Highway Code changes effective from January 29th

[m80]

Sort of similar to giving buses the right of way,
it didn't work out too well.

Giving one party ultimate priority removes the need to be responsible for their actions, and even self preservation in some cases.

 

[Deleted member 159894]

Sort of similar to giving buses the right of way,
it didn't work out too well.

Giving one party ultimate priority removes the need to be responsible for their actions, and even self preservation in some cases.

Pedestrians have always had the right of way.

 

[ChrisHGTV]

There were some proposals a few years back here in the UK to change the legislation to say that in any collision between a pedestrian or a cyclist and a car, the car driver will automatically be deemed at fault. I believe that this has already been trialled in some places in Europe. The idea is to put the onus on car drivers to look out for pedestrians and cyclists, and avoid a collision. The current changes do not go that far, but they are certainly a step in that direction.

I think this is generally the case in Europe, certainly Italy.

 

[Alfie]

Im not sure that the Highway code is law to be honest. I have a feeling it is advisory hence its issued as a code not a law. I will make some enquiries.

 

[Deleted member 126251]

This thread reminded me of a company I once worked for. To be allowed to get a company car you had to (besides being entitled to a company car & having a valid driving permit):

1) Pass a co-ordination and eyesight test (they used their testing facility for potential heavy machinery operators (excavators, cranes etc).
2) Pass a driving test with an IAM examiner (not quite to IAM standards but stricter than a normal drivers license). It was useful as she pointed out a few bad habits that I’d developed.

It amazes me just how many bad drivers there are out on the roads & it makes me think that it is just too easy to get a driving license.

(PS - I did get the company car).

 

[Deleted member 126251]

There were some proposals a few years back here in the UK to change the legislation to say that in any collision between a pedestrian or a cyclist and a car, the car driver will automatically be deemed at fault. I believe that this has already been trialled in some places in Europe. The idea is to put the onus on car drivers to look out for pedestrians and cyclists, and avoid a collision. The current changes do not go that far, but they are certainly a step in that direction.

Yep seems we need more and more rules because people cannot use their common sense (if they actually have any).

Years ago ( ~45) in SA knew a guy that had accidentally killed a child with his car. He was driving at the speed limit when a kid ran out from between two parked cars. No his fault at all. However, the court ruled that as he was in a built up area he should have anticipated that there could be kids running about & he was in all sorts of trouble. He was a sales rep - changed jobs so that he didn’t have to do as much driving & never really got over the fact that the kid had died.

People need to think about the consequences to their actions.

 

[Petrol Pete]

Reminds me of something a long number of years back . The company I was working for suddenly asked all of us company car drivers to show our licences to head office.

It appeared that 'more than' one employee had lost their license and not told the company. Not sure if that could happen nowadays.

 

[John]

Im not sure that the Highway code is law to be honest. I have a feeling it is advisory hence its issued as a code not a law. I will make some enquiries.

I think your right. I'm pretty sure it is not law. But I suspect it is used to assist apportioning blame by insurance companies / the law etc.

For instance if you did not give right of way to a car approaching from your right on a roundabout and there was a crash, it would be your fault and it's the HC which is the only thing that concurs I believe.

 

[bolidemichael]

I don't believe that it is law as it is by definition, a code. However, it'll instruct decisions arising from matters of shared road usage, from the minor to more serious.

 

[st13phil]

Im not sure that the Highway code is law to be honest. I have a feeling it is advisory hence its issued as a code not a law.

My understanding is that:

• Where the Highway Code uses the word "must" in a rule there is underlying law mandating that behaviour, and the Highway Code is merely summarising the legal language of the law in "layman's terms" plain English
• Where the Highway Code uses the word "should" in a rule there is no underlying law mandating that behaviour, but the Highway Code is articulating what is considered minimum "best practice"

As mentioned earlier in this thread (by @E55BOF), while contravention of a Highway Code "should" cannot on it's own be a cause for legal sanction, such a contravention would normally be taken into account when it comes to disposal of a related matter for which adherence to the "should" may have mitigated the outcome.

 

[st13phil]

Pedestrians have always had the right of way.

People need to think about the consequences to their actions.

As I have said before in another thread, it is right and proper that those who have the potential to do most harm must bear the greatest responsibility to ensure that they don't cause harm to others, but, that should not (must not?) absolve the more vulnerable from the responsibility they bear to not unnecessarily put themselves at undue risk.

While it's quite correct that pedestrians have always had right of way over motor vehicles, there is also an expectation that pedestrians should not deliberately - or at least what in the view of a reasonable person would be considered behaving recklessly - put themselves in harm's way.

Creating "automatic liability" based on a vulnerability hierarchy could on the one hand be considered a safety measure, but on the other it is an invitation to the reckless (and/or responsibility shirkers) with a likely increase in bad outcomes. Fortunately this re-writing of the Highway Code does not go that far, but I'm not sure the consequences of the revisions have been properly thought through.

 

[Tonygw]

These changes are obviously written and agreed upon by the same clinically insane team that came up with smart motorways..

I think they live in an apartment in Broadmore...

 

[Deleted member 159894]

As I have said before in another thread, it is right and proper that those who have the potential to do most harm must bear the greatest responsibility to ensure that they don't cause harm to others, but, that should not (must not?) absolve the more vulnerable from the responsibility they bear to not unnecessarily put themselves at undue risk.

While it's quite correct that pedestrians have always had right of way over motor vehicles, there is also an expectation that pedestrians should not deliberately - or at least what in the view of a reasonable person would be considered behaving recklessly - put themselves in harm's way.

Creating "automatic liability" based on a vulnerability hierarchy could on the one hand be considered a safety measure, but on the other it is an invitation to the reckless (and/or responsibility shirkers) with a likely increase in bad outcomes. Fortunately this re-writing of the Highway Code does not go that far, but I'm not sure the consequences of the revisions have been properly thought through.

Ah, but what about the pedestrians who don't drive?

They will have no reason to have read the highway code and, therefore, won't even know about their entitlement!

 

[bolidemichael]

Society is leaning towards an unbalanced prioritisation of the elimination of risk over responsibility over one's actions.

 

[Tonygw]

Life is very confusing sometimes.
At work where we have vehicles, forklift trucks, and other similar machines. We have to have full training, high viz jackets, 479 thousand reflective cones, alarms, beacons, people spotting for safety and permits to be allowed anywhere near these vehicles as pedestrians or drivers.

Yet in the real world we are allowed to wander freely amongst these and have priority over similar vehicles (that move a lot faster). Safe in the knowledge the highway code considers this ok? Pedestrians and vehicles are a safe mix then? Even more so on a cold misty dark night when pedestrians are all in their black coats wandering in the road.

Anyone for a game of scrabble on the A38?

 

[st13phil]

Ah, but what about the pedestrians who don't drive?

They will have no reason to have read the highway code and, therefore, won't even know about their entitlement!

Fair point, but I bet that a large subset of the cyclists who don't drive will know with absolute certainty that motor traffic must make new allowances for them, yet will be strangely unaware that they owe new allowances to pedestrians

 

[E55BOF]

That graphic is incorrect.

It does not feature a nob wearing black trakkie bottoms and a black hoodie riding an electric scooter.

The knob on the electric scooter is neither a pedestrian nor a cyclist. Nor do you need a hunting licence for knobs. Nail him...

 

[Stratman]

A mantra that served me well when I rode motorbikes was "It makes no difference explaining at the Pearly Gates that actually I had right of way"

 

[markjay]

Ah, but what about the pedestrians who don't drive?

They will have no reason to have read the highway code and, therefore, won't even know about their entitlement!

More crucially, this also applies to cyclists.

You don't need to pass a theory test to ride a bicycle, and many cyclists won't have a clue as to what the Highway Code is.

 

[markjay]

Society is leaning towards an unbalanced prioritisation of the elimination of risk over responsibility over one's actions.

How very true. And sadly, it is being applied to all areas of life. I someone suggests that if you're a vulnerable young female, then getting drunk senseless, losing your purse and phone, and separating from your group of friends in a derelict part of town, is perhaps not such a good idea - they get crucified for supporting 'blame the victim' culture. But I digress....