Highway code rule H2

[Cerdic]

So to avoid the small risk of being rear endowed by an incompetent driver ( who shouldn't be driving, therefore) while sat in the far end of a safety cage, is it OK to routinely funk walkers crossing side roads?

Bonus question to anyone answering "yes": what does such blatant flouting of a core principle of the current highway code suggest about your driving competence?

I think you may need to re-read what I originally posted on page one of this thread.

At no point have I suggested that I don’t stop for pedestrians crossing side roads. I did say that I ‘worry’ about the actions of other drivers when I do so.

My original post was prompted by winjim’s comment about the poor design of a lot of our road network. This scenario is just one example where more thought and less cost-cutting when building and improving roads could result in a safer environment for all road users.

To your point about incompetent drivers who therefore shouldn’t be driving? You say that as though just saying they shouldn’t be driving will just make them disappear! Well, in the real world they exist and continue to drive. I am sure that, as cyclists, we are all aware of the principles of defensive riding in order to lessen the risks to ourselves on the road? So what is so wrong about extending that principle to driving a vehicle? Is it because you are sat in your invulnerable ‘safety cage’?

As regards the Highway Code, I have purchased, and read, the updated version.

And one last point. I’m sorry that this sounds so petty, but. A couple of years back I spent a couple of weeks driving a Driving Examiner around. Although he was not there in any ‘official’ capacity he did compliment me on my driving and described it as “excellent”…

 

[boydj]

Not a surprise - but the rules is clear and applies to all road that the driver is turning into

BUT

for an unmarked crossing it only says you SHOULD give way - hence not an offence

Wrong! Clearly driving without due care and consideration. A pedestrian crossing a side road has priority over a driver turning into the side road.

 

[boydj]

Did I say that I wasn't aware of the changes to the law ?
Just that nobody pushes the information out to drivers. They're left to check themselves. And when should they do that ? Each week, month, year, decade ?


We all know the standards of driving are poor but there's a breakdown in the system here. It could be better.

There were no changes to the law - there were clarifications on what the law actually said.

 

[classic33]

Did I say that I wasn't aware of the changes to the law ?
Just that nobody pushes the information out to drivers. They're left to check themselves. And when should they do that ? Each week, month, year, decade ?


We all know the standards of driving are poor but there's a breakdown in the system here. It could be better.

How is it that some cyclists seem to be aware of the changes, where did we get that information from.

 

[Alex321]

Wrong!

Actually, he was right. ANYTHING in the HC which say6s "should" or "Should not" is guidance only, and it is not automatically an offence to not adhere to it.

Clearly driving without due care and consideration.

Your opinion. Quite reasonable, but only opinion.

If this was "clearly" true, then it would also be true of every piece of guidance given by the HC, and that is simly not the case.

A pedestrian crossing a side road has priority over a driver turning into the side road.

Anybody already on any part of the road has priority over anybody wanting to enter that space.

A pedestrian who was already crossing has always had that priority.

The new HC rule means they have it when wanting to cross, not just when already doing so. But that does NOT mean it s automatically driving without due care & consideration if a driver doesn't give way.

 

[Alex321]

How is it that some cyclists seem to be aware of the changes, where did we get that information from.

The same place some drivers did.

I would be surprised if the proportion of cyclist who know about the changes is very much higher than it is of drivers.

It is likely to be a little higher just because cyclists are well aware of their vulnerability, and tend to be more aware of safety guidance as a result, including being more aware of the HC. But I doubt it is vastly higher.

Those in here are more aware simply because details got posted here from those who take an even stronger interest in such things.

 

[Milkfloat]

I decided to exercise my right to cross as a pedestrian with priority yesterday in town. A police car nearly ran me over and I had to scamper out of the way, the gits did not even indicate until the very last second after I was committed.

 

[Jody]

well this has descended into little more than nit-picking and pedantry.

Like all the best threads on CC

 

[winjim]

The trouble is, with all its rules and guidance and laws, and the distinctions between 'should' and 'must', the only way to interpret the Highway Code is with nit picking and pedantry.

For example, if we as cyclists are going to insist that motorists follow all the guidance marked as 'should', then doesn't it follow that we ought to do the same? So wearing a helmet and light/fluoro clothing, using the cycle lane if there is one, there's a fair amount in there that I've seen dismissed on this forum because it's guidance and not law.

And then of course when it comes to the bits which are law, let they who have legally compliant lights and reflectors cast the first stone.

 

[Alex321]

The trouble is, with all its rules and guidance and laws, and the distinctions between 'should' and 'must', the only way to interpret the Highway Code is with nit picking and pedantry.

For example, if we as cyclists are going to insist that motorists follow all the guidance marked as 'should', then doesn't it follow that we ought to do the same? So wearing a helmet and light/fluoro clothing, using the cycle lane if there is one, there's a fair amount in there that I've seen dismissed on this forum because it's guidance and not law.

And then of course when it comes to the bits which are law, let they who have legally compliant lights and reflectors cast the first stone.

They HC does NOT say to use the cycle lane if there is one. It is quite explicit that you may find it safer to not do so.

 

[winjim]

They HC does NOT say to use the cycle lane if there is one. It is quite explicit that you may find it safer to not do so.

Fair enough but you get my point.

 

[matticus]

ANYTHING in the HC which say6s "should" or "Should not" is guidance only, and it is not automatically an offence to not adhere to it.

I'd like a definite answer on how this fits into the guidance/law categories [My bold]:

General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders (103 to 158)
Signals, stopping procedures, lighting, control of the vehicle, speed limits, stopping distances, lines and lane markings and multi-lane carriageways, smoking, mobile phones and sat nav.

This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.

 

[Alex321]

I'd like a definite answer on how this fits into the guidance/law categories [My bold]:

General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders (103 to 158)
Signals, stopping procedures, lighting, control of the vehicle, speed limits, stopping distances, lines and lane markings and multi-lane carriageways, smoking, mobile phones and sat nav.

This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.

That is guidance.

Anything which is directly law says MUST or MUST NOT. Any paragraph which does not include those words is guidance.

 

[mjr]

there's a fair amount in there that I've seen dismissed on this forum because it's guidance and not law.

Much of it is dismissed because it's evidence -free victim -blaming, not because it's guidance. It's difficult to argue drivers are the victims when they left hook someone.

let they who have legally compliant lights and reflectors cast the first stone.

Thanks. I will. 😉

 

[winjim]

Much of it is dismissed because it's evidence -free victim -blaming, not because it's guidance.

Which might not be an unreasonable position to take, provided that you don't then proceed to argue that motorists need to follow all the guidance just because. You also need to be mindful of contributing to a state of anarchy where everyone decides for themselves what is safe and which rules they are obliged to follow.


Wheaton's law applies, essentially.