Highway Code changes effective from January 29th

[Fununcle]

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....

I would keep your rather suspect opinions about violence against women to yourself.

 

[zipdip]

Well ok the rule about pedestrians has always been give way everywhere,including the fast lane of the motorway ,if drivers do not accept that then whats their answer just mow them down,what this new part of the highway code does is gives pedestrians not actually crossing a minor road the right of way over traffic turning into it,now that is bonkers,because you will be left with your car having started to turn stopped with your backside in moving traffic,this will cause no end of accidents.

 

[m80]

Well ok the rule about pedestrians has always been give way everywhere,including the fast lane of the motorway ,if drivers do not accept that then whats their answer just mow them down,what this new part of the highway code does is gives pedestrians not actually crossing a minor road the right of way over traffic turning into it,now that is bonkers,because you will be left with your car having started to turn stopped with your backside in moving traffic,this will cause no end of accidents.

I don't see it changes anything.

If turning into a road we should be able to stop in a distance we can see to be safe.
A pedestrian has reasonable right to cross at a junction, and w/o having to wait for a continual stream of traffic to rush past on their way to wherever.

I stated an example in a previous thread.
Mrs and self will walk across town later. On t'other side of town is a largish mini roundabout where 3 roads meet.
Many will pass across or turn at the roundabout at speed, anyone wishing to cross is ignored.
Even though it is give way at each road end the traffic should have ability to stop at the line, especially as others approaching often feel indication is too much effort. Those following have responsibility to not cream the car in front if it stops.

I / we wait for a feasible gap and go. There are angry drivers on occasion that feel they have priority and we are a nuisance. They can f' off, there is too much of that imo.
I now carry an LED torch on flash mode to wave, but not in faces.That has made a difference strangely, but only because it isn't usual expect.

 

[Deleted member 159894]

I don't see it changes anything.

If turning into a road we should be able to stop in a distance we can see to be safe.
A pedestrian has reasonable right to cross at a junction, and w/o having to wait for a continual stream of traffic to rush past on their way to wherever.

I stated an example in a previous thread.
Mrs and self will walk across town later. On t'other side of town is a largish mini roundabout where 3 roads meet.
Many will pass across or turn at the roundabout at speed, anyone wishing to cross is ignored.
Even though it is give way at each road end the traffic should have ability to stop at the line, especially as others approaching often feel indication is too much effort. Those following have responsibility to not cream the car in front if it stops.

I / we wait for a feasible gap and go. There are angry drivers on occasion that feel they have priority and we are a nuisance. They can f' off, there is too much of that imo.
I now carry an LED torch on flash mode to wave, but not in faces.That has made a difference strangely, but only because it isn't usual expect.

I park opposite the Co-Op to shop most days, it's astonishing the number of cars who ether crawl past or simply stop in traffic right in front of me leaving me standing in the pissing rain. Twats.

 

[190]

I would keep your rather suspect opinions about violence against women to yourself.

What suspect opinion ?

I read the post as simply pointing out that regardless of the nanny state it might still be wise for people to take some responsibility for their own safety.

 

[Fununcle]

What suspect opinion ?

I read the post as simply pointing out that regardless of the nanny state it might still be wise for people to take some responsibility for their

What suspect opinion ?

I read the post as simply pointing out that regardless of the nanny state it might still be wise for people to take some responsibility for their own safety.

I'm sure you did.

 

[Dryce]

I would keep your rather suspect opinions about violence against women to yourself.

I rather suspect (so this is also a self admitted "suspect opinion") .... that your response to @markjay's post has rather poignantly demonstrated the actual issue he was referring to - which is the inability to discuss practicalities.

MBclub must be getting more modern and with it .... is this how 'cancel culture' starts to manifest itself?

 

[Fununcle]

Blaming the victims of violence, even one's who have been silly only serves to exonerate the perpetrators of violence.

 

[Deleted member 159894]

I rather suspect (so this is also a self admitted "suspect opinion") .... that your response to @markjay's post has rather poignantly demonstrated the actual issue he was referring to - which is the inability to discuss practicalities.

MBclub must be getting more modern and with it .... is this how 'cancel culture' starts to manifest itself?

Pipe down Maureen.

 

[190]

.... is this how 'cancel culture' starts to manifest itself?

This is why I can't abide all this wokery and cancel culture crap. People everywhere are deliberately looking to take the tiniest thing out of context so that they can criticise and cancel someone. Even JK Rowling is under fire from the LGBT mob for talking common sense about women. It's an appallingly negative trend for society to be taking.

 

[Dryce]

Blaming the victims of violence, even one's who have been silly only serves to exonerate the perpetrators of violence.

Well that's a point of view.

The way I usually have my moan at people who go for this simple approach is to say that first of all crime is wrong and there shouldn't be victims.,

And then I point out that if you leave your house with the door wide open and come back to find it has been ransacked then people will generally think that the crime was terrible but at the same time you could have done something to reduce its likelihood.

The problem with your point of view is that you make two mistakes with (1) The problem with criminals is that they will take advantage of vulnerability. (2) It's not about 'blaming the victims' but trying to protect them from making mistakes that criminals will take advantage of.

I blame people with your attitude for making things worse not better .... it has created a situation where it has potentially created a *sustained* low level of predation in some of our city centres because those who would try and inform want to say it's OK for women to be vulnerable because "Blaming the victims of violence, even one's who have been silly only serves to exonerate the perpetrators of violence". A better approach would be to be honest and tell the victims and their peers that they also have a responsibility to try and make sure that they are less exposed to bad people. If I'm right about the sustained predation then changing potential victim behaviours will starve it and make the streets even safer for those who maybe find circumstances make them vulnerable on a particular occasion.

But hey .... according to you if I think and say that then I have a suspect opinion on violence towards women.

 

[Fununcle]

Well that's a point of view.

The way I usually have my moan at people who go for this simple approach is to say that first of all crime is wrong and there shouldn't be victims.,

And then I point out that if you leave your house with the door wide open and come back to find it has been ransacked then people will generally think that the crime was terrible but at the same time you could have done something to reduce its likelihood.

The problem with your point of view is that you make two mistakes with (1) The problem with criminals is that they will take advantage of vulnerability. (2) It's not about 'blaming the victims' but trying to protect them from making mistakes that criminals will take advantage of.

I blame people with your attitude for making things worse not better .... it has created a situation where it has potentially created a *sustained* low level of predation in some of our city centres because those who would try and inform want to say it's OK for women to be vulnerable because "Blaming the victims of violence, even one's who have been silly only serves to exonerate the perpetrators of violence". A better approach would be to be honest and tell the victims and their peers that they also have a responsibility to try and make sure that they are less exposed to bad people. If I'm right about the sustained predation then changing potential victim behaviours will starve it and make the streets even safer for those who maybe find circumstances make them vulnerable on a particular occasion.

But hey .... according to you if I think and say that then I have a suspect opinion on violence towards women.

Well that's an opinion.

 

[MEMERC7]

But where is the advice/ruling that cyclists & horse riders should not ride in such a way as to intentionally obstruct the progress of others?

 

[Dryce]

But where is the advice/ruling that cyclists & horse riders should not ride in such a way as to intentionally obstruct the progress of others?

You might get better luck searching for:

"cyclists & horse riders should ride in such a way as to intentionally obstruct the progress of others"

That said .... I see fewer horses about these days. I think that probably makes things worse because there will be many car drivers who have never encountered one on the road.

 

[BfgSLKMan]

Not sure how widely known this is:

2022 Highway Code changes: 7 million drivers unaware of new rules for cars, cyclists and HGVs | Auto Express

Research suggests 20 percent of motorists risk endangering other road users and pedestrians by not knowing rule changes

www.autoexpress.co.uk

View attachment 121842

I have to say that in practice this will likely mean alot more squashed pedestrians at traffic lights, especailly from HGV's not seeing people. I live in Germany where we have had these rules forever, and every week in my local paper i read about pedestrians or cyclists who have priority at junctions being killed or seriously injured by lorries who have no idea the person or car is there. I drive a RHD in Germany and i occasionally miss seeing people on the (German) nearside and i am sat on the nearside.

I had always hoped that one day Germany (and other nations) would see the common sense in the UK approach that pedestrians crossed when all lights were on red and not this mix above (H2). Frankly rule H3 has no common sense. A cyclist should be treating their vehicle as a car and not continuing to undetake when they can see a car is indicating to the left?

And before anyone asks i also cycle to work and even with the benefit of a dedicated cycle path for all of my 33 km to work I generally have to do an emergency stop at least 2 to 3 times each way even with rules H2 in place and looking at every junctions (many don't even look as the psyche (enforced in law as per H2) in Germany is cyclist have priority over cars so cars will see me and stop).

Watch this space is all i can say

 

[Wolfie1]

I can see it now, car indicating left at a junction actually turning and a cyclist going shooting up the inside in the misguided conception that the car has to give them priority and they get squished

 

[markjay]

I can see it now, car indicating left at a junction actually turning and a cyclist going shooting up the inside in the misguided conception that the car has to give them priority and they get squished

True, though this is a not new problem.

If drivers knew that they'll have to foot (say) 50% of the repair bill, perhaps they would take more care before braking, and ensure that the car behind them has enough time to respond and won't rear-end them.

If drivers knew that they'll have to foot (say) 50% of the repair bill, perhaps they would check that the junction is free before driving through it, even if they had right-of-way or the traffic light was green.

If drivers knew that they'll have to foot (say) 50% of the repair bill, perhaps they would look out more carefully for doors that might open suddenly on parked cars.

Etc etc.

Obviously, no one wants to be involved in a collision, but people do seem to take more care to avoid those collisions that will affect them personally the worst.

 

[Deleted member 126251]

Blaming the victims of violence, even one's who have been silly only serves to exonerate the perpetrators of violence.

It does not exonerate anyone. How did you make that leap?

People need to take responsibility for their own safety. It is not unlike cyclists that arrogantly assert their rights on the roads oblivious to the fact that it is them that will come off second best in a collision with a car.

 

[m80]

A few news reposts of drivers being prosecuted for failing to give priority to waiting pedestrians might cause more consideration.
For that we need police actually on the streets though as APNR cameras don't serve that purpose.

Happy to be corrected but I don't see us prohibited from writing a text on our phones if it's in a cradle. In the event we would still be liable for a dangerous driving charge though.

 

[Wolfie1]

True, though this is a not new problem.

If drivers knew that they'll have to foot (say) 50% of the repair bill, perhaps they would take more care before braking, and ensure that the car behind them has enough time to respond and won't rear-end them.

If drivers knew that they'll have to foot (say) 50% of the repair bill, perhaps they would check that the junction is free before driving through it, even if they had right-of-way or the traffic light was green.

If drivers knew that they'll have to foot (say) 50% of the repair bill, perhaps they would look out more carefully for doors that might open suddenly on parked cars.

Etc etc.

Obviously, no one wants to be involved in a collision, but people do seem to take more care to avoid those collisions that will affect them personally the worst.

The point im making is that there is no cyclist there you are turning and a cyclist goes shooting up the inside, they are totally to blame for causing the accident but think they arent as they believe they are road gods and all other road users have to accommodate them no matter their actions, as stated above they have to act responsibly but will they with their new thinking of the highway code