New priority rules may cause confusion says AA.

[Bonefish Blues]

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]

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.



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


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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Badger_Boom]

...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.