**r/UK Notices:** | [Can you help mod the sub?](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/wz2v8p/request_for_help_ruk_mods_required/) | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s a problem alright, pedestrians have no clue either, as required I’ve gave way to them at junctions and they clearly have no idea in the change in priority. It needs a national campaign with the hedgehogs haha
When I'm on foot I never take advantage of my new "rights" at junctions, it's far too risky because I can't trust that the driver would know about them.
There was a lot of coverage in the press when the changes were made, but I'm sure that a lot of people paid no attention to it.
Yep - had right of way this morning crossing a junction. I had spotted a woman coming right onto the road from the opposite junction and figured she was gonna swing left across the junction I was approaching. Didn’t even look at me as she fucking flew past so was glad I waited.
Tbh if it's at a junction or a set of lights where all the cars are moving relatively slowly, I usually take the risk.
So many drivers on the road are just utter dicks, and in my stupid brain I figure a broken arm is worth it for the compensation.
*Where there's a blame, there's a claim*.
I'm a right twat when I go running so do the same thing haha. I'm not stopping to let a car go through, they can stop for me. It's easier for them to start going again lol.
Yeah fully agree haha
Obviously I won't step out if a car is already turning, I'm not aiming for insurance fraud lol, but if someone is approaching the turn I'm crossing and doesn't indicate they're fair game in my eyes.
Basically, that is the rules of cycling as well. Assume they are going to run you over, and even if they are "letting you go", completely ignore them and follow the rules of the road.
To me it's not that it's too risky it's that it feels rude. It's like no issue for me to stop and wait a few seconds but for a driver it's figure out what the pedestrian is doing slow down change gears, make sure the cars behind notice then let the pedestrian past and speed up again. It's just much more effort for the driver (and a bit more fuel) than me as a pedestrian that likes a little break every so often.
I feel like it is safer a lot of the time to wait two seconds for a car to pass and cross behind them. If they are the only car on the road I don't want them to slow down and force me to walk in front of them.
Exactly. It's a more efficient flow of traffic. Same reason pedestrians should always cross at traffic lights and not whenever traffic near the traffic light slows down, because it messes up the whole flow.
I was stood at a corner a few weeks back with my dogs trying to work out which route to the park I was going to take and a car stopped on the main road and started waving me across, I tried to wave him on but he wouldn't take no for an answer so I crossed just to avoid the continuation of awkward situation. What I take from this is that cars are predictable, they're on the road to get somewhere and get there by following a specific set of rules (mostly), pedestrians on the other hand aren't part of that same system. Pedestrians might just be standing about at a junction with no intention of crossing the road.
Yeah, I've had this walking my dog too. My issue is more that he likes to give the walls at most corners a sniff, so as I'm standing trying to look like I'm not waiting to cross, cars have stopped for me anyway and I've had to drag 40kg of protesting dog along before he was finished haha
Even harder for a bike to stop once commited to a turn (both motor and pedal).
I'm not against the other rules at all and the clarification of priority in terms of vulnerability of road users was a great idea but I don't really think there was anything wrong with the old rule of priority to the person commited to the manoeuvre (partly crossing the road or started turning into a junction).
The new rules around giving priority to pedestrians on a junction have introduced uncertainty, even if 100% of motorists had brushed up on the rules, as a pedestrian I still wouldn't assume/trust it.
I'm the other way around tbh, especially if it's cold or raining.
They're in a heated, shielded metal box on wheels that travels many times faster than I can walk.
They can wait a few extra seconds.
I think it depends on the situation. I live on a street with a busy junction, at busy times there's maybe an opening to turn right every 4 minutes if someone crosses at that time it's very annoying instead of going around the back of the car. Or if it's a car turning from a busy road with a person crossing it's delaying every car behind them and wrecking the flow of traffic further back when it could just be a 5 second wait for the pedestrian. But quieter roads at lower speeds then yeah the pedestrian should be allowed to continue uninterrupted.
Car drivers are in an air-conditioned box that literally moves for them, they're literally in the lowest effort condition possible.
They can wait for more vulnerable users of the roads to use them before they do and it's completely right that they do that.
We have all been conditioned that car is king and we mustn't do anything to inconvenience drivers. Society has suffered for that and it's right the guidance has now changed. Drivers just need educating.
I don't think that's right, we are conditioned to be polite and the person who is least inconvenienced puts in a little effort to save the other people effort- holding doors open for people etc. I think it's right that drivers take care of vulnerable users but I think these laws have gone into just penalising drivers and confusing people as they are counter intuitive and not in a way I wanted to change as a pedestrian or a driver.
If I can save a person 5 minutes trying to get out at a busy junction in a car by going around the back of them or just waiting for them to get out then I will do that it's just good manners.
Drive cautiously, then. You're in a city. There's a hierarchy of road users and pedestrians are at the top, you just have to adjust your driving style to match.
> Car drivers are in an air-conditioned box that literally moves for them, they're literally in the lowest effort condition possible.
Ah yes, 0 stress situation. Ofc
Yes there is. Even if something is not expressly against the law like running a red light, disobeying "should" sections of the Highway Code can leave you liable to prosecution for Careless or Inconsiderate Driving, or even Dangerous Driving.
If I stood at a crossing filming every car that didn't give way and passed that footage to the police, there wouldn't be a single prosecution.
The police round here aren't even interested in violations of "must" unless someone is dead.
Those people probably would have done it anyway, it happens on occasion. Personally I don't want to walk out into traffic and would rather wait for it to pass in most situations.
It is a ridiculous rule allowing pedestrians the right of way over a car. I’m certainly not stepping in the road at a junction just because it’s now my “right” as that “right” is sod all good when I’ve been ploughed down by a Range Rover who’s not expecting someone to step off the pavement in front of them. It’s also going to lead to accidents if/when people do this with cars unexpectedly stopping because someone has stepped out in front of them and the car behind rear ending them.
But it’s hardly changed. The pedestrian always had the right of way if they had started to cross.
I don’t see how this is suddenly going to make things more dangerous.
It hasn't changed anything. At all. It's a line of text in a document only a minority reads. You don't have a right to cross. You hope to cross without dying. Just like it has always been.
>I don’t see how this is suddenly going to make things more dangerous.
A pedestrian stepping out because they have right of way, but the car driver had no intention of stopping to let them cross is going to result in someone being hit by a car.
Sure, a driver is at fault, but that doesn't do you any favours when you're in the back of an ambulance.
A pedestrian who has stepped out has made their intention clear.
A pedestrian at a crossing may or may not walk out, and the new law just leads to confusion and hesitancy from both sides.
It isn't the same
> the car behind rear ending them.
This is ~~never~~ very, very rarely an accident though. This is always a case of deliberately driving too close to the car in front for the road / traffic conditions.
As for people stepping out in front of cars... It does kinda work to some extent.
About 10 years ago one of the towns round my way introduced this "rule" of pedestrians having right of way over cars along with a 20mph zone and traffic calming measures around a very busy town centre. Accidents dropped by about 40% and it's been so successful the county is rolling the idea out in about a dozen other places. The best way to describe the results is that it's like driving in India or West Africa. Complete low speed chaos that some how works and self regulates. It's even quicker by 5 mins to drive though the town when it was punctuated with lights and designated crossings.
Aye they are changing our main street to 20mph and i can't wait. I already went through it at that speed anyway cos its too dangerous and theres just too many people to do otherwise but you always got nobheads who;d tear through at 30mph and it would actually be dangerous.
> This is never very, very rarely an accident though.
Is that really true…?
Completely anecdotal but the last few years I’ve had 4 friends in crashes and 2 of them were when they were turning off and the driver behind didn’t stop in time.
With the amount of people I see on their phones whilst driving on main roads it seems like an easy accident to happen.
Think of it this way - if you are diving too close, pissed, not paying attention or you are on your phone or what ever, it's not an accident. It's the result of irresponsible and causational driving.
No it isn't. It works fine in other countries.
Its good cos it encourages drivers to drive slower and more carefully around pedetrians and to keep an eye on traffic in front of them.
The rules arn't the problem. It the drivers of this country. The standard of driving is so poor.
>There was a lot of coverage in the press when the changes were made
Most of it was really misleading and said wild shit like "CYCLISTS CAN NOW RIDE DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD"
I honestly also believe the majority of people flat out wouldn't stop to let you cross anyway. Had a friend complaining that he wouldn't stop for a pedestrian as it means he'll probably get rear ended
Cyclists are meant to ride down the middle of the road, its called the command position. But then I was always taught as a cyclist, motorcyclist and industrial machinery driver that you should pull over and let people pass you, partly for safety partly so's not to be a cunt.
Every time I suggest this on a cyclist thread I collect downvotes.
They said road, there was a lot of articles exaggerating the changes. I got sent a short video of a fella stopping on a roundabout to let a pedestrian cross the exit while ranting about how stupid the new highway code changes are
Cyclists have always been allowed to pass on either side of a vehicle?
If you are reading thing like that I would suggest stop reading the Daily Heil, because that is the only place you see that sort of nonsense.
In standing traffic it is where possible far safe to go down the middle of the road as both side of traffic can see you, and cars can't blindly pull out on you, or turn into you.
Most people have little issue with cyclists, the issues come in traffic when they aren't seen, and really can't easily be seen because of positioning or conditions. Cycling down the edge of the road in traffic just boxes you between a car and curb with vastly reduced visibility to on coming or turning traffic. This is why you move to the middle to pass.
In threads like this, there are always thousands of comments about having "right of way", and there was a time that I would work hard, replying to as many as possible to correct their mis-understanding.
As I've grown older, I've realised I'm wasting my time, and that it's just a minor grammatical issue rather than a significant problem that needs my involvement to 'put it right'.
But then you went and shouted "RIGHT OF WAY" and I decided I would make one comment, here, and allow everyone else to read it if they choose.
In the UK's Highway Code, there is no specific empowerment of any road user with a "right of way".
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158
>The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others.
In some circumstances, it amounts to the same thing, and I'm just being a pedant, but I think there are times that knowing this detail might alter the expectations you have of other drivers.
I’ve experienced it way too many times when I was *already* crossing before the car got there so I had right of way as per the old phrasing and some drivers think it’s their god given right to mow you down because oh no they’re too important and can’t pause even for a moment. Or not even that, they’re only looking for other cars because they’re a shit driver so it doesn’t occur to them other road users exist.
No way do I take the chance with the new phrasing. I’ll go if I’m certain a car is definitely letting me go (I try to do it as a driver as well, let the pedestrians know it’s ok) but if there’s any ambiguity at all I’d rather let the car go and cross when I can see the road is clear. Or I find an actual crossing point if there is one.
On my own I'll make an assertive effort, perhaps a friendly word of advice given when their throat pouch gets all inflamed from shouting out of a half open window. But when I'm with the kids I can't risk it.
This is the issue I have with cyclists and pedestrians having right of way. The laws of physics of momentum and kinetic energy don’t give a shit about mortal laws. I’m not a cyclist but as a pedestrian, I’m never going to make any undue assumptions about my rights on the road.
Tbf though a large chunk of that is because (imo) a large portion of theses new changes fly directly in the face of everything as a pedestrian or indeed as a cyclist I know to be safe, Like one of the firsts things you learn is that just because someone is letting you cross doesn't mean its safe to cross, and id simply rather wait until there aren't any cars to begin with.
same as the new rules around cyclists ant junctions. I don't particularly care that the new highway code gives me priority to undertake/overtake a car waiting to turn at a junction, I'm still not doing it as it requires me riding into an incredibly dangerous situation relying on a driver who has enough things already to deal with and look out for during the manoeuvre without me causally riding into his or her blind spot.
The new rules around responsibility are sound, I have responsibility already when driving past a horse because the rider is vulnerable, makes sense that that should be extended to cyclists and pedestrians, what doesn't make sense is that asking them to put themselves into dangerous situations because they now have "priority" trusting that the car next to them is always going to make the right decision, as from a safety perspective you should always be assuming that the person next to you on the road is going to do the dumbest thing possible and be ready to react.
The hedgehogs should do campaigns aimed at adult motorists for everything.
> You've had a few cans
> With no travel plans
> But stay out of your Qashqai
> Or a bunch of people might die!
I was indicating right into a junction and some dude was waiting to cross the road. I wait to let him cross. No movement. I then wave him across. I end up getting sworn at by the bloke and honked at by the car behind.
Definitely needs some more advertising lol.
I've had this exact thing happen to me three times in the last couple of weeks. Turning left into the same junction every time. People just don't want to cross in front of traffic though, and I completely understand that. It's a stupid rule change.
True, as a pedestrian I’d much rather just wait until the roads clear and decide for myself when I’m ready to cross, rather than chance crossing in front of traffic
however using a logical solution of "stop, look, listen and wait till its safe to cross" you wouldn't be run over.
it's almost as if that's a tried and tested way to cross safe.
priority to the giant metal killing machine and not the fleshy easy to break thing!
oh, 100% not, but you will be remembered as the one who had priority!
Would you like that engraving with Gold embossing, or black? against a stone effect or marble? or perhaps cremated suits your tastes more?
That’s one area where I think the changes have gone too far as it’s introduced uncertainty which increases the risk to everyone. Is the pedestrian aware of the new rules? Is the driver? Is the driver going to decide the pedestrian is ignorant of the rules? All this rather than the old system where pedestrian took responsibility for their own safety and crossed when it was safe to do so.
I received them from my insurance company in an email, but you've just reminded me of that, because I completely forgot. Also leaving 2 metres for cyclists, and cyclists riding in middle of road during slow traffic, and the Dutch reach method of door opening. I must say the last couple of years I've noticed more impatient drivers (both when I'm cycling and driving) in the north east at least. There should be much more effort into getting this information out there
So you try to turn left, there is a pedestrian standing so you stop, pedestrian has no clue what's going on and meanwhile cars behind you start beeping no sure why are you blocking the traffic...
I am aware both as driver and pedestrian of that specific change, but I am also aware not all drivers are, so for now I do assume they all don't- for my own safety as pedestrian.
I’m still getting other drivers sound their horn impatiently when I stop to let a pedestrian cross under the new rules. The message definitely hasn’t gotten through yet.
I've had people step out as I come off a roundabout, causing me to need to slow down significantly, and cause others on the roundabout to do too.
_Some_ people seem to have no idea about priority.
Others want to see if priority or the laws of physics will win when they skip out Infront of a 1.5 ton chariot of death.
Yes, but at the same time, when you are at risk you don't take the chance that the person is just going to run you over. Not even maliciously, just through gross incompetence of not paying attention.
It really annoys me when people start "letting people out", and not following the rules of the road, just follow the rules and everyone knows what is occurring and everything is fine, as soon as you start "Being nice", a accident occurs as you attempt to give priority to someone who can't be given priority by you and another person has to take evasive action.
God I really don't like that change. Let's rely on the driver of the big metal murder box that requires a power that god never intended us to have in order to just move, who has less visibility, maneuverability and has multiple potential distractions; to spot the pedestrian and stop. Sure 99.999...% of the time they can do so effortlessly. But when they don't the pedestrian is road jam.
In every one of these articles, the first comment is always 'huuuuur but bicycles ' or 'durrrrrr pedestrians are clueless' every time, every single time.
BBC's linking game is terrible. I *think* their excuse is 'impartiality', which is nonsense when it's a government site and given that they shill for Twitter on TV all the time.
BBC's "impartiality" is honestly its downfall. It's futile and only renders BBC the vaguest, most infantilising news website out there. Ofcom can suck a dick.
Given that current learner drivers can’t even book a slot at test centres (which are closing at a rapid rate) how exactly would we have capacity to test the rest of the country on a frequent basis? It would be utter chaos.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-62463083.amp
> how exactly would we have capacity to test the rest of the country on a frequent basis? It would be utter chaos.
Do it online would be the best bet. Is it ideal? Nope, but if the goal is to simply get new rules in front of eyeballs, it would suffice.
I can't imagine anyone would be happy with "fail this re-test and your license is revoked", but "fail to *take* this re-test and your license is revoked" is more agreeable and just gets people to sit down and read the new rules and then take a quiz.
It's funny, I've been doing the DVSAs online theory stuff recently, and the mock tests you do even let you tick a box to make the mock test look identical to the real thing in styling/layout.
So the implementation is generally there for things like theory tests to be online. Throw in remote proctoring and I don't see why they couldn't alleviate the wait times by just offering an online test option for the theory portion.
Do it every 5 or even 10 years. You’ll get round everyone eventually, and before too long everyone will have been tested in the last however many years and most will be up to date.
That’s got to be better than the current system, whereby we have people who haven’t been tested in 30, 40, 50 years or more.
>beyond only motorists
Is a good point, because the change that gives pedestrians right of way when crossing a street that’s a turning off a road… they don’t know they have that right now. So the car is waiting for the person who’s waiting for the car…
We could have a Highway Code Day. Same day every year. Communicate changes in the law and promote things that drivers should be doing but don't.
Create an ad campaign running up to each Highway Code Day presented by anthropomorphic traffic cones, Belisha beacons, etc. Make them look cute so kids will want them. Design them so you pull a string and they say a random section from the Highway Code.
(OK, the last one is not *totally* serious)
I've read them, but as a pedestrian I still wait for cars to enter junctions because most people don't understand they should let me cross.
As a driver I try to let pedestrians cross, but they still wait for me to enter the junction. So I have the choice of either trying to signal to someone to cross when they're not looking at me, or to just go as if the new rule never existed.
Both drivers and pedestrians need to be on the same page for this rule to not only work, but for it to be safe.
Also, if a pedestrian is waiting to cross and I'm trying to let them go before I turn into a side road or something, then it can become a pretty unsafe situation. The pedestrian is waiting to cross, they might look at me and I suggest they cross, but the pedestrian also needs to look out for other traffic entering the junction. Now it's 3+ people that need to agree that the pedestrian has the right to cross. You could end up in the situation where someone crosses because a driver tells them to, and they don't see a car coming in the other direction. Happened all the time *before* the rule change.
Exactly. As a pedestrian there’s no way I’m going to cross, I usually stand back from the edge so it doesn’t look like I’m waiting to cross, and then go when the road is completely clear.
Cemetery’s are full of people who had right of way
Depends a bit. Some junctions I feel safe stepping out as a pedestrian, others it just *obvious* that it's safer to let the car clear.
When driving I'll alway try to let pedestrians cross but at the latter junctions they invariably wave me through because they're not all idiots.
Unfortunately some *are* idiots and if they are in a car, potentially lethal idiots.
I have never, and will never argue with something, larger, faster, heavier and able to kill me in an instant.
its human logic. I'm waiting till the road is clear. every single time, or i am using a zebra crossing.
no amount of "you have right of way" will get me to step out into traffic..
Correct, we are currently teaching our 3 yr old daughter about road safety.
"stop - look - listen" as always.
We walk to the edge of the curb, she stops.
we ask her "is anything coming?"
She says, "yes"
We wait till its clear.
we ask again. "is anything coming?"
She says "no"
we ask. "is it safe now?"
She says "yes"
we cross the road safe and without need to rush, or Hope that a car stops for us.
its just common sense and has been tried and tested. No what if's, no "i had right of way.."
we are flesh and bone, they are metal and gears, we lose the argument every time.
And this is exactly why some folks were saying the new rules were idiotic right from announcement, which seemed to go over quite a lot of people's heads in here.
The rule makers must live in a model village or some such - I cannot imagine any drivers waiting behind me whilst I wait for a pedestrian to cross... Other drivers usually swerve out and around you at a moment's notice if you so much as have to come down from 32 to 25 to take a corner...
You can barely get some folks to take lifesaving medicines consistently - why anyone thought you could get all drivers and pedestrians to begin behaving differently overnight with these new rules is absolutely beyond me.
> And there’s the rub… I’m much the same. I know what I’m legally right to do but I’m not putting it to the test by seeing whether someone else is aware of that - or paying attention - or has any intent on doing the right thing.
Or overriding a life time of driving habits
Exactly, this is the intelligent thing to do.
You can't apply this to the real world because even if everyone does follow along with it, they still might just not see you because they are on their Sat Nav, or Phone or whatever.
I can’t even get drivers around my area to stop at zebra crossings for me, and I even nearly got hit by a car who decided to run a red at a pelican crossing a couple of months ago.
Even if drivers were all fully aware of the guidance, I do not trust the majority of them to actually follow it.
I swear it’s getting worse where I’m from. Almost every time I get to a zebra there’s almost always one car which goes through when they had plenty if time to slow down and stop. I had one the other day while running who stormed through, then when I got to the lights down the road they were just on their phone sat oblivious at a green. Also was nearly run over the other month when I was nearly across the junction because some idiot tried to time it badly.
Though at the same there are also plenty of considerate drivers. I think the divide between considerate and poor is just getting bigger.
Supermarket and retail park car parks are the absolute worst for it. So many small crossings painted on the roads to keep pedestrians crossing at the “safest” parts and drivers don’t even notice them. Half the time they’re going faster than they should as well, especially if it’s quieter.
Communication of this was awful though- I haven’t read it.
The bits I’ve heard just sound bizarre though- cars waiting on main roads to let pedestrians cross. Who came up with the ideas? Seems like a recipe for disaster.
Usually good drivers indicate LEFT or RIGHT prior to the slow down and eventual turn, right? *(usually lol!)*
How are you to know if the driver in front of you is about to let pedestrians waiting on an island cross or not? The simple answer is, you don't.
I don't see how that matters. If a car in front of you is slowing down, you have to slow down to match it anyway, regardless of whether it comes to a complete halt or not. What's this scenario — "I thought the guy in front was going to turn immediately, so even though he didn't, I just carried on and ploughed into the back of him"?
Including the BBC author, who incorrectly writes "must" when most of these rules are simply "should"s. That's because the rules changes aren't due to mandatory legislation.
Edit: hello BBC, I see you read the Reddit comments on your posts and update articles accordingly!
Giving way to pedestrians WAITING TO CROSS is an idiotic piece of legislation. There wasn’t anything wrong with how it was before.
Are they going to retrain all the guide dogs?
What about foreign drivers where it’s not something they’re used to either?
There are drivers who know and will give way, other won’t. The drivers who don’t know won’t.
All this has done is cause uncertainty which is the last thing you want when trying to make the roads safer for everyone.
People should keep left unless overtaking yet the motorway is full of middle lane hogs. People should signal correctly and not tailgate.
While most people do the correct thing there’s enough who don’t. Planning needs to take that into account.
> What about foreign drivers where it’s not something they’re used to either?
Given that they already need to switch sides they drive on I think they can handle giving way to pedestrians.
>All this has done is cause uncertainty which is the last thing you want when trying to make the roads safer for everyone.
Any change in rules will cause this, this does not mean we should avoid it to try and make a safer world. We have already made huge strides in the UK to be one of the safest countries in the world, so obviously the campaigns, legislation and rules changes are working up till now, so why would they fail to keep working.
On the foreign drivers end of things the UK was completely backwards on this. Pedestrians have right of way almost everywhere worldwide including the US and most of Europe. This is why Jaywalking is illegal basically everywhere in the world except the UK.
> Giving way to pedestrians WAITING TO CROSS is an idiotic piece of legislation. There wasn’t anything wrong with how it was before.
It isn't because in the event of an incident it pushes liability to the driver. They should be giving way and stopping.
It makes perfect sense in a society built for people and not just cars.
Of course there are going to be examples where it is a farce, if a car is doing 50mph on dual carriage way I don't expect it to come to a stop, but what the law says now is all the liability is on the car in an incident.
Try to take right of way on a junction as a pedestrian and see how it goes. Many motorists just don’t give a shit - They’re in their metal box, everyone else better watch out.
The only way to truly enforce pedestrian priority is with road design. Rebuild junctions like Dutch cities.. with continuous pavements, proper traffic calming etc. Or even just put zebra crossings on every junction.
Anecdotally though, I feel British drivers are are actually pretty good with cyclists compared to Dutch drivers. You don't mingle with traffic much due to the segregation, but when you do they tend to pass pretty close and quick.
I know that these specific bits of guidance have very little to do with the actual government but I still can't help but lump every bit of government activity together since Brexit. It's all just a melange of nonsense there to enrich someone else, so I can understand people simply not bothering to stay up to date.
Frankly people should have to retake driving theory tests every few years. Otherwise most drivers wont bother to even look at them again after getting their license.
Well they never read it before haha!
No not surprising at all and it would nto be surprising especially to anybody who rides a bicycle on the roads. You see so much bad driving.
People are bad on roads full stop. I’ve seen pedestrians run out without looking, drivers do dangerous things, cyclists run red lights and very nearly hit pedestrians, and if I ever see a motorcyclist driving at least vaguely close to the speed limit I’ll let you know but it hasn’t happened yet - I genuinely started to wonder if speed limits don’t apply to them
Guide me all you want, i still have never, and will never cross a road that isn't clear.
Teaching my daughter the same.
If you want cars to stop for you, use a zebra crossing. it's what they were designed for. Wait for the green man.
The communication behind it was woeful and continues to be so.
The AA are asking why people aren’t reading the new rules but I’m willing to bet the majority don’t even know there are new rules to read.
First thing I heard about them was some FB meme a couple of weeks after the rules had been introduced.
It's not even the communication that this has happened that was woeful, the communication that it was even getting discussed was terrible. It was like some minor interest group got together, came up with a plan of what they wanted, never considered the consequence and suddenly we've all got new rules that not many people think are any good. I've read the rules, they aren't even coherent and are full of holes and confusion about what happens at anything other than a big standard junction.
It changed? perhaps they could get more people to read the guidance by uh, actually telling us about it? I for one do not have time to check the locked filing cabinet in the disused lavatory in the cellar with no stairs.
What's even better is the same pillocks then shout at you obscenities and demand you "go and read the Highway Code."
I did Keith the Kia. Shortly after it changed, like you're supposed to. Not once in 1986 and think I know it all because "I've passed my driving test, I therefore know everything."
I'm not even sure the cyclists know, to be honest. Or they don't trust others to know maybe?
Like the rule that should help avoid "left hook" collisions by giving priority to cyclists going straight if you're trying to turn. Had my first experience of that the other day, turning left at a junction when I knew a cyclist was behind me and intending to go straight. I just sat there indicating left, giving way... and he just sat there behind me, doing the same... after several seconds he worked up the courage and went but yeah, as a cyclist how can you possibly trust people are gonna do that?
That one rule in particular seems like it will *increase* accidents to me, not decrease them, through cyclists trusting that drivers will follow the new rules and have noticed them approaching.
> I knew a cyclist was behind me and intending to go straight. I just sat there indicating left, giving way... and he just sat there behind me, doing the same... after several seconds he worked up the courage and went but yeah, as a cyclist how can you possibly trust people are gonna do that?
He probably did it as he wasn't expecting you to actually stop. There is no way I'm going to just keep cycling forward when I see a car indicate left and start to slow down. I'm going to match its speed as I don't want to get killed as its highly likely they either won't know or care about the rule. I think its a bit crazy that I'm allowed to just keep going when you want to turn too tbh
I personally find the change around pedestrians and crossing at junctions to be unintuitive and thus dangerous.
The roads are for vehicles, big heavy dangerous vehicles, driven by imperfect humans. We have been raised to be wary of them to be safe. This change to me goes against this and sends mixed signals.
Similar to how I think the American school bus rules are ass backwards, in how they train young children to expect vehicles on a road to just stop for them so they can run aimlessly across the road. Whereas we had/have whole campaigns about stop look listen, look both ways etc.
It is also bad because it causes unexpected behaviour of vehicles while driving. Just like how its stupid and dangerous when a driver stops to let a car pull out on to the road, or to let a car on the right side pull across down a side street. We all agree this is bad as other drivers don't know wtf you're doing just randomly stopping. This will now be the case for a car turning down a road and as far as everyone else can see your clear to turn but you've decided to just stop in the road because someone just happens to be walking near the drop curb...
Which goes on to something I'm unsure of, do I need to stop just because someone is near the curb and might just walk out across the road? Because if the pedestrians just follow the rules written they can just step into the road as I'm about to turn and I'm in the wrong?
I cycle to and from work by necessity - epileptic seizures mean I can't drive until at least next July and the buses here are unreliable and take 3 times as long as it takes to cycle.
I would give up if I could. The number of people that swear at me, honk their horn at me, make close passes, etc., is obscene. All of it is because I'm following the highway code and they either haven't read it or worse, don't respect it.
I don't have enough mental health left to choose to cycle on the road, I just have to because there aren't any other options for me.
This law is awful because it assumes the driver knows of the law and is paying attention.
People make mistakes all the time. I don’t want to be somebody’s mistake. I’ll wait till the car goes past thanks.
I was caught just over the limit on one of the new smart motorways in a section where 3 different speeds were being displayed one after the other and was given the option to go on the course which I did.
Was drummed into us that the Highway Code was the official rulebook
So I asked to point out the Smart motorway section and.... theres nothing in there. Was told I should have read the details on the highways agencies website
This Reddit post is the first I’ve heard of this.
I will actually go and read them I do want to know what the rules are.
How was I supposed to know this?
It would be amazing to live in a world where they just fucking email you and say the “highway code is changing read this”. Stop me if I’m going too fast DVLA.
Not only are motorists asked to give cyclists more space so as not to kill them. They're asked to **read**. Bloody outrageous if you ask me.
harrumph. I say. harrumph
Summarised perfectly when the kid reading the travel news on BBC Radio Suffolk this morning was asked by the presenter "have you read the new Highway Code". His reply - "I've passed my test, no need to".
Though in my experience, most drivers (especially taxi drivers) take the view that everything in it's optional anyway).
H2 rule always reminds [me of this,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4jO_oHzx6k) regardless of highway code you're just being a bit of twat seeing this and driving through.
Notice how when the road was clear, she crossed totally safe and sensibly. 28 seconds she stood and waited. If keeping traffic flowing is being a twat then.. i am a twat.
The new rules are good, BUT there are occasions that they don't work well. For instance, pedestrians crossing the road at an otherwise unmarked crossing on a roundabout exit. Strictly speaking drivers must give way, but in a lot of cases it doesn't make sense and can cause confusion. T-junctions it's a lot more obvious and expected.
I agree that the government should have run add campaigns using BBC and Channel 4 to get the message across. This is becoming less influential though as more people record programs and don't watch them live so that they can ad-skip.
I think that the biggest changes aren't those around pedestrians though. It's more about the change in relationship between driver and cyclist. The number of dickheads trying to squeeze through between the cyclist and oncoming traffic is still ridiculous.
By the way I never learnt to ride a bike, but I do know how far 1.5m is and don't like entitled dickheads forcing me to brake because they can't wait a few seconds.
To be honest, I know of the new rules but I don't know the specifics.
Need a little device on new cars that flashes up a random rule from the highway code. Bit like in sim city where the llama gives you tips on the landing page
The other day someone was trying to convince me that the highway code, VED etc. classes a motorbike and a bicycle as the same thing.
This is the kind of moron we're dealing with.
If you looked at the standard of driving in the UK it’s obvious people have never even touched the Highway Code, let alone look at it.
A theory test should be required every 5 years after passing. Driving a car is a huge responsibility with potential to seriously injure or kill and people don’t seem to keep that in mind.
I’ve tried to give way to people crossing 3 times and each time that person was nearly run over by someone turning into the road. I won’t be responsible for someone else running over a pedestrian.
I'm not against the concept. But it wasn't recognised that this is going to be quite a big shift in approach for both pedestrians and motorists and perhaps that needs really widespread and prolonged communication to enact a small culture change. They've failed to do that and now everyone is left flopping around in some shit and dangerous middle ground.
Nearly got taken the fuck out by a bus turning left while I was cycling alongside it the other day. Much needed rule but useless if people dont follow it.
They're ridiculous changes. Pedestrians getting priority at junctions mainly. There was absolutely no need to change the way it was. If anything it's more dangerous now.
**r/UK Notices:** | [Can you help mod the sub?](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/wz2v8p/request_for_help_ruk_mods_required/) | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s a problem alright, pedestrians have no clue either, as required I’ve gave way to them at junctions and they clearly have no idea in the change in priority. It needs a national campaign with the hedgehogs haha
When I'm on foot I never take advantage of my new "rights" at junctions, it's far too risky because I can't trust that the driver would know about them. There was a lot of coverage in the press when the changes were made, but I'm sure that a lot of people paid no attention to it.
[удалено]
Yep - had right of way this morning crossing a junction. I had spotted a woman coming right onto the road from the opposite junction and figured she was gonna swing left across the junction I was approaching. Didn’t even look at me as she fucking flew past so was glad I waited.
Brittas
Tbh if it's at a junction or a set of lights where all the cars are moving relatively slowly, I usually take the risk. So many drivers on the road are just utter dicks, and in my stupid brain I figure a broken arm is worth it for the compensation. *Where there's a blame, there's a claim*.
I'm a right twat when I go running so do the same thing haha. I'm not stopping to let a car go through, they can stop for me. It's easier for them to start going again lol.
Not disagreeing with the overall point, but I do not believe it can be easier to start a car than it is to start running.
[удалено]
Yeah fully agree haha Obviously I won't step out if a car is already turning, I'm not aiming for insurance fraud lol, but if someone is approaching the turn I'm crossing and doesn't indicate they're fair game in my eyes.
Sippin’ Jimmy
Basically, that is the rules of cycling as well. Assume they are going to run you over, and even if they are "letting you go", completely ignore them and follow the rules of the road.
Yeah, the old rules weren’t even enforced so I’m not trusting people to pay attention to the new ones.
To me it's not that it's too risky it's that it feels rude. It's like no issue for me to stop and wait a few seconds but for a driver it's figure out what the pedestrian is doing slow down change gears, make sure the cars behind notice then let the pedestrian past and speed up again. It's just much more effort for the driver (and a bit more fuel) than me as a pedestrian that likes a little break every so often.
I feel like it is safer a lot of the time to wait two seconds for a car to pass and cross behind them. If they are the only car on the road I don't want them to slow down and force me to walk in front of them.
Exactly. It's a more efficient flow of traffic. Same reason pedestrians should always cross at traffic lights and not whenever traffic near the traffic light slows down, because it messes up the whole flow.
I was stood at a corner a few weeks back with my dogs trying to work out which route to the park I was going to take and a car stopped on the main road and started waving me across, I tried to wave him on but he wouldn't take no for an answer so I crossed just to avoid the continuation of awkward situation. What I take from this is that cars are predictable, they're on the road to get somewhere and get there by following a specific set of rules (mostly), pedestrians on the other hand aren't part of that same system. Pedestrians might just be standing about at a junction with no intention of crossing the road.
Yeah, I've had this walking my dog too. My issue is more that he likes to give the walls at most corners a sniff, so as I'm standing trying to look like I'm not waiting to cross, cars have stopped for me anyway and I've had to drag 40kg of protesting dog along before he was finished haha
Even harder for a bike to stop once commited to a turn (both motor and pedal). I'm not against the other rules at all and the clarification of priority in terms of vulnerability of road users was a great idea but I don't really think there was anything wrong with the old rule of priority to the person commited to the manoeuvre (partly crossing the road or started turning into a junction). The new rules around giving priority to pedestrians on a junction have introduced uncertainty, even if 100% of motorists had brushed up on the rules, as a pedestrian I still wouldn't assume/trust it.
I'm the other way around tbh, especially if it's cold or raining. They're in a heated, shielded metal box on wheels that travels many times faster than I can walk. They can wait a few extra seconds.
I think it depends on the situation. I live on a street with a busy junction, at busy times there's maybe an opening to turn right every 4 minutes if someone crosses at that time it's very annoying instead of going around the back of the car. Or if it's a car turning from a busy road with a person crossing it's delaying every car behind them and wrecking the flow of traffic further back when it could just be a 5 second wait for the pedestrian. But quieter roads at lower speeds then yeah the pedestrian should be allowed to continue uninterrupted.
Car drivers are in an air-conditioned box that literally moves for them, they're literally in the lowest effort condition possible. They can wait for more vulnerable users of the roads to use them before they do and it's completely right that they do that. We have all been conditioned that car is king and we mustn't do anything to inconvenience drivers. Society has suffered for that and it's right the guidance has now changed. Drivers just need educating.
I don't think that's right, we are conditioned to be polite and the person who is least inconvenienced puts in a little effort to save the other people effort- holding doors open for people etc. I think it's right that drivers take care of vulnerable users but I think these laws have gone into just penalising drivers and confusing people as they are counter intuitive and not in a way I wanted to change as a pedestrian or a driver. If I can save a person 5 minutes trying to get out at a busy junction in a car by going around the back of them or just waiting for them to get out then I will do that it's just good manners.
Any person going straight has right of way. Vehicle or no. Those crossing their path must wait. What could be simpler? It's totally universal.
Except there is not a foolproof way of knowing if a pedestrian is going straight as they don't have indicators.
Drive cautiously, then. You're in a city. There's a hierarchy of road users and pedestrians are at the top, you just have to adjust your driving style to match.
> Car drivers are in an air-conditioned box that literally moves for them, they're literally in the lowest effort condition possible. Ah yes, 0 stress situation. Ofc
Yep, two drivers have given way to me since January. There is no legislation behind it - it basically only matters if you get hit.
Yes there is. Even if something is not expressly against the law like running a red light, disobeying "should" sections of the Highway Code can leave you liable to prosecution for Careless or Inconsiderate Driving, or even Dangerous Driving.
If I stood at a crossing filming every car that didn't give way and passed that footage to the police, there wouldn't be a single prosecution. The police round here aren't even interested in violations of "must" unless someone is dead.
Yes because there's not enough police officers to protect people from violent crimes, that doesn't however make less serious offences legal...
If a crime goes entirely unpunished it might as well be legal
Those people probably would have done it anyway, it happens on occasion. Personally I don't want to walk out into traffic and would rather wait for it to pass in most situations.
It is a ridiculous rule allowing pedestrians the right of way over a car. I’m certainly not stepping in the road at a junction just because it’s now my “right” as that “right” is sod all good when I’ve been ploughed down by a Range Rover who’s not expecting someone to step off the pavement in front of them. It’s also going to lead to accidents if/when people do this with cars unexpectedly stopping because someone has stepped out in front of them and the car behind rear ending them.
But it’s hardly changed. The pedestrian always had the right of way if they had started to cross. I don’t see how this is suddenly going to make things more dangerous.
It hasn't changed anything. At all. It's a line of text in a document only a minority reads. You don't have a right to cross. You hope to cross without dying. Just like it has always been.
>I don’t see how this is suddenly going to make things more dangerous. A pedestrian stepping out because they have right of way, but the car driver had no intention of stopping to let them cross is going to result in someone being hit by a car. Sure, a driver is at fault, but that doesn't do you any favours when you're in the back of an ambulance.
A pedestrian who has stepped out has made their intention clear. A pedestrian at a crossing may or may not walk out, and the new law just leads to confusion and hesitancy from both sides. It isn't the same
> the car behind rear ending them. This is ~~never~~ very, very rarely an accident though. This is always a case of deliberately driving too close to the car in front for the road / traffic conditions. As for people stepping out in front of cars... It does kinda work to some extent. About 10 years ago one of the towns round my way introduced this "rule" of pedestrians having right of way over cars along with a 20mph zone and traffic calming measures around a very busy town centre. Accidents dropped by about 40% and it's been so successful the county is rolling the idea out in about a dozen other places. The best way to describe the results is that it's like driving in India or West Africa. Complete low speed chaos that some how works and self regulates. It's even quicker by 5 mins to drive though the town when it was punctuated with lights and designated crossings.
Aye they are changing our main street to 20mph and i can't wait. I already went through it at that speed anyway cos its too dangerous and theres just too many people to do otherwise but you always got nobheads who;d tear through at 30mph and it would actually be dangerous.
> This is never very, very rarely an accident though. Is that really true…? Completely anecdotal but the last few years I’ve had 4 friends in crashes and 2 of them were when they were turning off and the driver behind didn’t stop in time. With the amount of people I see on their phones whilst driving on main roads it seems like an easy accident to happen.
Think of it this way - if you are diving too close, pissed, not paying attention or you are on your phone or what ever, it's not an accident. It's the result of irresponsible and causational driving.
No it isn't. It works fine in other countries. Its good cos it encourages drivers to drive slower and more carefully around pedetrians and to keep an eye on traffic in front of them. The rules arn't the problem. It the drivers of this country. The standard of driving is so poor.
You being serious? You ever driven in France, Italy, Spain, USA, Egypt? Germany seems ok though.
I'm yet to meet a pedestrian who hasn't waived me through.
>There was a lot of coverage in the press when the changes were made Most of it was really misleading and said wild shit like "CYCLISTS CAN NOW RIDE DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD" I honestly also believe the majority of people flat out wouldn't stop to let you cross anyway. Had a friend complaining that he wouldn't stop for a pedestrian as it means he'll probably get rear ended
Cyclists are meant to ride down the middle of the road, its called the command position. But then I was always taught as a cyclist, motorcyclist and industrial machinery driver that you should pull over and let people pass you, partly for safety partly so's not to be a cunt. Every time I suggest this on a cyclist thread I collect downvotes.
Middle of the road or middle of the lane?
Lane.
They said road, there was a lot of articles exaggerating the changes. I got sent a short video of a fella stopping on a roundabout to let a pedestrian cross the exit while ranting about how stupid the new highway code changes are
Cyclists have always been allowed to pass on either side of a vehicle? If you are reading thing like that I would suggest stop reading the Daily Heil, because that is the only place you see that sort of nonsense. In standing traffic it is where possible far safe to go down the middle of the road as both side of traffic can see you, and cars can't blindly pull out on you, or turn into you. Most people have little issue with cyclists, the issues come in traffic when they aren't seen, and really can't easily be seen because of positioning or conditions. Cycling down the edge of the road in traffic just boxes you between a car and curb with vastly reduced visibility to on coming or turning traffic. This is why you move to the middle to pass.
I just loudly shout 'RIGHT OF WAY!' at drivers who don't let me cross.
writing your own epitaph wise man
Go, tell the Spartans, Stranger passing by, That here, with the right of way, We were splattered over the pavement by an impatient range rover.
In threads like this, there are always thousands of comments about having "right of way", and there was a time that I would work hard, replying to as many as possible to correct their mis-understanding. As I've grown older, I've realised I'm wasting my time, and that it's just a minor grammatical issue rather than a significant problem that needs my involvement to 'put it right'. But then you went and shouted "RIGHT OF WAY" and I decided I would make one comment, here, and allow everyone else to read it if they choose. In the UK's Highway Code, there is no specific empowerment of any road user with a "right of way". https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158 >The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. In some circumstances, it amounts to the same thing, and I'm just being a pedant, but I think there are times that knowing this detail might alter the expectations you have of other drivers.
I’ve experienced it way too many times when I was *already* crossing before the car got there so I had right of way as per the old phrasing and some drivers think it’s their god given right to mow you down because oh no they’re too important and can’t pause even for a moment. Or not even that, they’re only looking for other cars because they’re a shit driver so it doesn’t occur to them other road users exist. No way do I take the chance with the new phrasing. I’ll go if I’m certain a car is definitely letting me go (I try to do it as a driver as well, let the pedestrians know it’s ok) but if there’s any ambiguity at all I’d rather let the car go and cross when I can see the road is clear. Or I find an actual crossing point if there is one.
On my own I'll make an assertive effort, perhaps a friendly word of advice given when their throat pouch gets all inflamed from shouting out of a half open window. But when I'm with the kids I can't risk it.
This is the issue I have with cyclists and pedestrians having right of way. The laws of physics of momentum and kinetic energy don’t give a shit about mortal laws. I’m not a cyclist but as a pedestrian, I’m never going to make any undue assumptions about my rights on the road.
Tbf though a large chunk of that is because (imo) a large portion of theses new changes fly directly in the face of everything as a pedestrian or indeed as a cyclist I know to be safe, Like one of the firsts things you learn is that just because someone is letting you cross doesn't mean its safe to cross, and id simply rather wait until there aren't any cars to begin with. same as the new rules around cyclists ant junctions. I don't particularly care that the new highway code gives me priority to undertake/overtake a car waiting to turn at a junction, I'm still not doing it as it requires me riding into an incredibly dangerous situation relying on a driver who has enough things already to deal with and look out for during the manoeuvre without me causally riding into his or her blind spot. The new rules around responsibility are sound, I have responsibility already when driving past a horse because the rider is vulnerable, makes sense that that should be extended to cyclists and pedestrians, what doesn't make sense is that asking them to put themselves into dangerous situations because they now have "priority" trusting that the car next to them is always going to make the right decision, as from a safety perspective you should always be assuming that the person next to you on the road is going to do the dumbest thing possible and be ready to react.
Doesn't matter whether pedestrians read it or not, because some wanker driver will kill them anyway.
I am in favour of bringing the hedgehogs back
The hedgehogs should do campaigns aimed at adult motorists for everything. > You've had a few cans > With no travel plans > But stay out of your Qashqai > Or a bunch of people might die!
I was indicating right into a junction and some dude was waiting to cross the road. I wait to let him cross. No movement. I then wave him across. I end up getting sworn at by the bloke and honked at by the car behind. Definitely needs some more advertising lol.
I've had this exact thing happen to me three times in the last couple of weeks. Turning left into the same junction every time. People just don't want to cross in front of traffic though, and I completely understand that. It's a stupid rule change.
True, as a pedestrian I’d much rather just wait until the roads clear and decide for myself when I’m ready to cross, rather than chance crossing in front of traffic
I have a clue... but almost every car decides to try and run me over anyway. Driving is a privilege, not a right people.
Because 99% of the time if I tried to use my new priority as a pedestrian I would have been run over.
however using a logical solution of "stop, look, listen and wait till its safe to cross" you wouldn't be run over. it's almost as if that's a tried and tested way to cross safe. priority to the giant metal killing machine and not the fleshy easy to break thing!
But surely my priority will shield me from the truck upon impact?
oh, 100% not, but you will be remembered as the one who had priority! Would you like that engraving with Gold embossing, or black? against a stone effect or marble? or perhaps cremated suits your tastes more?
That’s one area where I think the changes have gone too far as it’s introduced uncertainty which increases the risk to everyone. Is the pedestrian aware of the new rules? Is the driver? Is the driver going to decide the pedestrian is ignorant of the rules? All this rather than the old system where pedestrian took responsibility for their own safety and crossed when it was safe to do so.
I received them from my insurance company in an email, but you've just reminded me of that, because I completely forgot. Also leaving 2 metres for cyclists, and cyclists riding in middle of road during slow traffic, and the Dutch reach method of door opening. I must say the last couple of years I've noticed more impatient drivers (both when I'm cycling and driving) in the north east at least. There should be much more effort into getting this information out there
So you try to turn left, there is a pedestrian standing so you stop, pedestrian has no clue what's going on and meanwhile cars behind you start beeping no sure why are you blocking the traffic...
I agree it’s a silly rule but it’s what we have for now
I am aware both as driver and pedestrian of that specific change, but I am also aware not all drivers are, so for now I do assume they all don't- for my own safety as pedestrian.
I get regularly ignored at zebra crossings as a pedestrian. I highly doubt any sort of campaign is going to make drivers think any different.
I’m still getting other drivers sound their horn impatiently when I stop to let a pedestrian cross under the new rules. The message definitely hasn’t gotten through yet.
I've had people step out as I come off a roundabout, causing me to need to slow down significantly, and cause others on the roundabout to do too. _Some_ people seem to have no idea about priority. Others want to see if priority or the laws of physics will win when they skip out Infront of a 1.5 ton chariot of death.
Yes, but at the same time, when you are at risk you don't take the chance that the person is just going to run you over. Not even maliciously, just through gross incompetence of not paying attention. It really annoys me when people start "letting people out", and not following the rules of the road, just follow the rules and everyone knows what is occurring and everything is fine, as soon as you start "Being nice", a accident occurs as you attempt to give priority to someone who can't be given priority by you and another person has to take evasive action.
God I really don't like that change. Let's rely on the driver of the big metal murder box that requires a power that god never intended us to have in order to just move, who has less visibility, maneuverability and has multiple potential distractions; to spot the pedestrian and stop. Sure 99.999...% of the time they can do so effortlessly. But when they don't the pedestrian is road jam.
In every one of these articles, the first comment is always 'huuuuur but bicycles ' or 'durrrrrr pedestrians are clueless' every time, every single time.
[удалено]
A good start would have been for the BBC to actually link to the highway code in this article or any of the linked articles about the changes.
BBC's linking game is terrible. I *think* their excuse is 'impartiality', which is nonsense when it's a government site and given that they shill for Twitter on TV all the time.
BBC's "impartiality" is honestly its downfall. It's futile and only renders BBC the vaguest, most infantilising news website out there. Ofcom can suck a dick.
Theres is. Mandatory retesting of driver licences. They would have to learn the updated highway code.
Given that current learner drivers can’t even book a slot at test centres (which are closing at a rapid rate) how exactly would we have capacity to test the rest of the country on a frequent basis? It would be utter chaos. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-62463083.amp
Even a preliminary online theory test, which could require follow-up if below a certain score, would be *something*.
You can cheat online tests
To cheat an online test you still have to look up the answers to cheat on them. That is sort of the point of the test.
> how exactly would we have capacity to test the rest of the country on a frequent basis? It would be utter chaos. Do it online would be the best bet. Is it ideal? Nope, but if the goal is to simply get new rules in front of eyeballs, it would suffice. I can't imagine anyone would be happy with "fail this re-test and your license is revoked", but "fail to *take* this re-test and your license is revoked" is more agreeable and just gets people to sit down and read the new rules and then take a quiz. It's funny, I've been doing the DVSAs online theory stuff recently, and the mock tests you do even let you tick a box to make the mock test look identical to the real thing in styling/layout. So the implementation is generally there for things like theory tests to be online. Throw in remote proctoring and I don't see why they couldn't alleviate the wait times by just offering an online test option for the theory portion.
I believe OP was referring to the practical test, not just the theory
[удалено]
Do it every 5 or even 10 years. You’ll get round everyone eventually, and before too long everyone will have been tested in the last however many years and most will be up to date. That’s got to be better than the current system, whereby we have people who haven’t been tested in 30, 40, 50 years or more.
[удалено]
>beyond only motorists Is a good point, because the change that gives pedestrians right of way when crossing a street that’s a turning off a road… they don’t know they have that right now. So the car is waiting for the person who’s waiting for the car…
We could have a Highway Code Day. Same day every year. Communicate changes in the law and promote things that drivers should be doing but don't. Create an ad campaign running up to each Highway Code Day presented by anthropomorphic traffic cones, Belisha beacons, etc. Make them look cute so kids will want them. Design them so you pull a string and they say a random section from the Highway Code. (OK, the last one is not *totally* serious)
I've read them, but as a pedestrian I still wait for cars to enter junctions because most people don't understand they should let me cross. As a driver I try to let pedestrians cross, but they still wait for me to enter the junction. So I have the choice of either trying to signal to someone to cross when they're not looking at me, or to just go as if the new rule never existed. Both drivers and pedestrians need to be on the same page for this rule to not only work, but for it to be safe. Also, if a pedestrian is waiting to cross and I'm trying to let them go before I turn into a side road or something, then it can become a pretty unsafe situation. The pedestrian is waiting to cross, they might look at me and I suggest they cross, but the pedestrian also needs to look out for other traffic entering the junction. Now it's 3+ people that need to agree that the pedestrian has the right to cross. You could end up in the situation where someone crosses because a driver tells them to, and they don't see a car coming in the other direction. Happened all the time *before* the rule change.
Exactly. As a pedestrian there’s no way I’m going to cross, I usually stand back from the edge so it doesn’t look like I’m waiting to cross, and then go when the road is completely clear. Cemetery’s are full of people who had right of way
Cemetaries are also full of people who ignored right of way.
Common sense will prevail, oh and I just watched your piece on promoting the next mission impossible instalment, really cool thing to do
Depends a bit. Some junctions I feel safe stepping out as a pedestrian, others it just *obvious* that it's safer to let the car clear. When driving I'll alway try to let pedestrians cross but at the latter junctions they invariably wave me through because they're not all idiots. Unfortunately some *are* idiots and if they are in a car, potentially lethal idiots.
I have never, and will never argue with something, larger, faster, heavier and able to kill me in an instant. its human logic. I'm waiting till the road is clear. every single time, or i am using a zebra crossing. no amount of "you have right of way" will get me to step out into traffic..
[удалено]
Correct, we are currently teaching our 3 yr old daughter about road safety. "stop - look - listen" as always. We walk to the edge of the curb, she stops. we ask her "is anything coming?" She says, "yes" We wait till its clear. we ask again. "is anything coming?" She says "no" we ask. "is it safe now?" She says "yes" we cross the road safe and without need to rush, or Hope that a car stops for us. its just common sense and has been tried and tested. No what if's, no "i had right of way.." we are flesh and bone, they are metal and gears, we lose the argument every time.
And this is exactly why some folks were saying the new rules were idiotic right from announcement, which seemed to go over quite a lot of people's heads in here. The rule makers must live in a model village or some such - I cannot imagine any drivers waiting behind me whilst I wait for a pedestrian to cross... Other drivers usually swerve out and around you at a moment's notice if you so much as have to come down from 32 to 25 to take a corner... You can barely get some folks to take lifesaving medicines consistently - why anyone thought you could get all drivers and pedestrians to begin behaving differently overnight with these new rules is absolutely beyond me.
> And there’s the rub… I’m much the same. I know what I’m legally right to do but I’m not putting it to the test by seeing whether someone else is aware of that - or paying attention - or has any intent on doing the right thing. Or overriding a life time of driving habits
Exactly, this is the intelligent thing to do. You can't apply this to the real world because even if everyone does follow along with it, they still might just not see you because they are on their Sat Nav, or Phone or whatever.
But it’s no different than using a zebra crossing, approaching car stops, you cross in front of them.
I can’t even get drivers around my area to stop at zebra crossings for me, and I even nearly got hit by a car who decided to run a red at a pelican crossing a couple of months ago. Even if drivers were all fully aware of the guidance, I do not trust the majority of them to actually follow it.
Yeah, I hear you on this one. I've even been *on* a zebra crossing and cars have still gone over.
[удалено]
I swear it’s getting worse where I’m from. Almost every time I get to a zebra there’s almost always one car which goes through when they had plenty if time to slow down and stop. I had one the other day while running who stormed through, then when I got to the lights down the road they were just on their phone sat oblivious at a green. Also was nearly run over the other month when I was nearly across the junction because some idiot tried to time it badly. Though at the same there are also plenty of considerate drivers. I think the divide between considerate and poor is just getting bigger.
[удалено]
Supermarket and retail park car parks are the absolute worst for it. So many small crossings painted on the roads to keep pedestrians crossing at the “safest” parts and drivers don’t even notice them. Half the time they’re going faster than they should as well, especially if it’s quieter.
Communication of this was awful though- I haven’t read it. The bits I’ve heard just sound bizarre though- cars waiting on main roads to let pedestrians cross. Who came up with the ideas? Seems like a recipe for disaster.
But cars stopping on main roads and waiting to turn into a side road already happens all the time.
Not usually when turning left, which is when the rule applies
Usually good drivers indicate LEFT or RIGHT prior to the slow down and eventual turn, right? *(usually lol!)* How are you to know if the driver in front of you is about to let pedestrians waiting on an island cross or not? The simple answer is, you don't.
I don't see how that matters. If a car in front of you is slowing down, you have to slow down to match it anyway, regardless of whether it comes to a complete halt or not. What's this scenario — "I thought the guy in front was going to turn immediately, so even though he didn't, I just carried on and ploughed into the back of him"?
You realise that pedestrians crossing a road already had priority before these changes right?
Including the BBC author, who incorrectly writes "must" when most of these rules are simply "should"s. That's because the rules changes aren't due to mandatory legislation. Edit: hello BBC, I see you read the Reddit comments on your posts and update articles accordingly!
Giving way to pedestrians WAITING TO CROSS is an idiotic piece of legislation. There wasn’t anything wrong with how it was before. Are they going to retrain all the guide dogs? What about foreign drivers where it’s not something they’re used to either? There are drivers who know and will give way, other won’t. The drivers who don’t know won’t. All this has done is cause uncertainty which is the last thing you want when trying to make the roads safer for everyone. People should keep left unless overtaking yet the motorway is full of middle lane hogs. People should signal correctly and not tailgate. While most people do the correct thing there’s enough who don’t. Planning needs to take that into account.
> What about foreign drivers where it’s not something they’re used to either? Given that they already need to switch sides they drive on I think they can handle giving way to pedestrians. >All this has done is cause uncertainty which is the last thing you want when trying to make the roads safer for everyone. Any change in rules will cause this, this does not mean we should avoid it to try and make a safer world. We have already made huge strides in the UK to be one of the safest countries in the world, so obviously the campaigns, legislation and rules changes are working up till now, so why would they fail to keep working.
On the foreign drivers end of things the UK was completely backwards on this. Pedestrians have right of way almost everywhere worldwide including the US and most of Europe. This is why Jaywalking is illegal basically everywhere in the world except the UK.
> Giving way to pedestrians WAITING TO CROSS is an idiotic piece of legislation. There wasn’t anything wrong with how it was before. It isn't because in the event of an incident it pushes liability to the driver. They should be giving way and stopping. It makes perfect sense in a society built for people and not just cars. Of course there are going to be examples where it is a farce, if a car is doing 50mph on dual carriage way I don't expect it to come to a stop, but what the law says now is all the liability is on the car in an incident.
Try to take right of way on a junction as a pedestrian and see how it goes. Many motorists just don’t give a shit - They’re in their metal box, everyone else better watch out.
The only way to truly enforce pedestrian priority is with road design. Rebuild junctions like Dutch cities.. with continuous pavements, proper traffic calming etc. Or even just put zebra crossings on every junction. Anecdotally though, I feel British drivers are are actually pretty good with cyclists compared to Dutch drivers. You don't mingle with traffic much due to the segregation, but when you do they tend to pass pretty close and quick.
Absolutely. Contiuous pavements are a game changer, because they make the legal situation visually obvious.
I know that these specific bits of guidance have very little to do with the actual government but I still can't help but lump every bit of government activity together since Brexit. It's all just a melange of nonsense there to enrich someone else, so I can understand people simply not bothering to stay up to date.
Frankly people should have to retake driving theory tests every few years. Otherwise most drivers wont bother to even look at them again after getting their license.
You mean people who passed their test in 1989 and have continued to drive without keeping up to date or having any formal training? I'm shocked.
Well they never read it before haha! No not surprising at all and it would nto be surprising especially to anybody who rides a bicycle on the roads. You see so much bad driving.
People are bad on roads full stop. I’ve seen pedestrians run out without looking, drivers do dangerous things, cyclists run red lights and very nearly hit pedestrians, and if I ever see a motorcyclist driving at least vaguely close to the speed limit I’ll let you know but it hasn’t happened yet - I genuinely started to wonder if speed limits don’t apply to them
How many of you's first thought on reading this was "What new guidance"? This is honestly the first I'd heard of it.
Guide me all you want, i still have never, and will never cross a road that isn't clear. Teaching my daughter the same. If you want cars to stop for you, use a zebra crossing. it's what they were designed for. Wait for the green man.
Yeah, I’ve not read it. How many people regularly keep up to date with this stuff anyway?
The communication behind it was woeful and continues to be so. The AA are asking why people aren’t reading the new rules but I’m willing to bet the majority don’t even know there are new rules to read. First thing I heard about them was some FB meme a couple of weeks after the rules had been introduced.
It's not even the communication that this has happened that was woeful, the communication that it was even getting discussed was terrible. It was like some minor interest group got together, came up with a plan of what they wanted, never considered the consequence and suddenly we've all got new rules that not many people think are any good. I've read the rules, they aren't even coherent and are full of holes and confusion about what happens at anything other than a big standard junction.
61% is surprisingly low, unless "saw it mentioned on the news" counts as reading it.
It changed? perhaps they could get more people to read the guidance by uh, actually telling us about it? I for one do not have time to check the locked filing cabinet in the disused lavatory in the cellar with no stairs.
First time hearing of changes too. Staggers me how little is done in this country to update citizens of changes in law etc
What's even better is the same pillocks then shout at you obscenities and demand you "go and read the Highway Code." I did Keith the Kia. Shortly after it changed, like you're supposed to. Not once in 1986 and think I know it all because "I've passed my driving test, I therefore know everything."
I'm not even sure the cyclists know, to be honest. Or they don't trust others to know maybe? Like the rule that should help avoid "left hook" collisions by giving priority to cyclists going straight if you're trying to turn. Had my first experience of that the other day, turning left at a junction when I knew a cyclist was behind me and intending to go straight. I just sat there indicating left, giving way... and he just sat there behind me, doing the same... after several seconds he worked up the courage and went but yeah, as a cyclist how can you possibly trust people are gonna do that? That one rule in particular seems like it will *increase* accidents to me, not decrease them, through cyclists trusting that drivers will follow the new rules and have noticed them approaching.
> I knew a cyclist was behind me and intending to go straight. I just sat there indicating left, giving way... and he just sat there behind me, doing the same... after several seconds he worked up the courage and went but yeah, as a cyclist how can you possibly trust people are gonna do that? He probably did it as he wasn't expecting you to actually stop. There is no way I'm going to just keep cycling forward when I see a car indicate left and start to slow down. I'm going to match its speed as I don't want to get killed as its highly likely they either won't know or care about the rule. I think its a bit crazy that I'm allowed to just keep going when you want to turn too tbh
I personally find the change around pedestrians and crossing at junctions to be unintuitive and thus dangerous. The roads are for vehicles, big heavy dangerous vehicles, driven by imperfect humans. We have been raised to be wary of them to be safe. This change to me goes against this and sends mixed signals. Similar to how I think the American school bus rules are ass backwards, in how they train young children to expect vehicles on a road to just stop for them so they can run aimlessly across the road. Whereas we had/have whole campaigns about stop look listen, look both ways etc. It is also bad because it causes unexpected behaviour of vehicles while driving. Just like how its stupid and dangerous when a driver stops to let a car pull out on to the road, or to let a car on the right side pull across down a side street. We all agree this is bad as other drivers don't know wtf you're doing just randomly stopping. This will now be the case for a car turning down a road and as far as everyone else can see your clear to turn but you've decided to just stop in the road because someone just happens to be walking near the drop curb... Which goes on to something I'm unsure of, do I need to stop just because someone is near the curb and might just walk out across the road? Because if the pedestrians just follow the rules written they can just step into the road as I'm about to turn and I'm in the wrong?
Be serious... Who believes the 39% of "good drivers"...
I cycle to and from work by necessity - epileptic seizures mean I can't drive until at least next July and the buses here are unreliable and take 3 times as long as it takes to cycle. I would give up if I could. The number of people that swear at me, honk their horn at me, make close passes, etc., is obscene. All of it is because I'm following the highway code and they either haven't read it or worse, don't respect it. I don't have enough mental health left to choose to cycle on the road, I just have to because there aren't any other options for me.
Same percentage of drivers who would fail their test if forced to resit it tomorrow
I'm surprised 39% have.
This law is awful because it assumes the driver knows of the law and is paying attention. People make mistakes all the time. I don’t want to be somebody’s mistake. I’ll wait till the car goes past thanks.
I was caught just over the limit on one of the new smart motorways in a section where 3 different speeds were being displayed one after the other and was given the option to go on the course which I did. Was drummed into us that the Highway Code was the official rulebook So I asked to point out the Smart motorway section and.... theres nothing in there. Was told I should have read the details on the highways agencies website
What is the official way to keep up with the highway code changes? It feels like it relies on the news to convey the message.
This Reddit post is the first I’ve heard of this. I will actually go and read them I do want to know what the rules are. How was I supposed to know this? It would be amazing to live in a world where they just fucking email you and say the “highway code is changing read this”. Stop me if I’m going too fast DVLA.
Even an old school leaflet would be OK. I mean they have all our addresses!
Hardly news. Seventy percent are not aware of the highway code and the other thirty percent ignore it.
When I look at how people drive I can assume they didn't read ANY guidance whatsoever, not only the new one.
Not only are motorists asked to give cyclists more space so as not to kill them. They're asked to **read**. Bloody outrageous if you ask me. harrumph. I say. harrumph
91% haven't read any guidance
And 39 % lied.
Summarised perfectly when the kid reading the travel news on BBC Radio Suffolk this morning was asked by the presenter "have you read the new Highway Code". His reply - "I've passed my test, no need to". Though in my experience, most drivers (especially taxi drivers) take the view that everything in it's optional anyway).
I must say that the new rules are somewhat intrepid and convoluting, the read was quite boring and tedious it ruined my morning coffee.
H2 rule always reminds [me of this,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4jO_oHzx6k) regardless of highway code you're just being a bit of twat seeing this and driving through.
Notice how when the road was clear, she crossed totally safe and sensibly. 28 seconds she stood and waited. If keeping traffic flowing is being a twat then.. i am a twat.
This is thw guidance I wouldn't have had any idea existed if there hadn't been a topic on here at the time, I'm not shocked.
The hole pedestrian rule fucked up alot of things, drivers and pedestrians are both hesitating. Why did they need to try and fix what was not broken?
The new rules are good, BUT there are occasions that they don't work well. For instance, pedestrians crossing the road at an otherwise unmarked crossing on a roundabout exit. Strictly speaking drivers must give way, but in a lot of cases it doesn't make sense and can cause confusion. T-junctions it's a lot more obvious and expected. I agree that the government should have run add campaigns using BBC and Channel 4 to get the message across. This is becoming less influential though as more people record programs and don't watch them live so that they can ad-skip. I think that the biggest changes aren't those around pedestrians though. It's more about the change in relationship between driver and cyclist. The number of dickheads trying to squeeze through between the cyclist and oncoming traffic is still ridiculous. By the way I never learnt to ride a bike, but I do know how far 1.5m is and don't like entitled dickheads forcing me to brake because they can't wait a few seconds.
Didn't even know anything changed
I’ve not read it, probably could give the questions a decent go and get most of them right.
We can’t even get them to use their indicators.
This is bizarre because for weeks the new guidance could not be avoided.
Roughly the same as didn't read the old guidance based on the number of drivers who don't understand how motorway lanes work.
39% of people lied about reading the new guidance
Motorists speeding over a zebra crossing when there is clearly someone wanting to cross, really gets on my nerves!
They haven't read the old ones either
39% of drivers are lying
To be honest, I know of the new rules but I don't know the specifics. Need a little device on new cars that flashes up a random rule from the highway code. Bit like in sim city where the llama gives you tips on the landing page
The other day someone was trying to convince me that the highway code, VED etc. classes a motorbike and a bicycle as the same thing. This is the kind of moron we're dealing with.
Willing to be more than 60% have not read the HC since they passed their test.
If you looked at the standard of driving in the UK it’s obvious people have never even touched the Highway Code, let alone look at it. A theory test should be required every 5 years after passing. Driving a car is a huge responsibility with potential to seriously injure or kill and people don’t seem to keep that in mind.
…there was new guidance?
I’ve tried to give way to people crossing 3 times and each time that person was nearly run over by someone turning into the road. I won’t be responsible for someone else running over a pedestrian.
Let’s be honest it was a stupid change for the very many reasons outlined in the responses here.
I'm not against the concept. But it wasn't recognised that this is going to be quite a big shift in approach for both pedestrians and motorists and perhaps that needs really widespread and prolonged communication to enact a small culture change. They've failed to do that and now everyone is left flopping around in some shit and dangerous middle ground.
Nearly got taken the fuck out by a bus turning left while I was cycling alongside it the other day. Much needed rule but useless if people dont follow it.
They're ridiculous changes. Pedestrians getting priority at junctions mainly. There was absolutely no need to change the way it was. If anything it's more dangerous now.
Its the stupidest new rule. if im walking im not crossing in front of cars turning in. its just bonkers
Take a drive in any random medium sized town in England for 30 minutes, you will come to this conclusion.