# New priority rules may cause confusion says AA.



## Cycleops (17 Dec 2021)

New priority rules for motorists and cyclists coming into force on January 29 may cause confusion as most drivers are not aware of them.
A survey of 13500 drivers found a third knew about it.
https://trendswide.com/highway-code-rule-change-that-will-give-cyclists-priority-over-drivers/







And how many of you are aware?


----------



## ClichéGuevara (17 Dec 2021)

Cycleops said:


> New priority rules for motorists and cyclists coming into force on January 29 may cause confusion as most drivers are not aware of them.
> https://trendswide.com/highway-code-rule-change-that-will-give-cyclists-priority-over-drivers/
> 
> View attachment 622535



Pedestrians have always had priority at junctions. The confusion tends to stem from people thinking the highway refers only to the road, when in reality it includes the footway too. Which raises the other confusion between footways and footpaths.


----------



## Alex321 (17 Dec 2021)

Cycleops said:


> New priority rules for motorists and cyclists coming into force on January 29 may cause confusion as most drivers are not aware of them.
> A survey of 13500 drivers found a third knew about it.
> https://trendswide.com/highway-code-rule-change-that-will-give-cyclists-priority-over-drivers/
> 
> And how many of you are aware?



I was aware, but only because I had seen posts about it here.

The important parts from that article are both the AA and the RAC saying there should be an education/communication campaign before the changes come into force, to make sure as many as possible are aware of the changes.



ClichéGuevara said:


> Pedestrians have always had priority at junctions. The confusion tends to stem from people thinking the highway refers only to the road, when in reality it includes the footway too. Which raises the other confusion between footways and footpaths.



The change is that previously cars were only expected to give way if the pedestrian was already on the carriageway, after the changes they should also give way if the pedestrian is waiting at the kerbside.


----------



## gavroche (17 Dec 2021)

Most people haven't read the high way code since they passed their test so the majority will be unaware of the new rules, therefore it needs a major publicity campaign on TV otherwise it will remain in the dark.


----------



## byegad (17 Dec 2021)

I had no idea, and I tend to keep an eye on this sort of thing.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (17 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> The change is that previously cars were only expected to give way if the pedestrian was already on the carriageway, after the changes they should also give way if the pedestrian is waiting at the kerbside.



I know what you mean, but in reality it's the same, as the difference is really only apparent once the car has made the turn. Pedestrians horses and cyclists have always had priority on the road, but that's never really been applied.


----------



## Dogtrousers (17 Dec 2021)

I wasn't aware. I mean, I'd seen some changes mentioned on here but nothing had penetrated my thick skull.

What the AA and RAC are saying seems actually to be quite reasonable (!). That communication of the changes is important. AA: _" Getting the message out now would help avoid dangerous situations and remove any confusion on the roads before the new rules are adopted." _RAC: _ ‘A concerted effort must now be made to communicate the changes to drivers because as we know, many do not read the Highway Code for long periods after passing their test. _

As to what the changes actually are, the article is a bit confusing because it says _motorists to give way to cyclists and pedestrians at junctions_ but the pictures don't show any scenario where a motorist yields to a cyclist. This means that, as well as glancing at the pictures, I had to read the words - which I felt was a bit of an imposition.

_the Code will advise of scenarios where cyclists ‘may sometimes ride in the centre of the lane, rather than towards the side of the road’ and that ‘it can be safer for groups of cyclists to ride two abreast in these situations’._​
So no change there, just a restatement/re-emphasis of the status quo. 

_under the revamped code, drivers and cyclists will have to give way if a pedestrian is waiting to cross a road they are turning into._​
I didn't know that. But it's reasonable. Although expecting me to turn left off the S Circular at Catford without running people over is asking a bit much.

_Cars indicating to turn left or right will also have to give way to cyclists coming from behind and going straight on, only turning once they have passed._​
I'm not sure what this is about. Is it saying any more than "cyclists are normal traffic and you have to yield to them just as you would to other vehicles". Or is it saying something else as well. Like, don't left hook cyclists?


----------



## PeteXXX (17 Dec 2021)

I've been attempting to buy the new highway code book. 
Not found any on sale yet! 
W H Smith & Waterstones still selling the previous out of date ones. 

Anyone found out where to get one?


----------



## DCLane (17 Dec 2021)

I'm aware partly because my 17yo has sat his driving test recently and was interested in the changes.

However ... like @PeteXXX we couldn't get hold of a copy of the highway code. So, he sat and passed his theory test and then his driving test without ever looking at a copy of the highway code.


----------



## T4tomo (17 Dec 2021)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Pedestrians have always had priority at junctions. The confusion tends to stem from people thinking the highway refers only to the road, when in reality it includes the footway too. Which raises the other confusion between footways and footpaths.


Indeed, I was always taught that as a driver you should always yield to pedestrian crossing the road you are turning into.

it seems to be a re-emphasis, and maybe encapsulating pedestrians "wanting" to cross the road you are turning into. It seems we need to encapsulate good manners and courtesy in a specific law/rule/code.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (17 Dec 2021)

T4tomo said:


> Indeed, I was always taught that as a driver you should always yield to pedestrian crossing the road you are turning into.
> 
> it seems to be a re-emphasis, and maybe encapsulating pedestrians "wanting" to cross the road you are turning into. It seems we need to encapsulate good manners and courtesy in a specific law/rule/code.



Yup, I've been bibbed a few times by vehicles behind me, for waiting patiently for people to cross as I'm turning.


----------



## PK99 (17 Dec 2021)

Current HWC:
*2. Crossing the road (7 to 17)*

*7 D. If traffic is coming, let it pass. *Look all around again and listen. *Do not cross until there is a safe gap in the traffic and you are certain that there is plenty of time*. Remember, even if traffic is a long way off, it may be approaching very quickly.

8
*At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you*. *If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way (see Rule 170).*


----------



## mjr (17 Dec 2021)

There won't be publicity or new editions on sale yet. It doesn't come in until 29 January and that's only if nothing causes a u-turn. The ministry of transport's advertising budget wouldn't stand a whelk's chance in a hurricane of making an impact amongst Christmas adverts. Better to wait until after 14 January.

The image in the opening post is incorrect about the old rules, too. How about a theory retest for everyone who posts or defends it?


----------



## Alex321 (17 Dec 2021)

Dogtrousers said:


> _Cars indicating to turn left or right will also have to give way to cyclists coming from behind and going straight on, only turning once they have passed._
> 
> I'm not sure what this is about. Is it saying any more than "cyclists are normal traffic and you have to yield to them just as you would to other vehicles". Or is it saying something else as well. Like, don't left hook cyclists?



I think it is indeed saying "Don't left hook cyclists".

I had one on Wednesday night night on the way home, where the car driver did what this change says they should do - a pleasant surprise. I was in one of those fairly narrow painted "cycle lanes", a car comes past me, indicating left, with a junction a few yards away. I expected him to just turn, and was on the brakes ready, but he didn't. He paused and waited for me to pass. 

AIUUI, that is what the new rule is saying he *should* do.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Dec 2021)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Pedestrians have always had priority at junctions.



Only where they'd already started crossing, no?

Rule 170:


_watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way_
_



_


----------



## mjr (17 Dec 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Only where they'd already started crossing, no?


No, but the code rule misled.

Indirectly, this is why we started to get "cyclists dismount" at every side road crossing in crap-cycling areas: pedestrians had some priority while cyclists in a cycleway rather than a gutter lane were completely ambiguous, so some well-intentioned sadist decided to resolve the ambiguity by telling cyclists to become pedestrians.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> No, but the code rule misled.


I'm sorry, I don't understand.


----------



## derrick (17 Dec 2021)

DCLane said:


> I'm aware partly because my 17yo has sat his driving test recently and was interested in the changes.
> 
> However ... like @PeteXXX we couldn't get hold of a copy of the highway code. So, he sat and passed his theory test and then his driving test without ever looking at a copy of the highway code.


That theory test is to easy, no wonder the driving standard has dropped.


----------



## Profpointy (17 Dec 2021)

Cycleops said:


> New priority rules for motorists and cyclists coming into force on January 29 may cause confusion as most drivers are not aware of them.
> A survey of 13500 drivers found a third knew about it.
> https://trendswide.com/highway-code-rule-change-that-will-give-cyclists-priority-over-drivers/
> 
> ...



I always thought pedestrians did have priority at junctions. Is that a new thing ?


----------



## mjr (17 Dec 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I'm sorry, I don't understand.


By not mentioning the priority of pedestrians otherwise in that rule, the code could be read as implying they didn't have priority when still on the pavement/footway. They did, in general.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> ... the code could be read as implying they didn't have priority when still on the pavement/footway. They did, in general.



That's news to me. The wording gives peds priority "if they have started to cross". I've never seen it suggested that they also had priority while still on the footway. Where does this come from?


----------



## ClichéGuevara (17 Dec 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Only where they'd already started crossing, no?
> 
> Rule 170:
> 
> ...



Yes, but as that car is on the main highway, the pedestrian on the footway would still have had priority, in theory. Despite the kerb, the road and footway both form a part of the main highway, and you wouldn't just turn from the outside lane across a vehicle inside of you, and theoretically, the same principle applies.


----------



## Alex321 (17 Dec 2021)

PeteXXX said:


> I've been attempting to buy the new highway code book.
> Not found any on sale yet!
> W H Smith & Waterstones still selling the previous out of date ones.
> 
> Anyone found out where to get one?


The previous one is not "Out of date", it is still current.

The new one does not come into force until 29th January - and only then if no MP has objected. 

Because it is still provisional, they can't really sell it 

For some reason, I can't even find the text of the SI on the government website


----------



## Ian H (17 Dec 2021)

Who still buys a printed Highway Code? https://www.gov.uk/browse/driving/highway-code-road-safety


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Dec 2021)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Yes, but as that car is on the main highway, the pedestrian on the footway would still have had priority, in theory. Despite the kerb, the road and footway both form a part of the main highway, and you wouldn't just turn from the outside lane across a vehicle inside of you, and theoretically, the same principle applies.



That's an interesting interpretation of the rule. 

It begins with an 'if' statement which places a condition on the priority. When that condition (having already started to cross) is absent, the priority remains with the driver.


----------



## Alex321 (17 Dec 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> That's an interesting interpretation of the rule.
> 
> It begins with an 'if' statement which places a condition on the priority. When that condition (having already started to cross) is absent, the priority remains with the driver.


That is what the existing Highway code says.

Mjr and ClichéGuevara both think that the current version of the highway code is incorrect.

They may well be right, as the new version isn't changing any laws, it is just changing guidance.


----------



## mjr (17 Dec 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> That's news to me. The wording gives peds priority "if they have started to cross". I've never seen it suggested that they also had priority while still on the footway. Where does this come from?


Rule 182 telling you not to overtake before turning, for example. Foot traffic on the footway is still traffic on the highway.

I suspect the main legal basis was the old "standard expected of a reasonably competent driver" or whatever it was, but 40ish years of people extrapolating from a misleading highway code rule has lowered expectations enough that it's a good idea to raise them again by improving the code.


----------



## mjr (17 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> That is what the existing Highway code says.
> 
> Mjr and ClichéGuevara both think that the current version of the highway code is incorrect.


Incomplete and inadequate, not incorrect as such.


----------



## DaveReading (17 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> Rule 182 telling you not to overtake before turning, for example. Foot traffic on the footway is still traffic on the highway.



Presumably, under the new code/rule, vehicle drivers are also required to give priority to pedestrians travelling in the opposite direction and crossing a side road that the vehicle is turning left into.

The current Rule 182 doesn't discuss that scenario.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> Rule 182 telling you not to overtake before turning, for example.



Again, I think this is a novel interpretation.


----------



## DaveReading (17 Dec 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Again, I think this is a novel interpretation.



What interpretation does "Do not overtake just before you turn left" (sic) require ?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Dec 2021)

DaveReading said:


> What interpretation does "Do not overtake just before you turn left" (sic) require ?



I've never heard it interpreted as referring to anything other than another vehicle. The example photo shows a cyclist.
(Incidentally, why the 'sic' after that quote? There's nothing wrong with it.)


----------



## DaveReading (17 Dec 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I've never heard it interpreted as referring to anything other than another vehicle. The example photo shows a cyclist.
> (Incidentally, why the 'sic' after that quote? There's nothing wrong with it.)



"Sic" ["thus", in Latin] simply means "quoted verbatim" (from the HC, in this case). 

It doesn't necessarily imply that there is anything wrong, although it's often used in such circumstances.


----------



## newts (17 Dec 2021)

I'd still not attempt to cross if a nearby vehicle was indicating a turn, not sure if semantics on the highway code would heal a broken leg or worse. I wouldn't trust that the driver knows the h/way code.


----------



## Cycleops (17 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> They may well be right, as the new version isn't changing any laws, it is just changing guidance.


If it has to go before parliament doesn't that mean it's incorporated in law?


----------



## Cycleops (17 Dec 2021)

Bit more here:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...e-proposals-mean-for-pedestrians-and-cyclists


----------



## presta (17 Dec 2021)

newts said:


> I'd still not attempt to cross if a nearby vehicle was indicating a turn, not sure if semantics on the highway code would heal a broken leg or worse. I wouldn't trust that the driver knows the h/way code.


This is the problem with any right of way: if you're the only one who's going to get hurt, are you going to trust the nut holding the steering wheel to respect it. This is particulary relevant when you're on a cycle path, and confronted with the waste of effort caused by stopping to give way at every side road. The argument from the cycle path lobby is that they should be laid out so as to give cyclists priority, but if you're not willing to gamble your life on the motorists giving way you're no better off.

Cycle paths turn every junction into a game of chicken.


----------



## MontyVeda (17 Dec 2021)

PeteXXX said:


> I've been attempting to buy the new highway code book.
> Not found any on sale yet!
> W H Smith & Waterstones still selling the previous out of date ones.
> 
> Anyone found out where to get one?


Isn't the online edition kept up to date?

Do you really need the paper version?


----------



## MontyVeda (17 Dec 2021)

newts said:


> I'd still not attempt to cross if a nearby vehicle was indicating a turn ...


no but, the same goes for a zebra crossing... if they don't look like they're going to stop, only a fool would start to cross.


----------



## Alex321 (17 Dec 2021)

Cycleops said:


> If it has to go before parliament doesn't that mean it's incorporated in law?


Hmm. Sort of.

It is amended by Statutory Instrument, so called Secondary Legislation.

So yes, it is part of the legislation, but in this case, it is statutory guidance, rather than in itself being law which must be obeyed. It references laws which must be obeyed (whenever it says MUST or MUST NOT), and gives guidance on what is best practice outside of what the actual laws require.

In this amendment, none of the laws it references are changing, it is only the guidance that is changing.


----------



## Specialeyes (17 Dec 2021)

I hope that by the time the change comes into force they will have spelled kerb correctly...


----------



## Alex321 (17 Dec 2021)

MontyVeda said:


> Isn't the online edition kept up to date?
> 
> Do you really need the paper version?


The online edition is kept up to date, but still doesn't have these changes, as they will not be current until 29th of January 2022.-


----------



## Alex321 (17 Dec 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I've never heard it interpreted as referring to anything other than *another vehicle*. The example photo shows a cyclist.
> (Incidentally, why the 'sic' after that quote? There's nothing wrong with it.)


A cyclist is a vehicle.


----------



## matticus (17 Dec 2021)

presta said:


> This is the problem with any right of way: if you're the only one who's going to get hurt, are you going to trust the nut holding the steering wheel to respect it.


But isn't that the same if you're riding past a side-turning? You know you have right-of-way, but you still keep a wary eye on vehicles* who might forget the rules.

That doesn't make it a bad rule!

(Speaking for self, after my SMIDSY incident I am uber-cautious of moving vehicles approaching from the left; but I'm grateful the rules say they *should *stop, and I can report that is almost always the case. After all, without those rules, I doubt I'd have got the 4-figure compensation that followed my "incident".)

*Yes I know ...


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> A cyclist is a vehicle.



Yes, that was my point.


----------



## Svendo (17 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> I think it is indeed saying "Don't left hook cyclists".
> 
> I had one on Wednesday night night on the way home, where the car driver did what this change says they should do - a pleasant surprise. I was in one of those fairly narrow painted "cycle lanes", a car comes past me, indicating left, with a junction a few yards away. I expected him to just turn, and was on the brakes ready, but he didn't. He paused and waited for me to pass.
> 
> AIUUI, that is what the new rule is saying he *should* do.


I can see this being iffy, I’ll never be sure a car in that position has seen me and is waiting or pausing for some other reason and will turn when I arrive along side. I’ll also mention my dislike of when drivers pull alongside indicating then look annoyed or mouthy when I slow or signal because I’m not psychic and can’t tell if they’ve seen me/care about me. Be smoother to just edit behind as per HC rule 182 (current version)


----------



## Ming the Merciless (17 Dec 2021)

Ian H said:


> Who still buys a printed Highway Code? https://www.gov.uk/browse/driving/highway-code-road-safety



I keep a copy in the car glove box.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (17 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> A cyclist is a vehicle.



Well I think the cycle is the vehicle, the cyclist is the person in charge of it, yes?


----------



## PeteXXX (17 Dec 2021)

MontyVeda said:


> Isn't the online edition kept up to date?
> 
> Do you really need the paper version?


I was wanting to buy a couple of new editions for the grandkids 13 & 7 yrs as they love spotting the signs etc when they're out on trips.


----------



## Cycleops (17 Dec 2021)

PeteXXX said:


> I was wanting to buy a couple of new editions for the grandkids 13 & 7 yrs as they love spotting the signs etc when they're out on trips.


Endless fun:


----------



## mjr (17 Dec 2021)

presta said:


> Cycle paths turn every junction into a game of chicken.


Every junction is already a game of chicken. This just makes it clearer it isn't meant to be biggest bully wins and may help with restitution.


----------



## mjr (17 Dec 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I've never heard it interpreted as referring to anything other than another vehicle.


Which demonstrates how it's currently misleading and the sorry state of driver education.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (17 Dec 2021)

Cycleops said:


> New priority rules for motorists and cyclists coming into force on January 29 may cause confusion as most drivers are not aware of them.
> A survey of 13500 drivers found a third knew about it.
> https://trendswide.com/highway-code-rule-change-that-will-give-cyclists-priority-over-drivers/
> 
> ...



The centre of the lane isn’t just for visibility purposes. It’s also to control the lane. I do it passing side roads, where coming up to a section with a central bollards so I don’t get close passes or car drivers inching out of side roads hitting me or giving me nowhere to go etc.

As for the pedestrians crossing side roads and motorists turning in. I was doing exactly that in one of the lockdowns and got beeped because they thought I had to wait till they’d turn into side road and passed by. They got my look of utter contempt at their presumption.


----------



## DaveReading (17 Dec 2021)

Ming the Merciless said:


> The centre of the lane isn’t just for visibility purposes. It’s also to control the lane. I do it passing side roads, where coming up to a section with a central bollards so I don’t get close passes or car drivers inching out of side roads hitting me or giving me nowhere to go etc.



If that catches on, they'll have to invent a name for it.


----------



## dave r (17 Dec 2021)

DaveReading said:


> If that catches on, they'll have to invent a name for it.



They already have, its called taking the lane.


----------



## boydj (17 Dec 2021)

Cycleops said:


> New priority rules for motorists and cyclists coming into force on January 29 may cause confusion as most drivers are not aware of them.
> A survey of 13500 drivers found a third knew about it.
> https://trendswide.com/highway-code-rule-change-that-will-give-cyclists-priority-over-drivers/
> 
> ...



That's a poor representation of the current rules, while the new 'rules' are little more than a clarification of the current rule.

A pedestrian crossing a side street has always had priority over a driver turning into the street. If a pedestrian has not already started to cross, then unless they are very clearly about to start to cross I don't see how most drivers will know to give the priority to the pedestrian. Good drivers will already be doing this.

As things stand today, experienced cyclists will not be kerb-hugging and drivers should not be overtaking and immediately turning left - but it still happens and I doubt a clarification of the rules will make much difference except maybe in the short term when the new guidance is publicised.

Better cycle facilities and more people cycling is what will improve safety.


----------



## DaveReading (17 Dec 2021)

dave r said:


> They already have, its called taking the lane.



Thanks, on reflection I think I remember that from my primary education ...


----------



## Poacher (17 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> The new one does not come into force until 29th January - *and only then if no MP has objected.*


Cue Christopher Chope?


----------



## steveindenmark (18 Dec 2021)

I remember things like

"Remember the green cross code"

"Dial 999 and ask for the coastguard"

They were public information films and were always on TV. They obviously worked.


----------



## Alex321 (20 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> The online edition is kept up to date, but still doesn't have these changes, as they will not be current until 29th of January 2022.-


I have now fund (with the help of somebody on Quora) an official document listing the full changes

https://assets.publishing.service.g...37306/table-of-change-to-the-highway-code.pdf


----------



## Milkfloat (20 Dec 2021)

presta said:


> This is the problem with any right of way: if you're the only one who's going to get hurt, are you going to trust the nut holding the steering wheel to respect it. This is particulary relevant when you're on a cycle path, and confronted with the waste of effort caused by stopping to give way at every side road. The argument from the cycle path lobby is that they should be laid out so as to give cyclists priority, but if you're not willing to gamble your life on the motorists giving way you're no better off.
> 
> Cycle paths turn every junction into a game of chicken.


I still have not worked out with the new rules who has priority at these junctions. Is it the cyclist going straight on, despite them having give way road markings or is it the turning driver? I have followed these new rules pretty well, so I have no idea how the average motorist is going to know.


----------



## Fab Foodie (20 Dec 2021)

There's a Highway Code? Who knew....


----------



## Ming the Merciless (20 Dec 2021)

DaveReading said:


> Thanks, on reflection I think I remember that from my primary education ...



You sure it wasn’t your secondary education?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (20 Dec 2021)

Milkfloat said:


> I still have not worked out with the new rules who has priority at these junctions. Is it the cyclist going straight on, despite them having give way road markings or is it the turning driver? I have followed these new rules pretty well, so I have no idea how the average motorist is going to know.



To what image are you referring to?


----------



## cyberknight (20 Dec 2021)

Let's be realistic it will make no difference to the behaviour of those who don't give a monkey's


----------



## jay clock (20 Dec 2021)

DCLane said:


> I'm aware partly because my 17yo has sat his driving test recently and was interested in the changes.
> 
> However ... like @PeteXXX we couldn't get hold of a copy of the highway code. So, he sat and passed his theory test and then his driving test without ever looking at a copy of the highway code.




You can see it here https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code


----------



## Phil Fouracre (21 Dec 2021)

Surely it could all be quite easily summed up for the hard of thinking, as ‘please don’t drive like a selfish entitled #@*+!’ Job done!


----------



## Milkfloat (21 Dec 2021)

Ming the Merciless said:


> To what image are you referring to?


Something like this, should the Google car giveaway to a cyclist on the cycle path? The cycle path has give way signs, but the new rules seem to say that if a cyclist is going straight on then they have priority.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (21 Dec 2021)

Milkfloat said:


> Something like this, should the Google car giveaway to a cyclist on the cycle path? The cycle path has give way signs, but the new rules seem to say that if a cyclist is going straight on then they have priority.
> 
> View attachment 623132



Yes


----------



## Alex321 (21 Dec 2021)

Milkfloat said:


> Something like this, should the Google car giveaway to a cyclist on the cycle path? The cycle path has give way signs, but the new rules seem to say that if a cyclist is going straight on then they have priority.
> 
> View attachment 623132


Yes, they do, and yes, a car turning into that road (or coming out of it) should wait for the cyclist.


----------



## Milkfloat (21 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> Yes, they do, and yes, a car turning into that road (or coming out of it) should wait for the cyclist.


The new Highway Code does not make it clear to me and certainly conflicts with the give way markings for the cyclists. I would not be trusting drivers to cede priority for many years until it has been proven that they almost all do.
This particular national route is very close to my house and I refuse to use it as I think it is incredibly dangerous having to look 270 degrees, whilst I think the idea behind the rule would make the junction significantly safer, the implementation of the new rules so far seems a bit crappy to say the least.


----------



## boydj (21 Dec 2021)

I'd be on the road anyway. Pavement cycle lanes are the work of the devil.


----------



## Alex321 (21 Dec 2021)

Milkfloat said:


> The new Highway Code does not make it clear to me and certainly conflicts with the give way markings for the cyclists.


It makes it completely clear to me.
_"_You should not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. *This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road* and you should give way to them._"_

I'm honestly not sure what there is in that which isn't clear. I agree the road markings don't actually agree with this, but then the road markings have been there for years, the new rules aren't even in force yet.



> I would not be trusting drivers to cede priority for many years until it has been proven that they almost all do.



Well no, I never *trust* drivers to comply with the Highway code now, never mind the new version.



> This particular national route is very close to my house and I refuse to use it as I think it is incredibly dangerous having to look 270 degrees, whilst I think the idea behind the rule would make the junction significantly safer, *the implementation of the new rules so far seems a bit crappy to say the least.*


There is no "implementation of the new rules" yet, because they don't exist yet.

Until January 29th, they are proposed changes to the Highway Code, they only become actual rules from that date. And even then, they are guidance, not law.


----------



## mustang1 (22 Dec 2021)

The first rule about allowing pedestrians to cross at junctions: I thought that was always the rule and I've been driving like that forever, always giving way to pedestrians (unless it's not safe, like a tailgating driver or if I'm turning from a high speed road like from a 40mph main road into a side road).

The 2nd rule about cyclists riding in the middle of the road in certain situations: i, like many of you perhaps, always rode like this. I've taught my kids to ride this way too but it's good that it's become a formal rule now. 

I hope the TV/media advertise this so make as many drivers as possible be aware of it.


----------



## Tenacious Sloth (22 Dec 2021)

Milkfloat said:


> Something like this, should the Google car giveaway to a cyclist on the cycle path? The cycle path has give way signs, but the new rules seem to say that if a cyclist is going straight on then they have priority.
> 
> View attachment 623132



I’d assume that the give way signs on the cycle path are indicating that cyclists should give way to vehicles coming along the side road towards the t-junction?

Anyway. Good luck trying to explain that one to a mouth breathing, Daily Mail reading motorist who was born being right about everything.

Think I’ll stick to the road.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (22 Dec 2021)

mustang1 said:


> The first rule about allowing pedestrians to cross at junctions: I thought that was always the rule and I've been driving like that forever, always giving way to pedestrians (unless it's not safe, like a tailgating driver or if I'm turning from a high speed road like from a 40mph main road into a side road).
> 
> The 2nd rule about cyclists riding in the middle of the road in certain situations: i, like many of you perhaps, always rode like this. I've taught my kids to ride this way too but it's good that it's become a formal rule now.
> 
> *I hope the TV/media advertise this so make as many drivers as possible be aware of it.*


One hopes so - there seems to be zero publicity coming from .gov, but maybe there will be a 29-day campaign in January.

Or not.


----------



## Milkfloat (22 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> It makes it completely clear to me.
> _"_You should not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. *This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road* and you should give way to them._"_
> 
> I'm honestly not sure what there is in that which isn't clear. I agree the road markings don't actually agree with this, but then the road markings have been there for years, the new rules aren't even in force yet.
> ...


I think the problem is that your ”completely clear” is very different to mine. To me the Highway Code is conflicting because of the Give Way lines, where you see it as just ignore them. If cyclists who have read the changes cannot see it the same way, then what hope is there for every driver in the country? My prediction is that driver behaviour will not change at all with these changes, at least not for many, many years until new drivers filter through the system and even then they may just follow whatever everyone else does.


----------



## Milkfloat (22 Dec 2021)

Tenacious Sloth said:


> I’d assume that the give way signs on the cycle path are indicating that cyclists should give way to vehicles coming along the side road towards the t-junction?


The current rules mean you give way to the entire road, under the new rules who knows, it is either status quo or you have priority over vehicles turning into or out of the minor road, not just those turning out.


----------



## matticus (22 Dec 2021)

Tenacious Sloth said:


> Think I’ll stick to the road.


Then stick to the road! You are allowed to do that - in fact your RIGHT to do that is written down, in the Highway Code 

[OK, so there is also the HIghways Act of 1974(?) supporting your right ... but not a whole lot of people read that.)


----------



## Alex321 (22 Dec 2021)

Milkfloat said:


> I think the problem is that your ”completely clear” is very different to mine. To me the Highway Code is conflicting because of the Give Way lines, where you see it as just ignore them. If cyclists who have read the changes cannot see it the same way, then what hope is there for every driver in the country? My prediction is that driver behaviour will not change at all with these changes, at least not for many, many years until new drivers filter through the system and even then they may just follow whatever everyone else does.



The changes to the highway code *are* completely clear. 

The fact that existing paint on the ground appears to conflict with what is going to be the case in 6 weeks time is another matter.

But I do agree it is unlikely to result in significant changes to driver behaviour. As has been pointed out by several different organisations already, few people read the HC once they have passed their test, and I suspect even fewer keep up to date with changes to it.

Unless there is a major publicity campaign about these changes, only a small proportion of drivers will even be aware of them, and while the changes mean they will be much more likely to be found at fault by the insurers or courts, that isn't really of much help if you have been badly injured or killed.


----------



## Solocle (22 Dec 2021)

*New Rule 76 
Going straight ahead. *

If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise (see Rule H3). Check that you can proceed safely, particularly when approaching junctions on the left alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic. Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road. Take great care when deciding whether it is safe to pass stationary or slowmoving lorries and other long vehicles, especially at the approach to junctions, as their drivers may not be able to see you. Remember that they may have to move over to the right before turning left, and that their rear wheels may then come very close to the kerb while turning (see Rule 67).


----------



## matticus (22 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> But I do agree it is unlikely to result in significant changes to driver behaviour. As has been pointed out by several different organisations already, few people read the HC once they have passed their test, and I suspect even fewer keep up to date with changes to it.


So what? Did anyone say there WOULD be significant changes?

Should we never bother improving the HC?

/blunt-mode


----------



## Milkfloat (22 Dec 2021)

Solocle said:


> *New Rule 76
> Going straight ahead. *
> 
> If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise (see Rule H3). Check that you can proceed safely, particularly when approaching junctions on the left alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic. Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road. Take great care when deciding whether it is safe to pass stationary or slowmoving lorries and other long vehicles, especially at the approach to junctions, as their drivers may not be able to see you. Remember that they may have to move over to the right before turning left, and that their rear wheels may then come very close to the kerb while turning (see Rule 67).


@Alex321 So this shows the cyclist does not have priority in the image I posted about because of the give way markings.


----------



## Cirrus (22 Dec 2021)

I wonder how many people in the general population actually read the or reference the highway code. I may be an outlier on this particular forum but I have to admit that the last time I read it was when I learnt to drive, which was eons ago.

Edited as my memory is obviously failing.... I did refer to it about 7 years ago when my daughter was learning to drive.


----------



## Alex321 (22 Dec 2021)

matticus said:


> So what? Did anyone say there WOULD be significant changes?
> 
> Should we never bother improving the HC?
> 
> /blunt-mode



Any particular reasoning behind that response?

Did I say anything to warrant it?


----------



## matticus (22 Dec 2021)

Cirrus said:


> I wonder how many people in the general population actually read the or reference the highway code. I may be an outlier on this particular forum but I have to admit that the last time I read it was when I learnt to drive, which was eons ago.
> 
> Edited as my memory is obviously failing.... I did refer to it about 7 years ago when my daughter was learning to drive.


There will always be people learning to drive. So the HC *will* be read, even if us old duffers think we know it all :P


----------



## matticus (22 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> Any particular reasoning behind that response?
> 
> Did I say anything to warrant it?


Fair question!
So permit me to ask one: do you think these changes are broadly a good thing?
Or should they not bother, because - as so many here have said - drivers won't bother to read them?

And I address that to everyone stating "_drivers won't bother to read them, and won't change their behaviour_", sorry to single you out Alex!


----------



## Alex321 (22 Dec 2021)

matticus said:


> Fair question!
> So permit me to ask one: do you think these changes are broadly a good thing?
> Or should they not bother, because - as so many here have said - drivers won't bother to read them?
> 
> And I address that to everyone stating "_drivers won't bother to read them, and won't change their behaviour_", sorry to single you out Alex!


I absolutely think they are a good thing.

I don't think they will initially make as much difference as might be hoped, but that is definitely not a reason to not bring them in.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (22 Dec 2021)

But the key is to initially publicise, and then enforce the changes.


----------



## Badger_Boom (22 Dec 2021)

Cycleops said:


> ...And how many of you are aware?


I was aware, mostly because of he the wailing, gnashing of teeth and exclamations of "it's no good being in the right if you're dead" on other less cycling-friendly forums.


----------



## mjr (22 Dec 2021)

Milkfloat said:


> This particular national route is very close to my house and I refuse to use it as I think it is incredibly dangerous having to look 270 degrees, whilst I think the idea behind the rule would make the junction significantly safer, the implementation of the new rules so far seems a bit crappy to say the least.


The bigger problem is the highways department that built that cycle path is incompetent and it complies with no design manual since 2008 and possibly earlier.


----------

