New Highway Code rules coming in (9 Viewers)

Alan Dugdales Moustache

Well-Known Member
Are you ready for them ?
It's a recipe for lots of accidents, particularly rear ender's. Until pedestrians, cyclists and all drivers get this it won't work
 

Nick

Administrator
Isn't it basically that you have to give way to bikes and pedestrians? If you are turning into a junction and somebody is waiting to cross you are expected to give away?
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
What’s new other than the “give way to smaller things” rule? I’m getting all my info from a Cov Tel article so likely missed something important
 

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
Seems potentially dangerous to me , but as with most things it will probably work out fine
 

Travs

Well-Known Member
I can see that its well-meaning, but can't help think that it is somewhat misguided.

Not sure exactly what was so bad about the previous rule of waiting until its clear before crossing the road. I certainly won't be risking stepping out into the road if there's a vehicle indicating a left-turn.
 

Mcbean

Well-Known Member
This is a disaster waiting to happen - cyclists still do not require - using a cycle lane if one is available , insurance , a helmet or road tax - the carnage will continue and our insurance premiums will be going up further - not bias but an expensive interaction with a drunk cyclist at fault cost genuine insurance payers a lot of money
 

Alan Dugdales Moustache

Well-Known Member
What’s new other than the “give way to smaller things” rule? I’m getting all my info from a Cov Tel article so likely missed something important
It does on the face of it look like it's not much but it is .
 

Alan Dugdales Moustache

Well-Known Member
You're on a busy main road turning left and you have to stop before you turn because a pedestrian wants to cross the side road. Rear end waiting to happen .
Same junction you are turning right. You have clear access and begin to turn but then a cyclist bombs along the pavement and wants to cross the side road. You must stop. At this point you've already crossed the carriageway so you're blocking the oncoming traffic.
The list goes on. It's a disaster.
 

Nick

Administrator
Yeah, turning left people are going to slam on with people walking out.

Although, you would like to think people would stop and look both ways as usual when crossing.
 

Alan Dugdales Moustache

Well-Known Member
And as for roundabouts, I dread to think .
 

Alan Dugdales Moustache

Well-Known Member
Yeah, turning left people are going to slam on with people walking out.

Although, you would like to think people would stop and look both ways as usual when crossing.
It's best they don't know they have right of way, it really is.
 

Sick Boy

Super Moderator
You're on a busy main road turning left and you have to stop before you turn because a pedestrian wants to cross the side road. Rear end waiting to happen .
Same junction you are turning right. You have clear access and begin to turn but then a cyclist bombs along the pavement and wants to cross the side road. You must stop. At this point you've already crossed the carriageway so you're blocking the oncoming traffic.
The list goes on. It's a disaster.
The first example is how it works in Italy - it’s not going to be ‘fun’ for a while for sure.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
This is a disaster waiting to happen - cyclists still do not require - using a cycle lane if one is available , insurance , a helmet or road tax - the carnage will continue and our insurance premiums will be going up further - not bias but an expensive interaction with a drunk cyclist at fault cost genuine insurance payers a lot of money

Nobody pays road tax
 

ajsccfc

Well-Known Member
Are pedestrians being encouraged to walk out across the road now under guise of 'right of way'? Hell of a way to keep population levels down.
 

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
The point is to discourage people travelling by car where possible. Cycling should be encouraged as it not only is emission free but has a secondary benefit down the line of people putting less pressure on the NHS. Bullshit like insurance for cyclists is something that will unnecesarily put people off buying a bike and using that as their main method of transport. Cars need to be insured because the accidents they cause result in thousands of pounds of damage wheras bikes do not.

I say this as both a driver and a cyclist, car drivers need to stop acting as if they own the road and drive with a little more consideration.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
I don't see *much* off with it, tbh. If I'm driving, I tend to be wary of small things as I reckon it'd hurt if I hit them, and if I'm walking then I don't step in front of things if possible, as I don't fancy being in the right but dead.

That said, will be interested to see how it goes driving around places like Oxford...
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
I hope everyone spotted the very fine print at the bottom

*These rules do not need to be followed by anyone serving in government

But I have to admit the changes do look like they've got accidents written all over them. Seems more to me to be about making less people want to drive than actual safety of road users and pedestrians.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
The point is to discourage people travelling by car where possible. Cycling should be encouraged as it not only is emission free but has a secondary benefit down the line of people putting less pressure on the NHS. Bullshit like insurance for cyclists is something that will unnecesarily put people off buying a bike and using that as their main method of transport. Cars need to be insured because the accidents they cause result in thousands of pounds of damage wheras bikes do not.

I say this as both a driver and a cyclist, car drivers need to stop acting as if they own the road and drive with a little more consideration.

I'll admit there are plenty of twats on the road, but there's plenty of cyclists and pedestrians that don't seem to give a shit either. Fed up of the time's there's been someone on a bike in dark clothing and no lights at night. Pedestrians just wandering into the road with their head down looking at their phone.

Worst incident was turning into a side road with parked cars blocking the view around the corner. Did so very carefully and thank God I did because coming down the middle of the road towards me was some young twat on a bike doing a wheelie.
 

jimmyhillsfanclub

Well-Known Member
The point is to discourage people travelling by car where possible. Cycling should be encouraged as it not only is emission free but has a secondary benefit down the line of people putting less pressure on the NHS. Bullshit like insurance for cyclists is something that will unnecesarily put people off buying a bike and using that as their main method of transport. Cars need to be insured because the accidents they cause result in thousands of pounds of damage wheras bikes do not.

I say this as both a driver and a cyclist, car drivers need to stop acting as if they own the road and drive with a little more consideration.

THIS in a nutshell. I'm a cyclist, van driver, pedestrian & scooterist......in that order.

I know I know....there are dickhead cyclists too, but a lot of their behavior stems from the primary problem which is that, since the 1970s, we have designed the whole of modern life around the premise that car is king, to the point whereby cunts people think nothing of buying renting a massive SUV in order to drive less than 1/2 a mile to the shops or to drop their kids off at school......

....if I had my way, I'd force change upon everybody overnight by coning off a 3m wide section of every A & B road in the country & allocate it to bikes, scooters, skateboards, hoverboards, rollerskates, segways, etc.
Pedestrians get their pavcement back, all of a sudden there is a free, healthy quicker fun transport alternative & motorists can sit in the traffice queue & moan about traffice queues just like they do already......
 

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
All of these complaints about cyclists, they result in what? them falling off the bike, a coming together that results in a sorry and get on with your day?

The massive machine that kills loads of people is rightly the one put under harsher regulations.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
All of these complaints about cyclists, they result in what? them falling off the bike, a coming together that results in a sorry and get on with your day?

The massive machine that kills loads of people is rightly the one put under harsher regulations.

What happens when they hit the massive machine that kills loads of people because they're not paying proper attention?

Of course the car should have more stringent safety requirements and testing. That doesn't mean that the others should be given the impression they can do as they please because it'll be the drivers fault. You should be responsible for your own actions.

Any driver doing so dangerously or negligently should have the book thrown at them, followed by the bookshelf and then the library brick by brick, but if a careful driver is made responsible for others who are themselves negligent then that's asking for trouble.

As for the thing about cyclistsetc having a coming together I won't ride a bike on the roads cos it's a terrifying experience, but I'm not supposed to ride it on the pavement. My take is that if you have a collision between a bike and a car or a bike and a pedestrian then physics tells you there'll be less force in the collision with the pedestrian than the car and so less likely to result in serious injury. So why in't that the expected norm?

I have heard incidents of pedestrians being killed by cyclists on the pavements (tend to be elderly and frail but that doesn't make it OK) but IMO if there isn't a dedicated cycle lane then surely it should be dependent on the speed of the cyclist? I don't tend to ride that quickly so IMO am more of a danger on the road than on the pavement. Someone belting along at 20mph should be on the road. And those that cycle on the road should have to pass a much more stringent test than cycling proficiency to do so.
 

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
What happens when they hit the massive machine that kills loads of people because they're not paying proper attention?

Of course the car should have more stringent safety requirements and testing. That doesn't mean that the others should be given the impression they can do as they please because it'll be the drivers fault. You should be responsible for your own actions.

Any driver doing so dangerously or negligently should have the book thrown at them, followed by the bookshelf and then the library brick by brick, but if a careful driver is made responsible for others who are themselves negligent then that's asking for trouble.

As for the thing about cyclistsetc having a coming together I won't ride a bike on the roads cos it's a terrifying experience, but I'm not supposed to ride it on the pavement. My take is that if you have a collision between a bike and a car or a bike and a pedestrian then physics tells you there'll be less force in the collision with the pedestrian than the car and so less likely to result in serious injury. So why in't that the expected norm?

I have heard incidents of pedestrians being killed by cyclists on the pavements (tend to be elderly and frail but that doesn't make it OK) but IMO if there isn't a dedicated cycle lane then surely it should be dependent on the speed of the cyclist? I don't tend to ride that quickly so IMO am more of a danger on the road than on the pavement. Someone belting along at 20mph should be on the road. And those that cycle on the road should have to pass a much more stringent test than cycling proficiency to do so.
I know I'm being flippant and cyclists can be a danger but nowhere near the same extent of cars. 99% of pedestrian deaths are caused by cars.

You're right about cycle lanes and I side with jhfc here in that if there isn't enough room for a cycle lane then it should be the trafic that makes way, a cycle lane introduced and cars diverted.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
What happens when they hit the massive machine that kills loads of people because they're not paying proper attention?

Of course the car should have more stringent safety requirements and testing. That doesn't mean that the others should be given the impression they can do as they please because it'll be the drivers fault. You should be responsible for your own actions.

Any driver doing so dangerously or negligently should have the book thrown at them, followed by the bookshelf and then the library brick by brick, but if a careful driver is made responsible for others who are themselves negligent then that's asking for trouble.

As for the thing about cyclistsetc having a coming together I won't ride a bike on the roads cos it's a terrifying experience, but I'm not supposed to ride it on the pavement. My take is that if you have a collision between a bike and a car or a bike and a pedestrian then physics tells you there'll be less force in the collision with the pedestrian than the car and so less likely to result in serious injury. So why in't that the expected norm?

I have heard incidents of pedestrians being killed by cyclists on the pavements (tend to be elderly and frail but that doesn't make it OK) but IMO if there isn't a dedicated cycle lane then surely it should be dependent on the speed of the cyclist? I don't tend to ride that quickly so IMO am more of a danger on the road than on the pavement. Someone belting along at 20mph should be on the road. And those that cycle on the road should have to pass a much more stringent test than cycling proficiency to do so.

Nah I’m with LG and JHFC here. We should be moving to a cyclist/pedestrian/hoverboard first system. The idea that roads are for big hunks of meta going 40mph and everyone else needs to GTFO is wrong. Sure if we can segment off some space for a cycle lane then great, but in a country as cramped and mature as ours it’s simply not possible.

You want cyclists on the road rather than the pavement? This is how you do it. And you don’t put ludicrous ideas like insurance and driving tests in their way TBH.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
I know I'm being flippant and cyclists can be a danger but nowhere near the same extent of cars. 99% of pedestrian deaths are caused by cars.

You're right about cycle lanes and I side with jhfc here in that if there isn't enough room for a cycle lane then it should be the trafic that makes way, a cycle lane introduced and cars diverted.

I agree 100% about how dangerous cars can be, especially with those that do treat the roads as if they own them. But that doesn't mean that everytime someone gets hit it's the motorist's fault. I think part of it may go back to when I was kid. I've always looked in every single direction before and during crossing to ensure i'm safe, but a friend of my had absolutely no road sense. We used to play football in the street and occasionally the ball would go out onto the slightly busier main road. Everyone would look before crossing apart from this lad who would just run out into the road. Thankfully it wasn't a busy road but once he ran out and a car was coming and I still don't know how they stopped in time. Driver must have damn near had a heart attack but this lad just kept running to get the ball, oblivious to the fact he nearly just got himself killed. Even years later he would happily walk out into the road if he wanted to cross and didn't give a shit what was going on around him. Seemed to think it would be the driver's fault so therefore he didn't have to care. It's that kind of person who may take a rule like that and interpret it the same way - they don't need to pay attention because it's not their fault/responsibility. Tht's why it's dangerous.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
I agree 100% about how dangerous cars can be, especially with those that do treat the roads as if they own them. But that doesn't mean that everytime someone gets hit it's the motorist's fault. I think part of it may go back to when I was kid. I've always looked in every single direction before and during crossing to ensure i'm safe, but a friend of my had absolutely no road sense. We used to play football in the street and occasionally the ball would go out onto the slightly busier main road. Everyone would look before crossing apart from this lad who would just run out into the road. Thankfully it wasn't a busy road but once he ran out and a car was coming and I still don't know how they stopped in time. Driver must have damn near had a heart attack but this lad just kept running to get the ball, oblivious to the fact he nearly just got himself killed. Even years later he would happily walk out into the road if he wanted to cross and didn't give a shit what was going on around him. Seemed to think it would be the driver's fault so therefore he didn't have to care. It's that kind of person who may take a rule like that and interpret it the same way - they don't need to pay attention because it's not their fault/responsibility. Tht's why it's dangerous.

This is why modern driving tests have hazard awareness. It’s the belief that you should be able to career along at whatever speed you want regardless of surroundings that’s the problem. Same as OP complaining people stopping will lead to rear enders: only if you aren’t a safe distance in the first place!

This all seems to boil down to “I want to be able to drive without due care and attention”
 

Nick

Administrator
All of these complaints about cyclists, they result in what? them falling off the bike, a coming together that results in a sorry and get on with your day?

The massive machine that kills loads of people is rightly the one put under harsher regulations.

What happens when a cyclist causes damage to a car?

I have a hatred when people ride crossers on the road because of this.
 

Nick

Administrator
Everyone should have to do a year on a motorbike before being able to drive a car.
The constant threat of death translates very well into being aware of your surroundings whilst driving.

Yep think it helped me too, eyes all over the place.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top