Highway Code Changes from 29/01/2022
 

I have just discovered that the UK Highway Code is changing from next Saturday, which is something that hasn't been publicised very well.

The changes aren't explained too clearly online (see link below), but the most significant change I think I actually understand is in regards to rights of way at junctions.

As of next Saturday, anyone, be they on foot, on a pogo-stick, cycling, scootering, skateboarding, motorcycling, riding a horse, donkey, camel or unicorn, who intends to continue straight on where there is a junction to the left or right, now has priority over anyone wanting to turn into or out of that junction.

For example, if you are driving through a Town centre and want to turn left into a side road, if there are pedestrians walking on the pavement parallel to your vehicle who intend to cross the mouth of the side road you want to turn in to (from either side), you will have to stop to allow them to cross.

Failing to do so will be an offence, and running someone over who you haven't seen but who walks, runs, cycles or gallops into the road in front of you anyway will be a very bad offence. Prepare for complete gridlock in busy town centres where there are lots of pedestrians strolling along the pavements and taking it in turns to slowly cross the side roads.

The same goes for cyclists as they will legally be able to cycle up the inside of vehicles that are indicating left and turning into junctions, and the responsibility will lie with the vehicle driver to see them and let them proceed. Prepare for lots of cyclists who end up crushed under the back wheels of vans and HGV's because the drivers can't see the cyclist exercising their right to undertake them at junctions.

These changes are supposed to improve road safety, I would suggest they will do the opposite. As with the 'traffic calming' concrete chicanes that were introduced in Leicester, which actually increased pedestrian casualties but were said to have reduced accidents (it's not counted as an accident if someone can be blamed), I see this doing the same.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...e-highway-code

LOL !
Do the pedestrians have an obligation to look before they cross the road ? What about the Green Cross Code ?
With regards to cyclists, what are the rules for under taking another vehicle in those situations ?
Pedestrian Crash For Cash anyone ?

The way I understand it is that drivers have a legal obligation to look out for pedestrians but pedestrians are only advised to look out for vehicles. The details indicate that drivers need to give more consideration to the additional vulnerability of children, hearing or sight impaired people etc., which most people do anyway, but it is a charter for people to just walk into the road in front of moving vehicles without diverting their attention from their phone.

As for cyclists, as I read the legislation, they have right of way up the inside or outside of any vehicle that intends to or is turning into a junction, as do pedestrians and horses.

That turns a couple of basic, longstanding rules of the road on their heads - never overtake another vehicle when approaching a junction to the right and never overtake on the inside unless the road layout or (traffic jam) conditions allow it.

Given how modern SUV's, never mind vans and HGV's have terrible blind spots to the rear three quarters, and even sensibly sized modern cars have huge blind spots to both sides obliquely ahead from their crash protectingly thick windscreen pillars, there are going to be many casualties caused by people who are legally in the right blundering on past a vehicle being driven by someone who can't see them as they turn.

As I alluded to earlier, though, if someone can be blamed for a death on the road then it doesn't count as an accidental death. The result of that stupidity is that the inevitable and significant increase in pedestrian and cyclist fatalities on our roads as a result of these new laws will be hailed as a major improvement in road safety as there will be less 'accidental' deaths.

Madness.

Should be illegal to cross the road whilst on you phone.

Ashley Neal is doing a mini-series on the new rules. Up to part 2 so far:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0rEfS4WTIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scVbKfKEwoE
I believe the existing rules about under-taking still apply, so in the case mentioned above, the cyclist would still be committing an offence by under-taking a signalling car. I agree tho, the changes would seem to be missing some sort of jay-walking type rule, to balance thing out a bit better and help stop pedestrians deliberately getting in the way.

Thanks for sharing those youtube clips, Kon, he does explain things pretty well. He also clearly states where there is some severe and quite dangerous ambiguity regarding pedestrians' rights where there are already light controlled pedestrian crossings.

The old lady on the mobility scooter who almost ends up under the truck reminds me of what happened on my class H HGV driving test in Stamford rather a long time ago.

A few minutes into the test, the examiner told me to turn left at a traffic light controlled junction which had a turn left lane and a straight ahead lane, so I positioned my Tank (yes, really) to straddle both lanes so nothing could come alongside (the back of a Tank swings out to the right when you turn left as it steers from the centre) and stopped as the lights were red.

When they went green, I kicked it into third gear (of seven), floored it and pulled back hard on the left stick (a Tank won't turn well without the application of lots of right welly).

As we charged into the turn with the engine bellowing and smoke blasting out of the exhaust, someone riding an early mobility scooter of the covered type that looked like half a telephone kiosk (remember them?) jumped the lights ahead and careered across my path on two wheels (I think the gallant charioteer had lost control). I had to stamp on the brakes to avoid giving them a terminal overdose of clankety-clank.

Now, the thing with Tanks is that they have incredibly good traction. When you hit the brakes they stop, often within their own length. On the road, this results in the front nosediving into the tarmac and the back end rearing up in the air and then crashing back down after a short period of giving onlookers every appearance that it's going to do a complete forward roll.

That's very bad for the occupants in the turret, on this occasion a Tank Commander and a DVLA driving examiner, as there are lots of sticky out things like controls for turning the turret, boxes full of explosive shells and the breech of the main armament for people rattling around the inside to get impaled on. It was also nearly a very bad day for two little old ladies in a Mini Metro behind us who had come within inches of driving under the back of the Tank as it fell back to Earth.

Despite that incident (and squashing a few cones at roadworks on the A1 which I don't think the examiner noticed) I did pass my Class H test first time. Quite possibly, the examiner just decided never again...

Thanks for sharing that. The image gave me quite a chuckle :)

Watched this yesterday on it from the Black Belt Barrister

https://youtu.be/zU9tBBQNq_0

Its madness. Probably thought up by a panel of non driving loons.

How on earth has this got to the point of being law.

Apparently the majority of respondents to the government survey / consultancy when it happened were the cycling lobby, about 2/3 in total. Hence the bias towards cyclists priority. Be careful on the roads, they'll all have camera's on to record every infringement by motorists . Open season for no win, no fee type claims !

The Highway code at least clearly states that the new priorities don't remove the need for everyone to drive/ride/walk/pogo stick sensibly.

My worry is that quite a lot of the militant 'cycling is best' brigade will be filming their own deaths as they furiously pedal their bikes up the inside of cars, vans and HGV's in traffic on roundabouts and at junctions without realising that the drivers' can't see them due to the architecture of their vehicle. At least they'll go to their deaths with the smug satisfaction that they were in the right.

I have a front and rear dashcam setup that I fit to whatever car I happen to be using, which I'm afraid I believe is an essential requirement due to the appalling behaviour of many people on the road these days.

I was the victim of a "crash for cash" fake accident a few years ago. Despite reporting it as such the four blokes in the other car claimed individually for whiplash and got a

All the more reason to have a dashcam. I got mine after someone swerved into me on a roundabout. He was alongside/behind in the lane to my right and his nearside front tyre hit my offside rear wheel, spinning me through 180 degrees. Luckily nothing else hit me and there was no damage to my car, just rubber stripes on my alloy from his tyre which washed off. I didn't see his car as he drove off and parked it somewhere before walking back to the roundabout, but there can't have been any damage. Despite that, he claimed against my insurance for more than

Well this is weird, the ends of the posts seem to be dropping of when we hadn't finished what we were

I had the same problem tonight on a different thread??

[QUOTE=Mister Towed;107352]

OK, I can't seem to reply either.

Will have to wait until this is fixed.

10 lines should show.
Is this sentence going to be cut short or is it going to show right until the end.
Is this sentence going to be cut short or is it going to show right until the end.
Is this sentence going to be cut short or is it going to show right until the end.
Is this sentence going to be cut short or is it going to show right until the end.
Is this sentence going to be cut short or is it going to show right until the end.
Is this sentence going to be cut short or is it going to show right until the end.
Is this sentence going to be cut short or is it going to show right until the end.
Is this sentence going to be cut short or is it going to show right until the end.
Is this sentence going to be cut short or is it going to show right until the end.
Is this sentence going to be cut short or is it going to show right until the end.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Nesciunt eos sapiente doloremque repellendus beatae quae eum dolorem earum iure velit placeat ipsa, molestias inventore, ad accusamus commodi et doloribus eligendi unde architecto eius debitis aliquid! Possimus, nemo? Alias, rerum dolorum. Voluptas cumque recusandae deleniti veniam dolor ipsa velit obcaecati saepe, dolorem qui alias maxime quae corrupti tenetur fugit, ab aut consequatur, incidunt laudantium autem atque molestiae. Earum incidunt aspernatur corporis. Provident, accusamus eveniet. Eaque facilis placeat repudiandae aspernatur neque porro iste ipsum quas voluptas beatae! Distinctio omnis natus aut placeat ex architecto saepe quidem, tempora quo iste optio quis rerum.

The issue I had yesterday was after previewing the post.

Edit after posting. But this one worked okay?

Okay, testing again. This time from my PC with a bit more text....

Alias, rerum dolorum. Voluptas cumque recusandae deleniti veniam dolor ipsa velit obcaecati saepe, dolorem qui alias maxime quae corrupti tenetur fugit, ab aut consequatur, incidunt laudantium autem atque molestiae. Earum incidunt aspernatur corporis. Provident, accusamus eveniet. Eaque facilis placeat repudiandae aspernatur neque porro iste ipsum quas voluptas beatae! Distinctio omnis natus aut placeat ex architecto saepe quidem, tempora quo iste optio quis rerum.

Post edit: seems to be working okay now?