New priority rules may cause confusion says AA.

[mjr]

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]

No, but the code rule misled.

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

 

[derrick]

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]

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/

View attachment 622535

And how many of you are aware?

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

 

[mjr]

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]

... 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]

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

View attachment 622542

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]

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]

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

 

[glasgowcyclist]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Again, I think this is a novel interpretation.