Interpretation of the Highway Code changes
- Thread starter PC2017
- Start date
I have always given way to pedestrians waiting to cross - if it seems safe
not so much to be nice to them - more just in case they do something dumb
a head can make a really bad dent in a bonnet!!!
When I have done so since the 'changes' people have reacted exactly the same as before - check if I mean it or look confused generally!
As far as cycling is concerned - there have been some points where I feel drivers have seem to have been expecting me to 'take the lane' at a narrow point such as a central refuge - so there may be more awareness.
It has worked quite well as I always move back to the side immediately after if I can
not so much to be nice to them - more just in case they do something dumb
a head can make a really bad dent in a bonnet!!!
When I have done so since the 'changes' people have reacted exactly the same as before - check if I mean it or look confused generally!
As far as cycling is concerned - there have been some points where I feel drivers have seem to have been expecting me to 'take the lane' at a narrow point such as a central refuge - so there may be more awareness.
It has worked quite well as I always move back to the side immediately after if I can
That's a good video, thanks.
I think his point about cyclists being surprised is quite a good one - i.e. cyclists have to give way to pedestrians too, and that may well not occur to young riders or people that don't drive cars, or simply that they (the cyclists) are already vulnerable themselves, so they're only considering cars - not pedestrians.
Being honest, I know - before the changes - I'd have not given way, as long as the pedestrian wasn't actually stepping out. On actual zebra crossing, then yes, I would stop of course. Whilst muttering about the wasted pedalling effort.
[Edit: actually, having a second read of the Highway Code Rule H2, I'm not sure you need to give way to people on the main road, only on the side road, like so:
Thoughts?
I think his point about cyclists being surprised is quite a good one - i.e. cyclists have to give way to pedestrians too, and that may well not occur to young riders or people that don't drive cars, or simply that they (the cyclists) are already vulnerable themselves, so they're only considering cars - not pedestrians.
Being honest, I know - before the changes - I'd have not given way, as long as the pedestrian wasn't actually stepping out. On actual zebra crossing, then yes, I would stop of course. Whilst muttering about the wasted pedalling effort.
[Edit: actually, having a second read of the Highway Code Rule H2, I'm not sure you need to give way to people on the main road, only on the side road, like so:
Thoughts?
Last edited:
Even under the existing law , a vehicle user when leaving a side road has to give way to any pedestrian who has started to cross the main road. Given that, and the consensus to date on the new highway code, when leaving a side road one should give way to pedestrians wanting to cross the main road if it's already clear for them to do so.[Edit: actually, having a second read of the Highway Code Rule H2, I'm not sure you need to give way to people on the main road, only on the side road, like so:
Thoughts?
Put simply, as a vehicle user one should not be the cause of preventing them crossing the main road.
If they are already prevented from crossing by traffic travelling along the main road, then no giving way is necessary of course.
As the driver making that video says, the code is open to interpretation, as it always has been and why it is not and cannot be the law.
.
Possibly not quite the same situation, flecc (unless I've read your reply incorrectly - not unusual!).
I meant I'm going along the main road (near a junction) and someone at a crossing point (not a zebra one) wants to step out. Do I legally need to stop?
Were I turning off the main road and the pedestrian is crossing parallel to the main road - as per the image above - I do need to give way, but what if I'm already on the main road?
I meant I'm going along the main road (near a junction) and someone at a crossing point (not a zebra one) wants to step out. Do I legally need to stop?
Were I turning off the main road and the pedestrian is crossing parallel to the main road - as per the image above - I do need to give way, but what if I'm already on the main road?
So far local to me the new rules haven't worked at all for me on my bike, I have to force the issue and make the cars stop mid turn as they simply are not giving way as they should do.
Even on the cycle route running along the main A23 where it crosses two drop kerbs for access to the retail park I have to wave my finger at cars and force across and the tail of cars refuse to give way.
Mortons are ignorant unobservant f***s who couldn't give a toss to those on the outside of their metal crates.
Even on the cycle route running along the main A23 where it crosses two drop kerbs for access to the retail park I have to wave my finger at cars and force across and the tail of cars refuse to give way.
Mortons are ignorant unobservant f***s who couldn't give a toss to those on the outside of their metal crates.
Last edited:
No not legally, these are RULES and open to interpretation with a degree of intuition with regards to the situation and consideration to safety for all road users including yourself, I believe the new rules are there to encourage road users including pedestrian to read and foresee the actions of others and plan ahead by commanding your space and the area ahead.
I think of it like the amber light if you are 3+ meters away I stop, if I am 1 meter away I go & how many times has someone walked off the pavement, phone in hand and you slammed on the brakes, thinking "I knew he/she was going to that!"
I have learnt so much from Ashley, some stuff I knew but forgot and how many actual road markings and signs do we all know. I personally knew that the white zigzag markings near a zebra crossing means no parking but did not know it also means NO undertaking. On one of my first outings on my ebike I did undertake a big van near a zebra cross, one I was familiar with and flew across it and was mere inches from hitting someone, this is the main reason I try and learn everyday.
Yes I misunderstood. You definitely do not need to stop if you are already on the main road. If that were the rule the whole country could be paralysed during the rush hour!
.
Last edited:
A bit of an aside, but you can overtake/undertake in the zig zags with one vital proviso:
Rule 191 [with my underline]:
You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.
The 'nearest' logic is two-fold I think:
- the overtaker/undertaker may not see the pedestrian in time because they're hidden by the nearest vehicle - exactly as you described
- the pedestrian is only going to look at the nearest vehicle. Pedestrians still need to judge the nearest vehicle's speed, i.e. will it actually stop in time. They won't be looking at the second vehicle.
You can pull alongside the front vehicle though.
I suppose this is where intuition comes into to play and taking a slower more cautious approach in built up and pedestrian dense areas, me personally, if possible I would take up a cars space behind the car or stop beside the rear of the first queuing car, mainly because some drivers are unaware of their blind spots and some use the wait to check farcebook. If I am placed at the rear or the side of the car I can see the crossing, others approaching from all sides and inside the car, as for a large lorry, with limited view I would be at the rear on the left until my visibility has increased. Lorries have more blind spots. EDIT + being able to increase my view of any incoming emergency services vehicles.
For an opinion as to what is the difference between rules\guidance and what is a legal requiment, go and ask the man in charge, he is called Boris.
To paraphrase Sir Robert Armstrong (re: Spycatcher), Boris is 'economical with the truth [and the law]'.
'Winging it' would be a generous description.
I bet when he cycled to work his aids insisted on him NOT carrying a stick to knock the plebs out of the way
I dislike Johnson as much as anyone, but in fairness with his cycle commuting he just mucked in with everyone else as just another cyclist in the crowd. He never wore a helmet either until the nanny state media started nagging so much about it that in the end he gave in and put one on just to shut them up.I bet when he cycled to work his aids insisted on him NOT carrying a stick to knock the plebs out of the way
.
Last edited:
His badgers are dealt with by camouflaged MI5 sniper cyclists with infrared night vision scoped guns
Last edited:
No badgers where he cycled. Here's photos of with and without helmet, in fact he's been banned from cycling now by the security services due to terrorist risks.
The real fear is badger assassins. Trust me.No badgers where he cycled. Here's photos of with and without helmet, in fact he's been banned from cycling now by the security services due to terrorist risks.
Badgers would if they could reach the pedals, as they'd cause far more wrist breakages using vans and cars! Badgers hate cyclists! I have posted proof that badgers hate cyclists! BEWARE OF BADGERS EVERYONE! Install waterproof ultrasonic wildlife deterrents on your bikes! The health of your wrists and skulls demands it! (especially if you are not wearing a helmet)
Last edited:
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
