Highway Code Hierarchy of Road Users

[mikeprice]

I find that a lot of car drivers seem to take be more understanding when I cycle out from the kerb when I approach a narrowing of the road - such as a pedestrian refuge or something

 

 

I have seen a couple of pedestrians assume I will let them walk out in front of me at junctions - but I have not seen anyone let someone walk across when leaving a roundabout - I think most people realise that that is just too dangerous if there is other traffic about.

As far as I remember the HC also says that driver 'should' so it is not compulsory and up to the judgement of the driver

[enjay]

As far as I remember the HC also says that driver 'should' so it is not compulsory and up to the judgement of the driver

 

"Should" is a funny phrase in Highway Code terms. I think it means you won't get stopped by the Police for not doing it, but insurance liability may be decided based on the fact you didn't.

[jmak]

I quite often let people cross on the approach to a roundabout - it's straightforward to control the speed of the traffic and create a gap in a queue.

 

I have often considered letting people cross when leaving a roundabout, but either there's no one behind me, in which case there's no reason to stop and if there's a queue of traffic I have never yet found an opportunity when I've felt it safe to stop.

[hardtailstar]

 

I still think the rule about pedestrians waiting to cross a minor side-road having priority over traffic turning off the major road is a little odd, especially on high-footfall sections of pavement, but I don't know how you'd actually define a better alternative.

 

This is odd and I don't think everyone knows it yet still.

 

A few times I've let pedestrians across I've had cars beeping me/revving engine or trying to pass me.

 

I've also been a pedestrian and went to walk across a road and almost hit. So now I just let cars go first!

[enjay]

I've also been a pedestrian and went to walk across a road and almost hit. So now I just let cars go first!

 

I always check very carefully, and make sure the driver is stopping before I start crossing. I also look both ways on one-way streets - I live on a one-way street, and the number of bikes, scooters, cars, lorries and on one occasion a car transporter, which go the wrong way is amazing.

[Rob_D]

This is odd and I don't think everyone knows it yet still.

 

To be fair, I don't think most people remembered that, even before the new rules, pedestrians crossing a side road had priority over cars approaching the junction (so the minute you step into the road you technically have priority over approaching traffic).

Until the new-ish changes it's always been perceived as cars/vehicles having ultimate right of way on the roads.

[enjay]

To be fair, I don't think most people remembered that, even before the new rules, pedestrians crossing a side road had priority over cars approaching the junction (so the minute you step into the road you technically have priority over approaching traffic).

Until the new-ish changes it's always been perceived as cars/vehicles having ultimate right of way on the roads.

 

The difference in the new rules is a pedestrian who is still on the pavement has priority, previously you had to have a foot on the road before you had priority.

[Rob_D]

The difference in the new rules is a pedestrian who is still on the pavement has priority, previously you had to have a foot on the road before you had priority.

Totally. All I'm saying is that it kind-of tracks that a lot of people are forgetting the new rule, when you consider that there's an older similar rule that was equally forgotten.

[mavhc]

Pretty simple really,

 

As a pedestrian don't step into the road assuming people will slow down, because then you might die, and that's really bad for you.

 

And for drivers, assume pedestrians will step into the road assuming people will slow down, because murdering people is also really bad for you

[enjay]

Totally. All I'm saying is that it kind-of tracks that a lot of people are forgetting the new rule, when you consider that there's an older similar rule that was equally forgotten.

 

Indeed. Often new or updated rules help to remind people about the other rules. I think we should have a requirement to update knowledge, possibly even take a refresher test. As it stands, you learn your HC for your theory and practical test while driving a Ford Fiesta, then pass a test which gives you indefinite licence to drive supercars and, if you're old like me, small motorbikes, large vans and minibuses. At least with a motorbike, you're limited to the engine size without passing a test on a bigger bike.

[enjay]

Pretty simple really,

 

As a pedestrian don't step into the road assuming people will slow down, because then you might die, and that's really bad for you.

 

And for drivers, assume pedestrians will step into the road assuming people will slow down, because murdering people is also really bad for you

 

My driving instructor said something similar. Drive with the assumption that:

- traffic lights are red until you know otherwise

- other road users are about to do something stupid

- around every blind corner is a lorry being driven by your mum

[psydii]

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

and

"If you have to step into the road, look both ways first... ...Always show due care and consideration for others"

 

"At a junction. When you are crossing or waiting to cross the road, other traffic should give way. Look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you, and cross at a place where drivers can see you. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way (see Rules H2 and 170)."

 

 

My reading of that is that, when there is traffic, pedestrians need to come to a complete stop before proceeding, otherwise they were never 'waiting'. They can't just walk out ignoring the already moving traffic on the road. If a vehicle is in motion and arrives at the junction roughly at the same time as you, it is not going to be able to stop safely, you must wait until it is safe to cross. Once you are waiting you get the right of way, and other vehicles must now stop to let you cross.

 

 

My personal favorite improvement are these two.

 

"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"

 

"...Take extra care at junctions. You should... ...remain behind cyclists, horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and motorcyclists at junctions even if they are waiting to turn and are positioned close to the kerb"

 

Which means motor vehicles are explicitly prohibited from overtaking and then cutting up horses/cyclists through junctions.

[Andrew_C]

Nope. "SHOULD" is not the same as "MUST".

[enjay]

"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"

 

Which means motor vehicles are explicitly prohibited from overtaking and then cutting up horses/cyclists through junctions.

 

Should isn't the same as must, but yes that is a positive change. The other big difference which that new wording introduces is a cyclist on a shared use path now has priority over a motorist turning off the road into a side-road or their driveway. Previously the cyclist had to give way to a car which was turning into a driveway, even if the car was approaching from behind the cyclist!

[Dos_Box]

Nope. "SHOULD" is not the same as "MUST".

 

I've seen some vids on YouTube of driving instructors saying it is still confusing as to how the new rules will be judged upon as the wording is suitably vague and it would take some legal cases to sort out.

To my mind (as a former qualified driving instructor) some of the rules, such as giving way to pedestrians on roundabout exits, are, to my mind, very iffy as you can't see 'around' many roundabouts far enough and the chances of a rear end shunt are much increased should you suddenly find someone stationary in front of you when your visibility has been impaired either by a bank or bushes on the roundabout.

As a cyclist I do welcome the extra awareness of bicycles though, there are far too many idiots behind the wheel!

[Davit2005]

It is still should as said in the highway code. Rule H2. Unless there is a zebra, parallel crossing etc. then it is a MUST But even on a zebra crossing it is not guaranteed. How many accidents could be prevented if people stopped assuming there is no danger without actually looking first.

 

But there is still a need to protect more vulnerable users.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Davit2005

[HarryMonkey]

How many more could be saved by pedestrians tearing themselves away from their phones for just a few seconds when crossing a road. They'll learn a lot more by looking where they're going rather than at their screen.

[psydii]

Not sure if you are referencing to my fist or second points. On the first point, I conceded that I escalated to "must" when the text did not support that, consider it instead to be shorthand for "wait or risk getting run over because fast moving vehicles might not actually stop in time, and whose fault it is will be somewhat moot - you're still run over". On the second I perhaps used prohibition a little more loosely than many would, but SHOULD NOT is still a prohibition, while MUST NOT is a legally enforceable one. If you choose to undertake an action you have been advised that you should not, then it will be up to you to defend that decision should the matter end up in a court.

 

edit: Also I used the phrase "right of way" which is also explicitly incorrect, and priority is the correct term.

Edited August 4, 2022 by psydii

[psydii]

How many more could be saved by pedestrians tearing themselves away from their phones for just a few seconds when crossing a road. They'll learn a lot more by looking where they're going rather than at their screen.

 

In my experience, the problem is not related to phones, people just don't look. I am glad the change has raised awareness - the behavior around busy turning/crossings has improved dramatically since this surfaced in the national discourse. Even the worst people crossing at junctions now think "ooh. do i have right of way here? Yes!" and then stop to look around to check to see if they get to exercise their right.

Edited August 4, 2022 by psydii

[Davit2005]

This is where the priority point is sometimes the wrong view. All road users have responsibility.

 

At a junction. When you are crossing or waiting to cross the road, other traffic should give way. Look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you, and cross at a place where drivers can see you. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way (see Rules H2 and 170).

 

The rules are still not very clear and a lot of junctions could be made to help. You cannot even really say cars must give way at junctions due to other factors.

 

If you don't do something you should or do something you should not then you might need to explain in court as said. Any proof to back this up would be an advantage i.e. front, rear and even a view of the driver dashcam.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Davit2005

[enjay]

On the second I perhaps used prohibition a little more loosely than many would, but SHOULD NOT is still a prohibition, while MUST NOT is a legally enforceable one. If you choose to undertake an action you have been advised that you should not, then it will be up to you to defend that decision should the matter end up in a court.

 

Exactly that. I think I said this earlier on this thread, but a good way I heard the difference explained is that Police will stop you if you do something you MUST not do, e.g. speed. They won't stop you for doing something you SHOULD not do, but if something bad happens as a result, such as you hitting someone, you would have to explain your actions and might be deemed liable for the effects of the bad thing.

[Davit2005]

In my experience, the problem is not related to phones, people just don't look. I am glad the change has raised awareness - the behavior around busy turning/crossings has improved dramatically since this surfaced in the national discourse. Even the worst people crossing at junctions now think "ooh. do i have right of way here? Yes!" and then stop to look around to check to see if they get to exercise their right.

 

Road users should not assume anything without checking, it would be a much safer environment for all if people looked, tried to anticipate and less assumption.

 

There is one corner I regularly drive round. It is tight but still 2 lanes and 2 cars can pass each other in the opposite directions but I regularly see people cutting the corner and have to almost stop to avoid collision. Why put yourself in direct possible danger (i.e. on the wrong side of the road) without looking first and as a driver this is bad. This goes for passing bikes and parked cars too, these days common for people jus to follow the car in front assuming they will not cause a collision (or not check are clear to pass) or not force others to take avoiding action.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Davit2005

[hardtailstar]

I always check very carefully, and make sure the driver is stopping before I start crossing. I also look both ways on one-way streets - I live on a one-way street, and the number of bikes, scooters, cars, lorries and on one occasion a car transporter, which go the wrong way is amazing.

 

Oh yeah I'm being careful but the car wasn't indicating and literally just pulled across at speed.

[mikeprice]

I cycle quite a lot - the idea that I can be on a shared cycle path and expect a car turning into a road to give me priority is totally pie-in-the-sky as far as I can see

 

The whole system is designed assuming that the bike stops at every junction and gives way to cars - whatever the new HC says

 

some even specifically have give way markings on the path!!!

 

In some European countries they have give way markings on the road instead - and coloured tarmac showing the cycle path

 

The same generally applies to entrances to factories etc - one shared path near here is, in my opinion, unusable due to the existence of different factories and workshops etc every few yards and during working hours you have to at least slow down a lot at every entrance

 

People at a bit better when it comes to house driveways - but then they are more used to pedestrians wandering along pavements anyway

 

It is all an improvement but it isn't where it should be

[enjay]

@mikeprice Shared use paths and cycle lanes had different rules previously - cyclists had priority over cars turning across them on a cycle lane but not on a shared use path, hence the give way signs. The HC revision should make that clearer, although presumably not until the lines are repainted. I must admit, I don't generally use shared use paths (partly for the stupid rules about priority, but also because at 15-20mph on my bike, I feel I'm safer on a 20-30mph road than a 3-5mph pavement where people don't always realise it is shared use or have dogs wondering around leaving trip wires across the path) so I can't comment on whether behaviour there has changed since the HC revision.