New Rule H2 Highway Code - giving way to pedestrians

Chomeur

It's always been the case that, if turning into a junction, you have to give way to pedestrians who have already started crossing the road at that junction. Mostly I cycle, rather than drive, and that rule has seemed fine.

But now, new Rule H2 states:

"Rule H2 - Rule for drivers, motorcyclists, horse drawn vehicles, horse riders and cyclists

At a junction you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning."

Often in London there can be dozens of pedestrians waiting to cross a road at a junction. If I'm to stop for them all, I could be waiting a long time. Which means that the most logical thing for me to do is to get off my bike at the junction and wheel it round. In fact, even if there is just one pedestrian waiting to cross, it would seem to make sense for me to get off my bike and wheel it round, because then I don't have to give way to them. Am I missing something, or is this completely bonkers? Is wheeling my bike sufficient for me to no longer be defined as a cyclist? Or do I have to carry my bike around? Either way, I'm going to get in the way of pedestrians more than I would cycling, but too bad, that's what the law says.

Norman_Castle

Its bonkers. It makes no sense either in a car or on a bike or for pedestrians and I don't see the need. Currently at quieter junctions pedestrians wait for room to cross or if a junction is busy and has fast moving traffic a crossing is installed. I regularly use a busy high street as a pedestrian. Cars entering from side streets wait at the give way line and pedestrians walk behind the first car waiting. Cars turning into the junction wait if there are people crossing or often when waiting to cross. It works. On faster roads pedestrians are wise to keep out of the way of fast moving vehicles for their own safety regardless of rules.

Not sure if it still does but the highway code promoted treated other road users with courtesy which works far better than this misguided and poorly thought through new rule.

I live on a busy main road and have had cars written off after slowing to drive onto the dropped kerb. Its happened all along the road to numerous residents. If motorists keep stopping at junctions accidents will increase. I also live opposite a school. At kicking out time countless school run parents fill the road and use the side roads to park. At the same time hundreds of school girls are crossing these roads at the junction meaning motorists complying with this rule wont be able to move. Even more traffic chaos and congestion.

I would question if the person who proposed this used the highways as anything other than a pedestrian because it has a very narrow, blinkered view.

[Deleted User]

Norman_Castle said:

Its bonkers. It makes no sense either in a car or on a bike or for pedestrians and I don't see the need. Currently at quieter junctions pedestrians wait for room to cross or if a junction is busy and has fast moving traffic a crossing is installed. I regularly use a busy high street as a pedestrian. Cars entering from side streets wait at the give way line and pedestrians walk behind the first car waiting. Cars turning into the junction wait if there are people crossing or often when waiting to cross. It works. On faster roads pedestrians are wise to keep out of the way of fast moving vehicles for their own safety regardless of rules.

Not sure if it still does but the highway code promoted treated other road users with courtesy which works far better than this misguided and poorly thought through new rule.

I live on a busy main road and have had cars written off after slowing to drive onto the dropped kerb. Its happened all along the road to numerous residents. If motorists keep stopping at junctions accidents will increase. I also live opposite a school. At kicking out time countless school run parents fill the road and use the side roads to park. At the same time hundreds of school girls are crossing these roads at the junction meaning motorists complying with this rule wont be able to move. Even more traffic chaos and congestion.

I would question if the person who proposed this used the highways as anything other than a pedestrian because it has a very narrow, blinkered view.

The plan is working towards reducing car use, more pedestrian and cyclist priority will be implemented to discourage people from driving where they could use alternatives

Chomeur

Norman_Castle said:

Its bonkers. It makes no sense either in a car or on a bike or for pedestrians and I don't see the need. Currently at quieter junctions pedestrians wait for room to cross or if a junction is busy and has fast moving traffic a crossing is installed. I regularly use a busy high street as a pedestrian. Cars entering from side streets wait at the give way line and pedestrians walk behind the first car waiting. Cars turning into the junction wait if there are people crossing or often when waiting to cross. It works. On faster roads pedestrians are wise to keep out of the way of fast moving vehicles for their own safety regardless of rules.

Not sure if it still does but the highway code promoted treated other road users with courtesy which works far better than this misguided and poorly thought through new rule.

I live on a busy main road and have had cars written off after slowing to drive onto the dropped kerb. Its happened all along the road to numerous residents. If motorists keep stopping at junctions accidents will increase. I also live opposite a school. At kicking out time countless school run parents fill the road and use the side roads to park. At the same time hundreds of school girls are crossing these roads at the junction meaning motorists complying with this rule wont be able to move. Even more traffic chaos and congestion.

I would question if the person who proposed this used the highways as anything other than a pedestrian because it has a very narrow, blinkered view.

Agreed. In the past, if I was cycling down a side road, about to turn left or right into a main road, I would be thinking about whether the main road was clear in order for me to do so. Now it seems I am supposed to also think about pedestrians waiting to cross the side road. In the past, it would have been clear that they had to cross behind me. Now I don't know. Maybe they want to assert their rights under this new provision, in which case I'd better stop to let them pass in front of me. Or maybe they don't want to assert their rights. To be on the safe side I should stop to let them pass. But most of the time they won't be expecting that, so I will have to wave them across, which will probably take quite a long time, because they will be reluctant to cross in front of me.

Also, if there's the possibility of me going straight on, as well as left or right, then the rules suggest that I don't have to give way, because I won't be turning. I can't indicate while I'm breaking. So if I'm going to turn, I need to indicate before I stop to give way to the pedestrian. But he may not have seen me indicate before I stopped. So, once I have stopped, I should indicate again, as I wave him through in front of me. Otherwise he may have some questions in his mind as to whether I am actually going straight ahead, and do not need to give way. And woe betide any pedestrian who doesn't notice that there is the possibility for me to go straight ahead, and assumes that I must be turning, even though he hasn't seen me indicate, and therefore believes I should give way to him when in fact I don't need to! It could be nasty.

KeithP

Chomeur said:

Norman_Castle said:

Its bonkers. It makes no sense either in a car or on a bike or for pedestrians and I don't see the need. Currently at quieter junctions pedestrians wait for room to cross or if a junction is busy and has fast moving traffic a crossing is installed. I regularly use a busy high street as a pedestrian. Cars entering from side streets wait at the give way line and pedestrians walk behind the first car waiting. Cars turning into the junction wait if there are people crossing or often when waiting to cross. It works. On faster roads pedestrians are wise to keep out of the way of fast moving vehicles for their own safety regardless of rules.

Not sure if it still does but the highway code promoted treated other road users with courtesy which works far better than this misguided and poorly thought through new rule.

I live on a busy main road and have had cars written off after slowing to drive onto the dropped kerb. Its happened all along the road to numerous residents. If motorists keep stopping at junctions accidents will increase. I also live opposite a school. At kicking out time countless school run parents fill the road and use the side roads to park. At the same time hundreds of school girls are crossing these roads at the junction meaning motorists complying with this rule wont be able to move. Even more traffic chaos and congestion.

I would question if the person who proposed this used the highways as anything other than a pedestrian because it has a very narrow, blinkered view.

But he may not have seen me indicate before I stopped. So, once I have stopped, I should indicate again, as I wave him through in front of me.

How many arms is the cyclist now obliged to carry?   

With one hand on the brake, one hand indicating and the third hand waving the pedestrian across?

mark1959

Chomeur said:

Norman_Castle said:

Its bonkers. It makes no sense either in a car or on a bike or for pedestrians and I don't see the need. Currently at quieter junctions pedestrians wait for room to cross or if a junction is busy and has fast moving traffic a crossing is installed. I regularly use a busy high street as a pedestrian. Cars entering from side streets wait at the give way line and pedestrians walk behind the first car waiting. Cars turning into the junction wait if there are people crossing or often when waiting to cross. It works. On faster roads pedestrians are wise to keep out of the way of fast moving vehicles for their own safety regardless of rules.

Not sure if it still does but the highway code promoted treated other road users with courtesy which works far better than this misguided and poorly thought through new rule.

I live on a busy main road and have had cars written off after slowing to drive onto the dropped kerb. Its happened all along the road to numerous residents. If motorists keep stopping at junctions accidents will increase. I also live opposite a school. At kicking out time countless school run parents fill the road and use the side roads to park. At the same time hundreds of school girls are crossing these roads at the junction meaning motorists complying with this rule wont be able to move. Even more traffic chaos and congestion.

I would question if the person who proposed this used the highways as anything other than a pedestrian because it has a very narrow, blinkered view.

Agreed. In the past, if I was cycling down a side road, about to turn left or right into a main road, I would be thinking about whether the main road was clear in order for me to do so. Now it seems I am supposed to also think about pedestrians waiting to cross the side road. In the past, it would have been clear that they had to cross behind me. Now I don't know. Maybe they want to assert their rights under this new provision, in which case I'd better stop to let them pass in front of me. Or maybe they don't want to assert their rights. To be on the safe side I should stop to let them pass. But most of the time they won't be expecting that, so I will have to wave them across, which will probably take quite a long time, because they will be reluctant to cross in front of me.

Also, if there's the possibility of me going straight on, as well as left or right, then the rules suggest that I don't have to give way, because I won't be turning. I can't indicate while I'm breaking. So if I'm going to turn, I need to indicate before I stop to give way to the pedestrian. But he may not have seen me indicate before I stopped. So, once I have stopped, I should indicate again, as I wave him through in front of me. Otherwise he may have some questions in his mind as to whether I am actually going straight ahead, and do not need to give way. And woe betide any pedestrian who doesn't notice that there is the possibility for me to go straight ahead, and assumes that I must be turning, even though he hasn't seen me indicate, and therefore believes I should give way to him when in fact I don't need to! It could be nasty.

I always think of pedestrians when they're waiting to cross and i'm on a side road approaching  the junction. Whether i'm on a bike or driving a car. It's courteous to stop and let them cross.Maybe it's just me.

Chomeur

KeithP said:

Chomeur said:

Norman_Castle said:

Its bonkers. It makes no sense either in a car or on a bike or for pedestrians and I don't see the need. Currently at quieter junctions pedestrians wait for room to cross or if a junction is busy and has fast moving traffic a crossing is installed. I regularly use a busy high street as a pedestrian. Cars entering from side streets wait at the give way line and pedestrians walk behind the first car waiting. Cars turning into the junction wait if there are people crossing or often when waiting to cross. It works. On faster roads pedestrians are wise to keep out of the way of fast moving vehicles for their own safety regardless of rules.

Not sure if it still does but the highway code promoted treated other road users with courtesy which works far better than this misguided and poorly thought through new rule.

I live on a busy main road and have had cars written off after slowing to drive onto the dropped kerb. Its happened all along the road to numerous residents. If motorists keep stopping at junctions accidents will increase. I also live opposite a school. At kicking out time countless school run parents fill the road and use the side roads to park. At the same time hundreds of school girls are crossing these roads at the junction meaning motorists complying with this rule wont be able to move. Even more traffic chaos and congestion.

I would question if the person who proposed this used the highways as anything other than a pedestrian because it has a very narrow, blinkered view.

But he may not have seen me indicate before I stopped. So, once I have stopped, I should indicate again, as I wave him through in front of me.

How many arms is the cyclist now obliged to carry?   

With one hand on the brake, one hand indicating and the third hand waving the pedestrian across?

Well, hopefully having come to a stop, the cyclist can take both hands off the brakes. But if he's facing down a hill, he's got problems.

Chomeur

Deleted_User said:

Norman_Castle said:

Its bonkers. It makes no sense either in a car or on a bike or for pedestrians and I don't see the need. Currently at quieter junctions pedestrians wait for room to cross or if a junction is busy and has fast moving traffic a crossing is installed. I regularly use a busy high street as a pedestrian. Cars entering from side streets wait at the give way line and pedestrians walk behind the first car waiting. Cars turning into the junction wait if there are people crossing or often when waiting to cross. It works. On faster roads pedestrians are wise to keep out of the way of fast moving vehicles for their own safety regardless of rules.

Not sure if it still does but the highway code promoted treated other road users with courtesy which works far better than this misguided and poorly thought through new rule.

I live on a busy main road and have had cars written off after slowing to drive onto the dropped kerb. Its happened all along the road to numerous residents. If motorists keep stopping at junctions accidents will increase. I also live opposite a school. At kicking out time countless school run parents fill the road and use the side roads to park. At the same time hundreds of school girls are crossing these roads at the junction meaning motorists complying with this rule wont be able to move. Even more traffic chaos and congestion.

I would question if the person who proposed this used the highways as anything other than a pedestrian because it has a very narrow, blinkered view.

The plan is working towards reducing car use, more pedestrian and cyclist priority will be implemented to discourage people from driving where they could use alternatives

Err, but this is less cyclist priority. Did you write the new code by any chance?

[Deleted User]

Chomeur said:

Norman_Castle said:

Its bonkers. It makes no sense either in a car or on a bike or for pedestrians and I don't see the need. Currently at quieter junctions pedestrians wait for room to cross or if a junction is busy and has fast moving traffic a crossing is installed. I regularly use a busy high street as a pedestrian. Cars entering from side streets wait at the give way line and pedestrians walk behind the first car waiting. Cars turning into the junction wait if there are people crossing or often when waiting to cross. It works. On faster roads pedestrians are wise to keep out of the way of fast moving vehicles for their own safety regardless of rules.

Not sure if it still does but the highway code promoted treated other road users with courtesy which works far better than this misguided and poorly thought through new rule.

I live on a busy main road and have had cars written off after slowing to drive onto the dropped kerb. Its happened all along the road to numerous residents. If motorists keep stopping at junctions accidents will increase. I also live opposite a school. At kicking out time countless school run parents fill the road and use the side roads to park. At the same time hundreds of school girls are crossing these roads at the junction meaning motorists complying with this rule wont be able to move. Even more traffic chaos and congestion.

I would question if the person who proposed this used the highways as anything other than a pedestrian because it has a very narrow, blinkered view.

Agreed. In the past, if I was cycling down a side road, about to turn left or right into a main road, I would be thinking about whether the main road was clear in order for me to do so. Now it seems I am supposed to also think about pedestrians waiting to cross the side road. In the past, it would have been clear that they had to cross behind me. Now I don't know. Maybe they want to assert their rights under this new provision, in which case I'd better stop to let them pass in front of me. Or maybe they don't want to assert their rights. To be on the safe side I should stop to let them pass. But most of the time they won't be expecting that, so I will have to wave them across, which will probably take quite a long time, because they will be reluctant to cross in front of me.

Also, if there's the possibility of me going straight on, as well as left or right, then the rules suggest that I don't have to give way, because I won't be turning. I can't indicate while I'm breaking. So if I'm going to turn, I need to indicate before I stop to give way to the pedestrian. But he may not have seen me indicate before I stopped. So, once I have stopped, I should indicate again, as I wave him through in front of me. Otherwise he may have some questions in his mind as to whether I am actually going straight ahead, and do not need to give way. And woe betide any pedestrian who doesn't notice that there is the possibility for me to go straight ahead, and assumes that I must be turning, even though he hasn't seen me indicate, and therefore believes I should give way to him when in fact I don't need to! It could be nasty.

Changes will bed in over time, pedestrians will eventually pick up the new rules and ensure the vehicle is stopping, then go without you needing to wave them over. Few, if any, will just assume they can go

[Deleted User]

Chomeur said:

Deleted_User said:

Norman_Castle said:

Its bonkers. It makes no sense either in a car or on a bike or for pedestrians and I don't see the need. Currently at quieter junctions pedestrians wait for room to cross or if a junction is busy and has fast moving traffic a crossing is installed. I regularly use a busy high street as a pedestrian. Cars entering from side streets wait at the give way line and pedestrians walk behind the first car waiting. Cars turning into the junction wait if there are people crossing or often when waiting to cross. It works. On faster roads pedestrians are wise to keep out of the way of fast moving vehicles for their own safety regardless of rules.

Not sure if it still does but the highway code promoted treated other road users with courtesy which works far better than this misguided and poorly thought through new rule.

I live on a busy main road and have had cars written off after slowing to drive onto the dropped kerb. Its happened all along the road to numerous residents. If motorists keep stopping at junctions accidents will increase. I also live opposite a school. At kicking out time countless school run parents fill the road and use the side roads to park. At the same time hundreds of school girls are crossing these roads at the junction meaning motorists complying with this rule wont be able to move. Even more traffic chaos and congestion.

I would question if the person who proposed this used the highways as anything other than a pedestrian because it has a very narrow, blinkered view.

The plan is working towards reducing car use, more pedestrian and cyclist priority will be implemented to discourage people from driving where they could use alternatives

Err, but this is less cyclist priority. Did you write the new code by any chance?

The HC changes bring the UK closer to the logical status used in some countries in Europe where the hierarchy is most vulnerable to least. A rider can still injure or kill a pedestrian (see Charlie Alliston with his illegal bike), just as a car can kill a cyclist or a lorry can kill a driver. If I am turning into a side street on my bike, it's unlikely I will be going so fast that I cannot easily stop and enter the road but allow the pedestrians to cross. In a busy situation I might be tempted to go wide but not stop to avoid being hit by a car from behind, but equally if I am already signalling and slowing, I can move in, unclip and allow them over. Equally I have had pedestrians wave me on as I slow in anticipation of allowing them to go. The new rules clarify the rights of cyclists and bike riders on the road, but equally, any responsible cyclist (and hopefully most of the Blokes on Bikes (BOBs)) will take care of pedestrians.

Chomeur

Deleted_User said:

The HC changes bring the UK closer to the logical status used in some countries in Europe where the hierarchy is most vulnerable to least. A rider can still injure or kill a pedestrian (see Charlie Alliston with his illegal bike), just as a car can kill a cyclist or a lorry can kill a driver. If I am turning into a side street on my bike, it's unlikely I will be going so fast that I cannot easily stop and enter the road but allow the pedestrians to cross. In a busy situation I might be tempted to go wide but not stop to avoid being hit by a car from behind, but equally if I am already signalling and slowing, I can move in, unclip and allow them over. Equally I have had pedestrians wave me on as I slow in anticipation of allowing them to go. The new rules clarify the rights of cyclists and bike riders on the road, but equally, any responsible cyclist (and hopefully most of the Blokes on Bikes (BOBs)) will take care of pedestrians.

So you're turning left at a junction on your bike. There's a pedestrian standing there, looking at his phone, and looking up occasionally. You decide that he's waiting to cross. So you stop for him. Maybe you move in to the side road a bit to be away from the traffic behind you. A car driver behind you is also turning left. He doesn't see the pedestrian, or is not of the view that the pedestrian is waiting to cross. So he doesn't expect you to suddenly stop as you turn into the junction. You have only indicated that you are turning left, there was no easy way for you to indicate that you were stopping as well. So, bam, the car driver goes straight into the back of you.

Pedestrians are of course more vulnerable than cyclists and car drivers. But that doesn't mean that the road should belong to them. It belongs to cyclists and car drivers.