New Rule H2 Highway Code - giving way to pedestrians

[Deleted User]

Chomeur said:

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.

Hence moving to the side along the kerb or going wide. Bringing in hypothetical scenarios that will rarely, if ever, happen is silly. Whotever you think the road "belongs to" the bigger/heavier thing should give way to the smaller thing. I see cars jumping red lights pretty much every day on my commute, periodically cars ignoring pedestrians on zebra crossings too, just need to look out for other people and be sensible, not just belt around assuming you have the right to own the road

Norman_Castle

mark1959 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.

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.

Most drivers will be courteous and let pedestrians cross if there's a need but often its unnecessary. A very minor delay for a pedestrian which for me as a pedestrian is fine. A car stopped at a junction is normally at the give way line which is generally ahead of where pedestrians cross.

mark1959

Norman_Castle said:

mark1959 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.

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.

Most drivers will be courteous and let pedestrians cross if there's a need but often its unnecessary. A very minor delay for a pedestrian which for me as a pedestrian is fine. A car stopped at a junction is normally at the give way line which is generally ahead of where pedestrians cross.

I would say there's always a "need". That's why the pedestrian is there. To cross the road. And very often necessary.

Norman_Castle

mark1959 said:

Norman_Castle said:

mark1959 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.

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.

Most drivers will be courteous and let pedestrians cross if there's a need but often its unnecessary. A very minor delay for a pedestrian which for me as a pedestrian is fine. A car stopped at a junction is normally at the give way line which is generally ahead of where pedestrians cross.

I would say there's always a "need". That's why the pedestrian is there. To cross the road. And very often necessary.

Its very often unnecessary and needless. Stopping a car 15 foot before a give way line to allow a pedestrian to cross is pointless unless cars arrive at that junction at speed or its very busy. Pedestrians often don't "need" any help to cross a road and don't "need" gesture courtesy.

mark1959

What part of "pedestrians need to cross the road" has got you confused? Why would they be stood there? It's not difficult to assume that they would quite like to cross the road, and don't need any needless gesture courtesy. Just drivers [including you] to show some common sense. No wonder they've had to rewrite the highway code.

Norman_Castle

mark1959 said:

What part of "pedestrians need to cross the road" has got you confused? Why would they be stood there? It's not difficult to assume that they would quite like to cross the road, and don't need any needless gesture courtesy. Just drivers [including you] to show some common sense. No wonder they've had to rewrite the highway code.

I'm sorry if my reply confused you. What pedestrians, including me, often don't need is help from motorists to cross a road.  Motorists, including me, already apply common sense and common courtesy at junctions, they don't need further instruction to do so.  If you were struggling to cross a road motorists, including myself, would stop giving you time to cross. This is from personal experience during decades of both crossing roads as a pedestrian and when driving.

Don't expect a bickering match, its boring. You either understand what's being said or you don't.

jon81uk

Chomeur said:

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.

and that sort of attitude is why they have added extra guidance to the Highway Code. The road does not belong to anyone. It is there for all users. As others have said, this is to bring the UK more in line with other countries where the most vulnerable road users should be considered most at risk. If you don't think of every road user when behind the wheel then you shouldn't be driving.

randomsuccess

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.

So you indicate to turn, gently apply the brakes and you have had "cars" (plural) written off by other cars driving into the back of you? Then you say, "If motorists keep stopping at junctions accidents will increase". What about when you are turning right off a main road and there is oncoming traffic? I presume you stop to wait for a gap so it is safe to turn? What about when you need to pass a parked car on a main road and there is oncoming traffic and no room to pass safely; you stop surely? I just don't get this "the new HC rues are going to cause rear end shunts everywhere". Why is stopping at a junction for a pedestrian any different to any other stopping that happens all the time on any given journey?