OT: Highway Code changes

As i've understood it they had right of way if they'd started to cross and were already in the road. That's fair enough.

So i'm driving into town now, I do a left into the road that takes me to the market, I like to support local business where possible.

Currently if there are folk in the road i'll slow and let them finish but would expect anyone who hasn't already set off to stay put. Moving forward are we expected to sit ticking over with traffic backing up behind while a steady stream of pedestrians shuffles in front of our intended path?

Dangerous beyond belief.

But tootling along in a four-wheeler is so chic!

Chris Green explained :

Steve Walker has brought this to us :

Not if the one behind is alert, driving with proper observation and leaving a suitable space from the car in front. There has always been the chance of the vehicle turning off in front, not being able to complete their maneuver, what difference does it make? As the following driver, you should always anticipate having to stop, but hope not to have to.

Dave Plowman (News) pretended :

You are permitted to assess things with a glance, that has not changed. Looking was always part of the art of driving.

Don't think "starting to cross", think "*continuing* to travel along the same highway".

The car driver is the one turning. When driving would you expect oncoming9ng vehicles to give way to you to enable you to do so without delay? If not, why do you expect pedestrians to do so?

I see what you're saying

But generally paths are separate from the main carriageway for a reason, drivers are used to pedestrians stopping when they change from path to road, they wouldn't like it if cars start driving on the paths ...

Yep - the reason kerbs were introduced was 'cos so many drivers were prone to mowing down pedestrians. But pavements have always remained part of the highway. Might help to think in terms of an inside lane for slow traffic that motor vehicles and bikes are not allowed to enter except when they need to cross it to turn into a different road (or into a drive etc).

Much like cycle lanes where wiping out the cyclist on your inside is now frowned upon?

It's absolutely standard in France though and, since it is 'the norm' doesn't cause the problems you are suggesting.

The thing about vehicles having to give way to pedestrians who are crossing a side road that you are turning into or out of has been in the HC for ages. I think it is an idiotic rule, and one of the few that I would never have guessed from first principles if I'd not read the HC. But that doesn't alter the fact that it was and still is the rule. As a pedestrian I would never exercise my right because I wouldn't assume that drivers will stop for me, unlike at a zebra crossing or red pelican lights. Except in those two cases, I wait for a gap - unless a driver flashes me or waves me to cross, in which case I *know* (or at least, *think* I know!) that he intends to wait for me.

But the rule that really get my goat is the new one that says that a vehicle which is ahead of a cyclist has to give way to the cyclist if the vehicle is indicating left and the bike is going straight on. I presume it only applies where it is physically possible for the bike to overtake on the left because there is a cycle lane which makes the car turn left from lane other than the left lane. In the absence of a cycle lane, I position myself hard left to make sure I don't have to look at the passenger door mirror and over my left shoulder.

I would have preferred the HC to be changed to say that you MUST NOT ever, ever overtake any vehicle (including one bike overtaking another *) on the side which is it indicating to turn. If cyclists must overtake, and can't be patient like all other vehicles, they can do so on the right where the driver has a much better view of them because the blind spot of the driver's mirror is a lot less (almost as soon as a bike disappears from the right of the mirror he appears in the driver's peripheral vision. In contrast, a passenger mirror that is correctly angled to see the edge of the car (for parking close to a kerb or between manoeuvring between narrow gateposts) will have a very large blind spot before the cyclist appears in the passenger window. The HC should recognise that fact in formulating the law so as to prevent it being a problem.

I'd also like the HC to officially recognise an "I will wait for you" signal to say "I know I have priority over you, but I can see you've been waiting for ages to turn out of that side road, so I will drop back very slightly creating a large enough gap for you to pull out, then I can resume my normal speed and distance from the car ahead as soon as you've gone". OK, so the headlamp flash, which is an unofficial signal, is officially a visible version of the horn, but rather than pretend that the situation does not exist, they need to create an alternative, unambiguous signal that is still visible from some distance away... because if I have to slow down almost to a stop right next to the junction before the driver gets the message, I'm not going to do it: I'm not *that* selfless ;-)

(*) Yes, I have had that happen to me. I was signalling to turn left on my bike and just about to turn when another joker on a bike overtook me on my left. And it's even harder to look behind you on a bike because you have to turn right round, rather than just look in a mirror, and that tends to make you veer off course slightly. I wonder if the "give way to bikes behind you wanting to go straight on when you want to turn left" rule also applies to the bike ahead having to give way. I see a few bike-on-bike accidents ;-)

All very well and yes I'd say a fair few people know that technically the path is part of the highway, but in reality the distinction people make is that paths is for people and roads is for cars.

It seems utter madness to let bikes undertake cars which are signalling left approaching a junction, and then call it the car's fault if the bike ploughs into the side of the car when it does actually turn left.

I'm surprised the new HC doesn't say you MUST NOT take flashing headlights as an indication of someone letting you in, everybody knows the technical meaning of it, but drivers have come up with better rules than the the highway code's rules.

No, it's crossing the kerb from pavement to road - and we are conditioned as pedestrians always to stop and do the Kerb Drill / Green Cross Code, waiting until there is a gap that is large enough to have finished crossing before an oncoming car gets close. The fact that it is at a junction and the pedestrian is continuing along the main road while crossing the side road make no difference to the fact that he is crossing the kerb. The only exceptions are zebras and red pelicans, and they are usually positioned far enough back from a junction that there is space for one car to turn into a road or else to be between the crossing and the white give way line.

The real problem is the person who walks along the side road and is only visible right at the last minute as he turns through 90 degrees to cross the road he has just walked along so as now to walk along the main road. I've seen a few pedestrians do that, and I bet they think "anywhere else along the road I'll have to wait for a gap, but if I cross at the junction cars should (ought to according to the HC) give way to me".

Not so much "wiping out the cyclist on your inside" as being forced to be in a lane that is not as far left as possible when turning left, and then having to wait for a cyclist to overtake me on my left which by rights I should not even have to check is clear. If a bike wants to go straight on and I'm turning left, he can overtake me on the opposite (right) side or not at all. That's what I'd do if I was on my bike and a car ahead indicated left.

But there seems to be a mentality that bikes must be allowed to travel unimpeded at all times, and be exempt from having to wait as vehicles have to (eg at zebra crossings and traffic lights).

Agreed. All the other changes make *some* sense, but that one is a rule-change that should have been strangled at birth (if not at conception), and replaced by "You MUST NOT overtake any vehicle ahead of you on the side which it is indicating to turn". And have road layouts that enforce that by allowing the left-turning vehicle to position himself close enough to the kerb that it is physically impossible for anyone to overtake on that side. Cycle lanes along the majority of a road make a lot of sense, but they should be discontinued (with an implied "give-way" at the end of the lane) within "n" yards of a left turn, so a vehicle is not forced to turn left from the right-hand lane.

Cyclists seem to want to have their cake and to eat it: they want to be treated as part of the general flow of traffic (which they are) and yet they also want special favours. Can't have it both ways ;-) As a cyclist, occasionally in towns, I will NEVER overtake on the left a car that is indicating left because a) I value my life too much, and b) it makes logical sense that the vehicle behind has to wait for the vehicle in front.

I said nothing about /undertaking/. I was thinking of a motor vehicle /overtaking/ a bike and turning left, wiping out the bike 'cos the cyclist didn't realise they ought to slow down or stop to allow the driver to make the turning before they crossed. After all, that's what a lot of people seem to think pedestrians should do.

If a pedestrian is already in the road, whether or not they should have waited, then it is common sense that you do everything in your power to stop. But I was told when I was learning in 1980 that is a pedestrian is walking towards a kerb at a junction, I should stop to let him (begin to) cross, in the same way as for a zebra crossing. The objective should be (I was told) that the pedestrian should be allowed to continue without the normal "stop, check, cross only if there's a gap".

Yes, saying that headlamp-flashing is ambiguous is missing the point. The precise signal is irrelevant, but the HC needs *a* signal for the driver who has priority to signal to the one that he is letting out, from far enough away that the driver with priority just needs to slow down slightly to create a gap, rather than having to come to an almost complete halt for the side-road driver to get the message in the absence of a positive signal of intent. If I couldn't signal it from afar, I wouldn't let anyone out because to do so would impact the traffic behind me so much more by making me slow down so much more to "signal" my intention of letting the side-road car out.

Ahem, I presume you haven't tried to cross the road in Antibes or Nice ... ? It seems to be one of those rules (if it is one) that is widely ignored.