said road I want to turn into, after a few mins of waiting for no one crossing (which doesn’t happen) all the horns start going, ,do I say bollox to I’ll get in bed till 10 o’clock till the pedestrians have calmed down
There have always been rules regarding giving way to pedestrians and traffic on a road that you are turning into.
But like all the rest this is taking common sense rules to the extreme based on a rotally different anti vehicle use agenda that’s all about disincentivising such use.
Horses are still at the top of my list of priorities, they are unfairly named dumb animals but have more rights to be on the highways and byways of the land.
The Darwin Awards and Natural Selection is more applicable to Pedestrians and Cyclists.
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.
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.
As far as I’m aware pedestrians have always had a right of way. If you’re about to turn into a side road and a pedestrian starts to cross that side road, it’s your responsibility to slow down or stop to let them cross. Has this not always been the case?
If you have a gang of young kids messing about on the pavement, it’s instinct to slow right down until you’ve passed them.
The amount of times I’ve seen idiots revving their engines, beeping and moving towards a pedestrian who has got half way across the road when the lights at the crossing have turned to green is embarrassing. Just because a traffic light turns to green, it doesn’t mean you have a right to go.
If a cyclist jumps a red light and gets hit, I’m sure it will be 100% their fault if the vehicle who they collided with tried everything they could to avoid the collision. If I’m wrong, please show me otherwise.
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.
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.
As far as I’m aware pedestrians have always had a right of way. If you’re about to turn into a side road and a pedestrian starts to cross that side road, it’s your responsibility to slow down or stop to let them cross. Has this not always been the case?
If you have a gang of young kids messing about on the pavement, it’s instinct to slow right down until you’ve passed them.
The amount of times I’ve seen idiots revving their engines, beeping and moving towards a pedestrian who has got half way across the road when the lights at the crossing have turned to green is embarrassing. Just because a traffic light turns to green, it doesn’t mean you have a right to go.
If a cyclist jumps a red light and gets hit, I’m sure it will be 100% their fault if the vehicle who they collided with tried everything they could to avoid the collision. If I’m wrong, please show me otherwise.
You are not wrong. Pedestrians have always had right of way although many drivers ain’t got a clue about that. I feel drivers have brought this all on themselves with their poor aggressive driving.
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.
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.
As far as I’m aware pedestrians have always had a right of way. If you’re about to turn into a side road and a pedestrian starts to cross that side road, it’s your responsibility to slow down or stop to let them cross. Has this not always been the case?
If you have a gang of young kids messing about on the pavement, it’s instinct to slow right down until you’ve passed them.
The amount of times I’ve seen idiots revving their engines, beeping and moving towards a pedestrian who has got half way across the road when the lights at the crossing have turned to green is embarrassing. Just because a traffic light turns to green, it doesn’t mean you have a right to go.
If a cyclist jumps a red light and gets hit, I’m sure it will be 100% their fault if the vehicle who they collided with tried everything they could to avoid the collision. If I’m wrong, please show me otherwise.
You are not wrong. Pedestrians have always had right of way although many drivers ain’t got a clue about that. I feel drivers have brought this all on themselves with their poor aggressive driving.
Pedestrians had right of way whilst crossing a junction, not whilst waiting to cross
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.
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.
As far as I’m aware pedestrians have always had a right of way. If you’re about to turn into a side road and a pedestrian starts to cross that side road, it’s your responsibility to slow down or stop to let them cross. Has this not always been the case?
If you have a gang of young kids messing about on the pavement, it’s instinct to slow right down until you’ve passed them.
The amount of times I’ve seen idiots revving their engines, beeping and moving towards a pedestrian who has got half way across the road when the lights at the crossing have turned to green is embarrassing. Just because a traffic light turns to green, it doesn’t mean you have a right to go.
If a cyclist jumps a red light and gets hit, I’m sure it will be 100% their fault if the vehicle who they collided with tried everything they could to avoid the collision. If I’m wrong, please show me otherwise.
Giving way to pedestrians when turning into a road is nothing new
However these rules clearly make everywhere subject to the same rules as those which apply at a zebra crossing.In which case what’s the point of Zebra crossings.
As for the heirachy pedestrian walks out in front of cyclist and cyclist falls off their bike sustaining serious injury.So are you saying that the cyclist is to blame for failing to stop in time and not giving way to the pedestrian or not.
Or cyclist brings down motorcyclist what then for this far left nonsense.
Monkey241:
Pedestrians had right of way whilst crossing a junction, not whilst waiting to cross
At face value the new rules provide priority ‘while waiting to cross’ everywhere which therefore makes pedestrian crossings pointless
Just as this rabidly anti car use LibDem in all bit name party intended.
