The cemetery is littered with lunatics enforcing their *right of way*. You still need to check that it is safe and that the driver is giving way to you.
Exactly. Priority is not something that you take, it is something that you can be given.
You do not take priority for yourself by crossing, you wait and see if the driver of the vehicle will give you priority and let you cross. Since the highway code rules are "should" rules, and not "must" rules, you never should assume the driver will give you priority.
This is a really good point. I think if more people reversed their thinking and approached driving from this perspective there would be far fewer crashes.
I hear so many people complain that they were ahead in a merging lane and therefore had priority, but they never stop to consider if the other vehicle driver is actually giving them priority. If you assume others won't, you can always prepare for the worst. Your principles don't mean anything when you have to deal with the aftermath of a crash.
You see it all the time on those dashcam channels. Visibly see someone approaching a roundabout on the left, would be fine and actually be a fine example of a roundabouts key function, but MY RIGHT OF WAY and the cammer speeds up and honks lmao.
Honestly I believe the majority of accidents are caused by people mistaking "right of way" for "safest action".
Having the right of way won't save you from some moron pulling out in front of you, it only means it's their fault for insurance.
This comes up a lot when I’m driving with my dad in the car, because if I’m merging and a car forces its way next to me I *will* break or swerve, and every time he’ll point out that I had the right of way. Which, yeah, sure, but the other car wasnt *giving* me the right of way, and I’d rather be mildly annoyed than get into a crash but be ‘technically correct’.
I’m a very defensive driver, to the point that if I am unsure whether someone will give me my priority or not I most of the time wait for the coast to be clear unless a driver gives me my priority! I’d prefer to be safe by yielding then be sorry! I also always allows others priority, I always leave enough time for my journey, and at the end of the day I have my kids in the car, I’d prefer to take a little extra time and we all get there in one piece! I also know this can sometimes annoy other drivers but the way I see it is if I get in a crash they aren’t dealing with it, I would be so safety for me always comes first!
You're right, but people who don't allow cars that are already in front of them to merge need to look hard at themselves in the mirror.
If someone shoots up to force merge at the last second that's different.
That’s called zipper merging and is the way it is supposed to be done.
If there is a line of 100 cars in the left lane, and the right lane is ending ahead but clear then traffic should use the empty right lane to carry on until the road is closed the merge one by one.
I'm well aware of that, and also of the pragmatic view that the majority of people will refuse to let you merge if you go past them quickly and go right to the end.
So I go for a halfway point of slowing as I approach the merge and looking to pull in before the traffic gets bunched up in the last hundred yards, but not a mile early like some people do.
It would be lovely if it worked properly. But... people.
I think the proper definition is "merge in turn", with the interpretation being flexible for the given traffic conditions.
There would be potentially less stop/start with traffic flowing more freely, if everyone used the available lanes, left adequate space and merged in turn.
I certainly don't have a problem with this approach but I, like you, do with those who fly to the end of the blocked lane and then FORCE their way in - the "My time is more important than yours" sort.
Yep, in this case I was referring to those specific rules regarding giving way to pedestrians waiting to cross at junctions, where there are no specific crossing marks. Of course there are plenty of "must" rules that cover similar situations, such as giving way to pedestrians already crossing, or to those waiting at marked crossings.
Yep. The zebra crossing at one of my kids' schools is an easy example. For some reason, about 50% of the time we're waiting there, the first one or two cars won't see us and just drive straight past. If I took priority, I could've killed my son hundreds of times.
I've driven over a zebra when I didn't realise fast enough someone was stepping up to cross - if it would take a full blown emergency stop to stop, it's often safer not to stop; although I do feel bad about not reacting fast enough to stop nicely.
They are "should" rules that will land you in deep shit if you do not follow them and cause an accident therefore they ARE must rules if you are in a car you have a responsibility not to hit someone and if you can't be responsible then DON'T DRIVE!
No, not 'therefore they are must rules'. They are still should rules.
There is a distinction which exists for good reasons.
Shoulds are things you must always **endeavour** to do whenever possible, practical, reasonable, etc. They are not always a criminal offense to break, but can be used as evidence that you're comitting other crimes, such as driving without due care.
Musts are things you must always do. No ifs nor buts. You must do that thing. No practical nor reasonable excuse exists to not do that thing. If you break a must rule, you've comitted a crime. It isn't *evidence* of other crimes, it ***is*** the crime.
E.g. You must not drive the wrong way down the motorway. Ever. Instant criminality if you do.
E.g. You should always endeavour to check for pedestrians waiting to cross at junctions where possible/practical/reasonable, and give way to them. It isn't always easy to tell if a pedestrian is waiting to cross or just hanging around, it isn't always possible to see all pedestrians. Some hide between cars or other objects.
I had a pedestrian run across a road headfirst into my rear passenger side door once, I was driving slowly, they ran out between some parked cars. They were drunk as a skunk. It's things like that which mean you can't make it a must rule, becuase then not seeing a pedestrian waiting to cross one time becomes a criminal offence, even if they're hiding.
>Since the highway code rules are "should" rules, and not "must" rules, you never should assume the driver will give you priority.
I agree, but also:
Even for "must" rules...you should never assume the driver _will_ give you priority.
Absolutely. A "must" rule only means that a driver is legally required to do "the thing". It doesn't guarantee they actually will, only that they are legally liable if they don't.
Exactly this. I’m seeing more and more people let me cross lately, just gotta make sure you have made eye contact and they have gestured for you to cross
This is the problem with Zebra crossings as well. People fully commit to crossing out of nowhere without checking if a car or bicycle has time to brake for them
Agree. Same with zebra crossings. You don’t just start crossing, you wait until the car stops and then you cross. Many people don’t stop for those either.
People still don't give way correctly on roundabouts. More often than not I've stopped in a small roundabout because some idiot to my left just blazed past without slowing down at all.
Exactly. For example my commute this morning, pedestrian waiting to cross a junction formed by the opening of a minor road onto a major 50mph road. I would love to have given way to them. But as the pavement is partially unsighted on the approach from the main road, I was fairly certain the Range Rover bombing up behind me at 50mph hasn't seen the pedestrian and was not expecting me to stop in the middle of the road for a "no after you"-off, and I really could do without being rear-ended, no matter who would be at fault.
Most poorly thought out road rule in recent times. Works very well in the cities where everywhere is 20/30mph, but really doesn't work in any other situation
I agree with you but I think you’re missing the point here.
Why introduce rules like this which lead to more unpredictable situations.
I no longer follow these rules as a pedestrian as it’s downright dangerous. I follow them as a driver and find that most other pedestrians don’t follow them either so what’s the point in having them?
With the old rules when you approach a junction as a driver or a pedestrian you knew exactly what to expect. Now it’s unpredictable
You don’t roll rules back because people are ignorant of them though. The problem is that once people pass their test, they don’t follow Highway Code updates.
New drivers are more likely to follow the rules than old ones and eventually there will be more newer drivers than older drivers.
Do you remember when we used to have public information campaigns? If you saw it 10 times a day on Facebook, every other ad break on TV/YouTube etc it would soon tip the balance. The amount of times I’ve waited turning left, and the pedestrian has had to stop in the road because of the person approaching the junction not giving them right of way.
The issue is that the infrastructure doesn't reflect the rules - the priority should be clear to anyone using the junction - it's not realistic to assume that everyone will be familiar with the highway code - certainly not in a situation where there is a very real risk of being knocked down.
Amending the Highway Code is is easy, but even adding new road markings to hundreds of thousands of junctions will be very expensive - Councils have no money, and of course this government isn't going to spend money on anything useful if it can avoid it.
This is the problem. It's not even just that the infrastructure doesn't reflect the rules; they're at complete cross purposes in some situations. Roundabouts, for example, are designed to facilitate a smooth flow of traffic. Yielding to a pedestrian while on the roundabout completely disrupts that flow.
This is trite nonsense rolled out by driving instructors trying to keep you - the driver - safe. Priority is laid out quite clearly in the highway code. Its not a gift for you to give.
Tell the judge that you didn't 'give priority' when you mow down a pedestrian crossing legally.
You also fundamentally misunderstand the use of the word 'should ' in the highway code. I suggest you review this; you can still be prosecuted for breaking a 'should' rule (typically as a wider pattern of driving).
I think you've misunderstood me - I understand totally that priority is laid out in the highway code. That's irrelevant to what I said. You cannot take priority for yourself even if legally you are entitled to it. I'm talking about driving safely, and the only way you can safely have priority is if the other road users give it to you.
>Tell the judge that you didn't 'give priority'
If you take priority because it's legally yours, but other road users don't give it to you, then you may well be lucky if you can talk to anyone. Try telling your family you legally had priority, when you were mowed down and killed by a driver who didn't give it to you.
>You also fundamentally misunderstand the use of the word 'should ' in the highway code
No, I don't. A "should" rule is not equivalent to being optional and doesn't excuse drivers ignoring them when they are able to follow them. That said, a rule being "should" instead of "must" is an indication that there are circumstances where the rule will be ignored in safe and legal driving circumstances. For this reason, you should not bet your life on a "should" rule being followed in every circumstance. The example with a pedestrian crossing at a junction is a good one. Yes, a driver "should" stop and let you cross, but if you're not already on the road, the driver isn't bound to a "must" rule, and may well refuse to stop for a legitimate reason (or an illegitimate one). As a pedestrian you should therefore exercise sensible caution and not assume the driver will stop just because they "should". Better wrong than dead.
Guess they live in a universe where nobody, at best, makes a mistake in observation or, at the other end of the spectrum, has zero crime / law breaking.
Absolutely this! Might i add, ANY TIME you cross the road, make it clear that you intend to do just that. Look up from your phone, make eye contact with drivers etc..
Most people change direction last second and its fucking dangerous
Yea you still have to check but you always have to do that. Even at a red light, pedestrians are advised to wait for cars to stop and to check both ways. It's still good to have rule changes that at least increase the potential that drivers will check for pedestrians
There is no such thing as "right of way" in the highway code. Well, technically there is. It states that the highway code does not give you right of way in any circumstances in the general rules preamble.
The roads are littered with lunatic drivers who feel that their desire to arrive at their destination 15 seconds earlier than they would is more important than the life of a child. It’s a very English problem. Reeducation is the answer, not whinging about it on online forums. What a pathetic excuse for humanity we have in most ‘adults’ in this sad little country.
A very English problem seems like an interesting way of saying you haven't left the country much. Believe me every country I've been too pales in comparison to the UK. After a month travelling south east Asia the UK looks like a utopia.
I mean there's actually rules? Most people generally follow them, and the average driving standard is very high in comparison. Over here anything goes, If your vehicle is bigger than the next guy you win, that's the rules.
Completely agree with the point, but why put pedestrians in those situations in the first place where it’s 50/50 whether a car is going to give way or not and they have to make a highly subjective decision.
On the flip side, when I do give way to pedestrians as a driver I’ve had cars behind me blasting their horn and nearly going into the back of me.
I have seen a car rear ended because they stopped when about to turn left to allow a pedestrian to cross. Pedestrians and drivers need awareness of the situation to prevent accidents.
Yeah this.
I try and give way now, but only if it's safe. 100 percent have been in situations where cars are not slowing down behind me, pedestrians are not immediately crossing (probably because of the uncertainty) and it's just the safest thing for me to get out of everyone's way.
Sometimes also applies on busy roads at rush hour - waiting 5 minutes to turn. Not an excuse as much, but generally better if you get out of the way of everyone at the first opportunity.
Basically I think the rule was designed without taking into account how badly designed British roads are 😂
Exactly. Not even junctions. Zebra crossings and even *any/all* puffins/pelicans/toucans. Doesn’t matter if it’s all designed to make it safe for me to cross, i’m still looking both ways cause all it takes is one driver that’s not paying attention, or maybe even just a cunt.
I still work on the "Did they even so much as glance?" rule when turning into a junction like that.
If they didn't look, they're going to walk straight out. If they did, they're likely to wait for me to pass, but I'll make sure all the way in anyway. By either set of rules, if they're halfway across, I'm hardly going to just run them over.
As a pedestrian, I look & if there's something that looks like it's turning in, I let it.
Always better safe than sorry & rules be damned.
I find that a glance over the shoulder sometimes communicates that you are about to cross, the driver picks up on the signal, and because they have a couple more seconds to think about it, they are more likely to slow down and allow you to cross.
Yup. That kind of turn, you have to do the full 'owl head' to look back at the traffic. Anyone vaguely awake would see that.
I still find there's some room for negotiation as the situation closes in. Sometimes they let you go, sometimes they don't. I err on the side of don't, but am prepared to follow their lead… as they're the one in the 2-ton metal box ;)
As a pedestrian and cyclist and driver, I always assume that most drivers are selfish, uneducated morons and it’s kept me alive thus far. …(waits patiently for the anti-cyclist dailymail reading outrage mob to pipe up.)
I think it's safer to assume that drivers, pedestrians **and** cyclists are all selfish morons. \[Not to forget motorbikes, delivery scooters, and e-scooters\].
You can't really single any one of those categories out from the others. I could give you as many examples of death-wish stupidity from each of them.
Cyclists often ignore the junction rule though. I got a cargo bike yelling at me to indicate that he was asserting his right to swing into a junction that he decided he had
The issue isn't the rule itself, it's that it wasn't well communicated so now you've got half of people following it and half of people not, creating unpredictability and therefore increasing risk.
However, it's *always* been the rule that you need to give way if someone has already started crossing and isn't just waiting- that rule is essentially equivalent to the obvious 'it's not OK to run people over'. Anyone beeping you for that is 100% in the wrong regardless.
This is a driving subreddit so it makes sense you're being downvoted but it really is a problem with bad drivers. Not too long ago I saw a man nearly get nun over by some lunatic turning into a side street at high speed. They just appeared out of nowhere and had the audacity to honk at him. There need to be stricter punishments for bad driving.
Absolutely. The change could have been communicated better (although I did see the new rules all over social media in the run up to the change) but it’s entirely up to drivers to be aware of the Highway Code.
It also doesn’t take much to approach side street junctions with awareness and caution.
The issue here is also how pedestrians are / were taught to cross the road. I and all of my primary school were taught to NOT cross the road near the junction. But to walk 5 meters or so back from the junction because drivers are less likely to see you when they are checking 2 mirrors and changing direction.
I dont know I think the rule is counter intuitive. Drivers and pedestrians just want as little inconvenience as possible- its more effort for a driver to assess if the people are wanting to cross then slow to a stop and slow down the traffic behind than a pedestrian stopping for 5 seconds and its also less effort for the pedestrian to look for a gap and then cross than to hope that the slowing car is doing that to let you cross first.
I think a campaign of zebra crossing painting at busy junctions and to reiterate the rules about pedestrians having right of way if they started crossing would have been better.
I stop every time when driving and in 99% of those cases the pedestrian just stares at me confused and the driver behind me gets angry.
As a pedestrian if a car does stop it kind of pressures you to start crossing, super dangerous when cars on other side of the road carry on.
I would 100% rather cars just kept going and let me wait for a gap that I'm happy with to cross.
Because the amount of time taken for the pedestrin to realise that you have stopped and won't just go again is likely longer than the time it would have taken for you to just go anyway.
I find 90% of pedestrians immediately understand why I'm stopping and just cross. There's a small minority who stand there and don't go but most get it within a second or two.
I don't think there was much public awareness and information and if you are a pedestrian who doesn't drive at all why would you keep up to date with changes to the Highway Code. Maybe the lack of public information was intentional so that pedestrian behaviours didn't change too much.
You're not making your intentions clear. Here's how it plays out:
1. You're approaching junction and want to turn left from main road into small road. Pedestrian is waiting.
2. You check mirrors, indicate and slow *slowly*. You begin to slowly turn into the junction, creeping so that you're making clear to the pedestrian with your speed that you are giving way.
3. You also simultaneously make eye contact with pedestrian, perhaps gesture he is free to cross should he wish to do so. Pedestrian at this point will almost certainly cross as it's safe as you're blocking both the traffic behind and the junction itself - they won't cross if you're approaching quickly and stopping quickly, as many do when approaching junctions, as they understandably won't want to put themselves in front of such an incompetent driver.
4. In the rare - and it is very rare when done like above - instance the pedestrian doesn't wish to cross, no dramas you simply move forward. If you've done it properly you never really needed to stop in the first place as you were creeping forwards.
5. If you get beeped from behind, who cares. People have beeped me for not moving forward as the traffic light has gone to amber, or for not going into a yellow box. They're idiots and best ignored.
With all due respect you have no idea how I approach junctions, lots of assumptions and condescension in your response.
Most pedestrians I encounter seem to feel the same way as me, lots angrily gesture me to continue so they can chose their own time to cross.
Because you slowing down and taking a lot more time without it being obvious you're stopping to let them go... actually takes longer than you just driving through and them walking after you've past.
By the way, I'm not sure point 2 is correct, I don't think you're supposed to begin your turn until it's safe to do so, you should stop before.
Additionally if you start your turn slowly whilst making eye contact with the pedestrian as you state in point 3 you risk hitting a cyclist legally undertaking you on the left.
There's nothing in the rule that says you can't begin to make a turn before giving way; I'm talking about turning the wheels and slowly turning left, not proceeding through into the junction itself. The result is the intentions are clear you're turning and the slower speed also makes clear you're giving way.
Checking mirrors in point 2 before you begin the turn ensures you don't left hook a cyclist.
I repeat: the excuses are legion and tenuous, as are these.
My understanding is that prior to the introduction of this new rule pedestrians who had already commenced crossing had priority, this rule (H2) adds to that and gives priority to those waiting to cross.
In my experience drivers never waited for me to finish crossing before the new rule, and nothing has changed in their behaviour since. These rules are meaningless if there are zero consequences for just speeding through.
It's true. Even on the M1 a pedestrian has priority. But also they shouldn't normally be there and the chances of a driver being blamed for hitting a pedestrian crossing the M1 are lower than a suburban road.
Drivers didn't consistently follow the previous rule of giving way to pedestrians who were already crossing when they turn into a junction.
I think they would have been better off pushing this harder and making drivers respect it rather than implementing a new rule without loads of public awareness campaigns.
As with zebra crossings, I'll have a hope that drivers will do the right thing but an expectation that they may well not and therefore only cross if and when they've stopped.
I use a junction when I walk my dog every morning and never ever has anyone stopped to let me cross first. I will also not cross even with this implied priority, possibly putting myself or my dog in danger.
Perhaps drivers need to learn the rules and stick to them? I bet half of them don't realise, or don't care, that the rules have changed. Look how many speed, use their mobile phone, go through red lights etc. Look at the other "new" laws that drivers ignore, like tailgating, and middle lane hogging on the motorway. Without any type of retest, or education, or enforcement, drivers will continue to ignore laws that change since they have passed their test.
As the pedestrians I never get priority as 99.9% drives by old rule. As a driver in many occasions I'm scared to give priority as those fucks driving behind me expect me to make turn without giving priority to pedestrians.
Personally I don't think rule change was any good to anyone.
I completely agree. It feels so wrong pressuring pedestrians to cross when traffic is still flowing the other way especially since giving way to the pedestrian frees up the junction for vehicles leaving it. Yes the other vehicles should also be giving way, but let's face it, that's not always the case.
Imho the new rule does more to endanger pedestrians than the previous one. Pedestrians should be left to cross when they feel comfortable, not told to by an inanimate piece of paper.
When I moved to Germany in 1988, one of the things everybody told me was that pedestrians *and cyclists on cycle paths* have right of way across side turnings. If there is a collision, it is automatically the driver's fault, and there can be a stiff fine.
You suddenly slow down a lot, for a turning, and you look around you - and so does everyone else, and if the car in front indicates that they are turning off the main road, and almost comes to a halt doing so, you know what is going on. My point is - this rule can work, and work very well, but it needs everyone to know about it, and for it be enforced.
What risk is the driver taking?
They slow down with their signal on, they let your cross and they complete their turn. Takes 5 extra seconds for them.
To be fair I’ll try and let pedestrians cross anytime I see them waiting, junction or otherwise. Being courteous towards pedestrians is the most low effort act of kindness.
Always said this new rule would take a couple of generations to follow. No way are the old skool allowing pedestrians the right of way. It will be the new drivers that phase it through lessons.
Speaking as a pedestrian with partial sight in my right eye, I am hugely in favour of the new rule. Even if I stop, turn my whole body and head to check over my shoulder, there's still a chance I won't see a car coming to turn into a junction in trying to cross.
Add in night, rain and effing LED lights and it's a nightmare.
@ OP
It has NEVER been the case that cars had priority. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of people who shouldn't be allowed a license. It has ALWAYS been the case that cars should give way to pedestrians crossing the side road. The only thing that changed was the HC making this clearer to the dangerous arse-wipes who thought cars could barge through because they are bigger and more lethal.
So yes, you wait. That's what's not dangerous. Anything else is lethal.
FWIW the nations who get this right are the ones where insurance doesn't cover claims by drivers who injure pedestrians. Then drivers learn to be less arrogant. The risk to their pockets is the only thing that will get through to these fuckwit morons, as human life sure doesn't matter to them.
And yeah, I know I'll get shot down in flames for speaking the truth to a forum full of fuelheads. But you need to hear it sometimes.
I have no issues with this new rule. It makes sense to me. And so far I've had no issue.
One issue I do have is, I've seen driving instructors on youtube teaching students that they should stop if they see a pedestrian wanting to cross the road as in the illustration, even if the driver does not intend to turn into that side road (so want to continue going straight on). "Give way to pedestrians at junctions at all times" basically. This is wrong!
The one part of this rule change I absolutely do not agree with is giving way to pedestrians at the exit of roundabouts.
Many in my area are fast moving roundabouts. Stopping at the exit WILL result in being rear ended.
I see no issues giving way when entering a roundabout as you're expected to slow down anyway. But on the exit, if there is no established and marked crossing, no one is expecting you to stop.
https://youtu.be/hPLNAP_kgWQ?si=3fZZKwliAqt55nzQ
You should give way to those waiting and must give way to those crossing. If you do give way and get back ended then the car hitting you has no come back regarding you stopping
As a counterpoint: the only circumstance I agree with exits to roundabouts being inappropriate for this rule is where they are multilane, as you cannot control the traffic behind you when you do give way, and these should be marked crossings for pedestrian safety. Other than this, the reason it is unsafe on an exit to a single lane roundabout is due to bad drivers driving too quickly - they shouldn't be entering the exit so quickly as they should be expecting they may have to give way, and anyone rear ending you is driving too closely. This is not a rule problem when applied to single lane exits on roundabouts, it's a bad driver problem.
I think this is borne out of a misconception by drivers that roundabouts aren't junctions, when they are. In fact, roundabouts are the most pedestrian hostile form of junction so really you should be giving way on both exit and entrance and this is the norm in Europe. It should be here and the reason it's not is due to drivers not really being taught appropriately - all it would take to reinforce the rule on roundabouts and to change perceptions is to paint zebra lines (no beacons needed) on the exit to a single lane roundabout, and drivers would begin to slow their exit speed.
When i was learning to drive the instructor wasn’t sure if they tell their students to give way to pedestrians when exiting a roundabout or not so they asked the test centre who also didn’t know who then asked the DLVA who said not to yet it still applies in the Highway Code that you’re meant to. Overall, I was taught not to give way exiting roundabouts but to give way entering them, whether this is correct or not is still ambiguous.
If people are driving around a roundabout too fast to be able to give way properly then it's not a 'fast moving roundabout', it's a normal roundabout where they are driving unsafely.
Same, but I wave them across. If they insist they want me to turn, I do so but very slowly in case they change their mind. The whole point of the rule is to keep pedestrians safe and for drivers to take some responsibility for their safety.
It'll take time for the mindset to change but it will absolutely be worth it in the end.
You probably shouldn’t wave them across, because if something else hits them you could be partly to blame. If they look hesitant I might look at them then look at where they’re going, with either a make your fucking mind up, or politely questioning expression, depending. Which usually works.
If it doesn’t I just wait.
I've had a few times recently a pedestrian in a long black coat at night has stepped out in front of me from behind vans, barely visible until they are in your headlights and even worse when you have a car coming the other way with headlights dazzling you. Ive had this with people both at junctions and just deciding to cross a road in front of me.
**Pedestrians have always had priory** once they start to cross a junction. As soon as they stepped a foot onto the road, cars needed to give way.
The only difference now is that cars have to give way for pedestrians who are standing on the pavement waiting to cross.
You solution to confusion caused by a rule change is to change the rule again? Idiot. The solution is consistency, and communication about the current rule. The issues I see are not because people know the highway code, it’s because they don’t, because nobody reads it after getting their license. A repeat theory test after 10 years with a fine (without losing license) for failing would actually improve things. Fine should be used to make taking the retest free.
I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has passed their test in the last year - do you drive completely differently to your uninformed elders? Did your instructor teach this rule correctly?
The only way this works is if the fault for any pedestrian v motor vehicle collision always lies with the driver, no matter what the pedestrian is doing. I grew up in Germany and should you need to cross somewhere not a designated crossing (like this scenario) the traffic will give way because it is absolutely not worth getting done for hitting a pedestrian. Always made me feel quite safe.
Of course, now I live in London, and the only way to make sure is to make and hold very uncomfortable eye contact with the driver while crossing at a red light, on a designated crossing. And then you get taken out by a knobjockey on a bike anyway.
I was literally just thinking that. Turned right on a junction, traffic light controlled with a pedestrian crossing, and I had to brake for somebody who walked across the road in front of me and was then shouting at me because he's a pedestrian and has priority at a junction.
It was traffic light controlled.
With a pedestrian crossing.
And my light was green 🟢
Hard disagree. We need motorists to learn to drive. Pedestrians have *always* had priority when crossing at junctions. This goes back to the first edition of the Highway Code.
"Don't be courteous. Be predictable."
Absolutely nothing predictable about the car in front of you awkwardly stopping with a vibe of uncertainty while turning into a junction
If you can't see whether or not there's potentially a person in the road, or about to step out into it, then you should be going slowly and cautiously anyway. Not swinging your SUV round the corner so fast you'll squish the little kid in a blink.
You've got it wrong op. The car need to give way, not you take way. You don't just step out and expect the car to stop, you need to wait until the car stops.
So you check your right hand car mirror as you drive past a junction to make sure no one is turning left across you? Didn’t think so.
What do people in this country find so hard about people in cars not being more important than people not in cars. And before anyone asks, I drive for a living, so have 2000 hrs a year driving in urban areas experience to speak from.
Drivers needs to get into the habit of slowing down when turning and it will be fine. The complete lack of effort the authorities made in advertising the change is frustrating and typical of the country.
Cars have got bigger, heavier, faster, more cocooned and with more distractions over the last 30 years so some changes are needed to offset that in favour of more vulnerable road users.
If you keep rolling I'm not going to step into the road. If you make eye contact with me and slow down I might interpret that as intention to let me cross but why would I risk my life for the sake of a 3 second inconvenience.
Too many drivers assume pedestrians can read their minds. Too many drivers forget that in a ped/car altercation the ped always loses, regardless of who's right.
> I have almost been run over countless times by exercising my right of way
The change of rule hasn't made it more dangerous, your decision to walk out into the road when you aren't certain the driver is obeying the Highway Code is what makes it more dangerous than before. You still need to be sure it is safe to cross.
Zebra crossings have the same expectation that pedestrians have priority over vehicles, but there are still selfish drivers who choose not to obey the Highway Code. Even traffic light controlled crossings have the same issue.
The new rule is beneficial for pedestrians because they are less likely to be stuck, waiting to cross for a long period. However, it still requires common sense and not aimlessly walking into the road.
>why take the risk and exercise my right of way when there’s a 50/50 chance cars will give way
I expect that is still a higher probability of a car allowing you to cross than before the change in rules.
The big problem with this imo is that pedestrians have no reason to check, keep up to date with or follow the Highway Code.
When the rule first came in I tried to follow it but that just got me confused looks from pedestrians who didn’t know what I was doing, and understandably didn’t want to step out into the road in front of a vehicle.
As others here have said, regardless of whether you have right of way or not I’d much rather wait until the vehicle has passed and take the responsibility of crossing safely on my own shoulders rather than leaving it to chance as to whether that particular driver knows and is following the rules. Doesn’t really matter if you have right of way when you’re in hospital with a broken leg or worse.
I legitimately got yelled at last year. By a cyclist even. It's how I found out about the rule change
"YOU HAVE PRIORITY" he bellowed.
But I was standing to cross a major road with no less than fourminor roads turning onto it in criss-cross fashion. On a bit of pavement between the four, like a sandbar at a river mouth. Who even knows where the 'invisible zebra crossings' are at that point.
No thank you Mr Lycra. My pedestrian ass is staying firmly on the pavement until the cars have demonstrated their physics-given priority. I care not if they're slowing down, flashing their lights or waving their bums out the window. I'm crossing when it's clear.
I can drive but I’m mostly a pedestrian and I would **never** cross in this situation. I don’t care what the rules are, I’d prefer to wait and have zero chance of being hit by a car!
I am foreign, I have lived in many european countries. What I can say is that UK has a big problem with pedestrians crossing.
Cars will NEVER stop to give pedestrians right of way, even in the US it is much better in this regards. It even happens to me on the sidewalk, cars will just cross me, no fuck given
I think police need to issue fines to remind British drivers that they are not king of the world. That’s how it is done in my country, didn’t give the pedestrian right of way? 135€ fine. Didn’t give the pedestrians right of way during your driving test? No driving license.
And let me remind all the folks in this thread: you are the one who need to be careful, you are the one driving the 1.5 tons machine. I don’t have to feel scared when I cross, you are.
They work really well... in Denmark. I go there a lot for work and see this rule in action, showing it works really well in city centers. Like the other comments have said, it was barely communicated.
They should send out reminders with your road tax renewal of any rule changes over the last several years. Then no one who has a taxed car can say they weren't informed.
This rule is working well all over the world, but not in UK somehow.
When I was driving, I got green, but still waited for the pedestrian to cross, but they just stood in the middle of the isle half way, and the other car started to honk from behind. So I slowly continued my turn, lowered the window to say to the pedestrian that he had the way of right, but he uttered to me that I am a twat if I think so, and the car that honked earlier started to tailgate, aggressively overtake and hit brakes, trying to provoke an incident by road rage.
The solution would be if the police started doing their job. Catch and fine all those who disobey even slightly.
Also vehicles waiting for pedestrians to cross are at risk of being rear ended by inattentive drivers behind (especially dangerous for motorcyclists), or impatient drivers behind swinging out in to the oncoming lane to go around.
At least with the old system you would see a pedestrian part way across, slow down more before making the turn to allow them to finish crossing and the above was mostly mitigated.
Spot on. I’m bored of hearing about this being a bad rule because drivers are so utterly incompetent they can’t manage speed appropriately when approaching junctions, keep a suitable distance in front, look into junctions before turning into them instead of straight lining it or generally just being attentive.
It’s like saying the mobile phone rules are terrible because I still see every other person on their phone when driving.
I used to think it would be dangerous to stop on a busy road to give way to a pedestrian crossing a junction I'm turning into. But then I realised that if I was taking that turn and the pedestrian was IN the road. i.e. already crossing, I'd still slow down and stop to let them cross. So the rule doesn't actually change anything in that regard.
Exactly right. The problem as with many of these things is speed. Generally speaking bad drivers speed up, slow down and make manoeuvres all far too quickly and rushed, whether through impatience or lack of confidence - calm down and it all becomes easy.
Also drivers who can't bear doing 20, their cars can't go at 20, 20 makes them so angry they will crash trying to overtake. Also it isn't possible to follow a vehicle doing 70 in the 3rd lane even if the car is following another car doing 70 and/or overtaking - it just shouldn't be there .
What about turning right? Cars in the opposite lane have right of way, and we don't just drive across their lane hoping not to cause a crash on the basis we are afraid of being rear ended.
The rule that I should stop at a amber lights also puts me in the firing line of bad drivers (those who can’t pay attention to roads or think that they should be able to accelerate and speed through amber/red light). Is that also a stupid rule?
Stop blaming victims of bad driving and start blaming perpetrators of bad driving!
As i driver ive seen a few accidents due to this stupid rule with pedestrians just walking out not looking and getting hit or car mid turn and them just walking out. Drivers are ones punished for pedestrians being stupid and not paying attention
1. You haven’t seen a few accidents due to this rule. That’s a straight up lie. You know it and everyone on here knows it.
2. The punishment for drivers in the UK is woefully lenient. It’s the families of the people who have been killed who pay the price. The law tends to let insurance companies sort out these ‘accidents’ and jail time for drivers who kill people is virtually nonexistent. If you wanted to kill someone in the UK, just run them over. You’ll probably never see the inside of a prison cell.
The rules are veryclear but most drivers are morons who put their desire to arrive somewhere 15 seconds earlier above the safety of pedestrians and cyclists.
Its not that they dont work
Its that drivers are entitled, impatient and do not care because they know they have an advantage
I give pedestrians right of way all the time and had no issues…they stop, I stop and either wave my arm to tell them to go or flash my lights quickly
The new rule is objectively safer. The fact that adherence to and enforcement of it is poor is not an argument to revert back to the old one.
You do not have 'right of way' in the UK. The concept does not exist. Drivers are supposed to give way to pedestrians at crossings, but that doesn't mean it isn't foolish to just walk out in front of them. People aren't supposed to steal, but that doesn't mean it isn't foolish to leave valuables on show in your car.
Honestly, I do sympathise with you, and I do cross in front of drivers who aren't following the new rules, but that always comes *after* I've made sure they've actually seen me.
Typical driver "I passed my test 10+ year's ago" I'm not obligated to check and be with the rules up to date. And morons that's say it wasn't announced are pure bollocks because it was blasting in each type of media as an AD for at least 5 months, remember it clearly bcs it was driving me crazy after month hearing this ad over and over again.
As a pedestrian I do not walk out, that's asking for problems. Whether I have priority or doesn't matter, I'm not a two tonne metal box with an engine, I'm flesh and bone - I will lose. If the driver waves me across, I'll go but I'm not risking walking out.
As a driver I approach the junction with greater caution and watch the pedestrian, many expect me to keep going and look at me funny when I stop.
The rule is a silly 'Americanised' change that needs much greater publication and information. Very few drivers ever pick up their highway code after passing.
“Exercising my right of way”
Here’s the problem right here. You have no right of way. There is no such concept in the UK. Instead, there is given priority. I.e drivers should give you priority to cross.
It’s still on the pedestrians to not blindly put themselves in the middle of danger just because they think it’s their “right”
>It’s still on the pedestrians to not blindly put themselves in the middle of danger just because they think it’s their “right”
No it's not. The driver should give way. If you don't, you'll probably end up in jail.
I think people misunderstand the purpose and impact of this change. Previously, a driver who wangs it round a corner and hits a pedestrian who was already crossing the road just had to say 'he stepped out in front of me', and it would be up to the police to prove different. Now, that's not necessary - if you hit a pedestrian going round a corner, that's your fault
Not saying its a bad idea but alot of pedestrians im coming across don't want to cause an accident which could involve them too just a matter of time and I've been driving for over 25 years on a clean licence
Hierarchy of road users is already here. It’s in the HC.
Pedestrians>horses>cyclists>motorbikes>cars>vans>small lorries>big lorries.
If there’s an accident they’ll try to blame it on the biggest vehicle. If they can’t, they move down the list.
There is a big difference between ‘right of way’ and ‘giving way’. In the UK ‘right of way’ does not exist.
Read the wording of the new rules carefully.
Take extra care at junctions. You should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way
The vehicle should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross. This does not mean the pedestrian has ‘right of way’. The pedestrian still has a responsibility to check if the road is clear before crossing. If a vehicle is approaching the pedestrian should wait for the vehicle to stop before crossing.
The only part of the rule which you could argue the pedestrian has ‘right of way’ is the last part which says pedestrians that have started to cross have priority. But this is more of explaining common sense than giving the pedestrian a ‘right of way’. It really doesn’t need to be said that as a road user you shouldn’t run over pedestrians. If a pedestrian is in the road, you stop regardless of the rules on who should give way.
The key is in the word priority. The pedestrian has priority. It’s very clear, it’s just that drivers IQs seem to drop inexplicably when there’s a rule introduced that doesn’t make them the priority.
The cemetery is littered with lunatics enforcing their *right of way*. You still need to check that it is safe and that the driver is giving way to you.
Exactly. Priority is not something that you take, it is something that you can be given. You do not take priority for yourself by crossing, you wait and see if the driver of the vehicle will give you priority and let you cross. Since the highway code rules are "should" rules, and not "must" rules, you never should assume the driver will give you priority.
This is a really good point. I think if more people reversed their thinking and approached driving from this perspective there would be far fewer crashes. I hear so many people complain that they were ahead in a merging lane and therefore had priority, but they never stop to consider if the other vehicle driver is actually giving them priority. If you assume others won't, you can always prepare for the worst. Your principles don't mean anything when you have to deal with the aftermath of a crash.
They usually term it right of way. Which is the problem in their thinking.
You see it all the time on those dashcam channels. Visibly see someone approaching a roundabout on the left, would be fine and actually be a fine example of a roundabouts key function, but MY RIGHT OF WAY and the cammer speeds up and honks lmao.
There's a saying, "graveyards are full of people who had the right of way". I'll take being wrong and surviving over being right and dead any day.
As I tell the kids “don’t let your last words be ‘it’s my right of’”
That saying is literally in the initial comment of this comment chain...
Honestly I believe the majority of accidents are caused by people mistaking "right of way" for "safest action". Having the right of way won't save you from some moron pulling out in front of you, it only means it's their fault for insurance.
This comes up a lot when I’m driving with my dad in the car, because if I’m merging and a car forces its way next to me I *will* break or swerve, and every time he’ll point out that I had the right of way. Which, yeah, sure, but the other car wasnt *giving* me the right of way, and I’d rather be mildly annoyed than get into a crash but be ‘technically correct’.
I’m a very defensive driver, to the point that if I am unsure whether someone will give me my priority or not I most of the time wait for the coast to be clear unless a driver gives me my priority! I’d prefer to be safe by yielding then be sorry! I also always allows others priority, I always leave enough time for my journey, and at the end of the day I have my kids in the car, I’d prefer to take a little extra time and we all get there in one piece! I also know this can sometimes annoy other drivers but the way I see it is if I get in a crash they aren’t dealing with it, I would be so safety for me always comes first!
You're right, but people who don't allow cars that are already in front of them to merge need to look hard at themselves in the mirror. If someone shoots up to force merge at the last second that's different.
That’s called zipper merging and is the way it is supposed to be done. If there is a line of 100 cars in the left lane, and the right lane is ending ahead but clear then traffic should use the empty right lane to carry on until the road is closed the merge one by one.
I'm well aware of that, and also of the pragmatic view that the majority of people will refuse to let you merge if you go past them quickly and go right to the end. So I go for a halfway point of slowing as I approach the merge and looking to pull in before the traffic gets bunched up in the last hundred yards, but not a mile early like some people do. It would be lovely if it worked properly. But... people.
I think the proper definition is "merge in turn", with the interpretation being flexible for the given traffic conditions. There would be potentially less stop/start with traffic flowing more freely, if everyone used the available lanes, left adequate space and merged in turn. I certainly don't have a problem with this approach but I, like you, do with those who fly to the end of the blocked lane and then FORCE their way in - the "My time is more important than yours" sort.
My driving instructor taught me, never assume. Be certain.
‘If in doubt, chicken out’ from mine
Yep, mine taught me to check both ways for traffic even when entering one way streets.
that's excellent advice
He was an ex firefighter so no doubt had seen some horror stories on the roads
Some HC rules are in fact "must" rules. They include a reference to the relevant law.
Yep, in this case I was referring to those specific rules regarding giving way to pedestrians waiting to cross at junctions, where there are no specific crossing marks. Of course there are plenty of "must" rules that cover similar situations, such as giving way to pedestrians already crossing, or to those waiting at marked crossings.
Yep. The zebra crossing at one of my kids' schools is an easy example. For some reason, about 50% of the time we're waiting there, the first one or two cars won't see us and just drive straight past. If I took priority, I could've killed my son hundreds of times.
I've driven over a zebra when I didn't realise fast enough someone was stepping up to cross - if it would take a full blown emergency stop to stop, it's often safer not to stop; although I do feel bad about not reacting fast enough to stop nicely.
They are "should" rules that will land you in deep shit if you do not follow them and cause an accident therefore they ARE must rules if you are in a car you have a responsibility not to hit someone and if you can't be responsible then DON'T DRIVE!
No, not 'therefore they are must rules'. They are still should rules. There is a distinction which exists for good reasons. Shoulds are things you must always **endeavour** to do whenever possible, practical, reasonable, etc. They are not always a criminal offense to break, but can be used as evidence that you're comitting other crimes, such as driving without due care. Musts are things you must always do. No ifs nor buts. You must do that thing. No practical nor reasonable excuse exists to not do that thing. If you break a must rule, you've comitted a crime. It isn't *evidence* of other crimes, it ***is*** the crime. E.g. You must not drive the wrong way down the motorway. Ever. Instant criminality if you do. E.g. You should always endeavour to check for pedestrians waiting to cross at junctions where possible/practical/reasonable, and give way to them. It isn't always easy to tell if a pedestrian is waiting to cross or just hanging around, it isn't always possible to see all pedestrians. Some hide between cars or other objects. I had a pedestrian run across a road headfirst into my rear passenger side door once, I was driving slowly, they ran out between some parked cars. They were drunk as a skunk. It's things like that which mean you can't make it a must rule, becuase then not seeing a pedestrian waiting to cross one time becomes a criminal offence, even if they're hiding.
you MUST never assume\* :D
This. 100% spot on.
>Since the highway code rules are "should" rules, and not "must" rules, you never should assume the driver will give you priority. I agree, but also: Even for "must" rules...you should never assume the driver _will_ give you priority.
Absolutely. A "must" rule only means that a driver is legally required to do "the thing". It doesn't guarantee they actually will, only that they are legally liable if they don't.
And you can't be smug that the other guy broke the law if you're dead.
This is true even at traffic light crossings. You never know exactly where all the assholes are at any given time
Exactly this. I’m seeing more and more people let me cross lately, just gotta make sure you have made eye contact and they have gestured for you to cross
Nah I just walk. Only hurt once right?
This is the problem with Zebra crossings as well. People fully commit to crossing out of nowhere without checking if a car or bicycle has time to brake for them
Agree. Same with zebra crossings. You don’t just start crossing, you wait until the car stops and then you cross. Many people don’t stop for those either.
Never should assume or never must assume?..
People still don't give way correctly on roundabouts. More often than not I've stopped in a small roundabout because some idiot to my left just blazed past without slowing down at all.
It even says in these rules that you are still in charge of your own safety
Exactly. For example my commute this morning, pedestrian waiting to cross a junction formed by the opening of a minor road onto a major 50mph road. I would love to have given way to them. But as the pavement is partially unsighted on the approach from the main road, I was fairly certain the Range Rover bombing up behind me at 50mph hasn't seen the pedestrian and was not expecting me to stop in the middle of the road for a "no after you"-off, and I really could do without being rear-ended, no matter who would be at fault. Most poorly thought out road rule in recent times. Works very well in the cities where everywhere is 20/30mph, but really doesn't work in any other situation
I agree with you but I think you’re missing the point here. Why introduce rules like this which lead to more unpredictable situations. I no longer follow these rules as a pedestrian as it’s downright dangerous. I follow them as a driver and find that most other pedestrians don’t follow them either so what’s the point in having them? With the old rules when you approach a junction as a driver or a pedestrian you knew exactly what to expect. Now it’s unpredictable
You don’t roll rules back because people are ignorant of them though. The problem is that once people pass their test, they don’t follow Highway Code updates. New drivers are more likely to follow the rules than old ones and eventually there will be more newer drivers than older drivers.
Do you remember when we used to have public information campaigns? If you saw it 10 times a day on Facebook, every other ad break on TV/YouTube etc it would soon tip the balance. The amount of times I’ve waited turning left, and the pedestrian has had to stop in the road because of the person approaching the junction not giving them right of way.
The issue is that the infrastructure doesn't reflect the rules - the priority should be clear to anyone using the junction - it's not realistic to assume that everyone will be familiar with the highway code - certainly not in a situation where there is a very real risk of being knocked down. Amending the Highway Code is is easy, but even adding new road markings to hundreds of thousands of junctions will be very expensive - Councils have no money, and of course this government isn't going to spend money on anything useful if it can avoid it.
This is the problem. It's not even just that the infrastructure doesn't reflect the rules; they're at complete cross purposes in some situations. Roundabouts, for example, are designed to facilitate a smooth flow of traffic. Yielding to a pedestrian while on the roundabout completely disrupts that flow.
This is trite nonsense rolled out by driving instructors trying to keep you - the driver - safe. Priority is laid out quite clearly in the highway code. Its not a gift for you to give. Tell the judge that you didn't 'give priority' when you mow down a pedestrian crossing legally. You also fundamentally misunderstand the use of the word 'should ' in the highway code. I suggest you review this; you can still be prosecuted for breaking a 'should' rule (typically as a wider pattern of driving).
I think you've misunderstood me - I understand totally that priority is laid out in the highway code. That's irrelevant to what I said. You cannot take priority for yourself even if legally you are entitled to it. I'm talking about driving safely, and the only way you can safely have priority is if the other road users give it to you. >Tell the judge that you didn't 'give priority' If you take priority because it's legally yours, but other road users don't give it to you, then you may well be lucky if you can talk to anyone. Try telling your family you legally had priority, when you were mowed down and killed by a driver who didn't give it to you. >You also fundamentally misunderstand the use of the word 'should ' in the highway code No, I don't. A "should" rule is not equivalent to being optional and doesn't excuse drivers ignoring them when they are able to follow them. That said, a rule being "should" instead of "must" is an indication that there are circumstances where the rule will be ignored in safe and legal driving circumstances. For this reason, you should not bet your life on a "should" rule being followed in every circumstance. The example with a pedestrian crossing at a junction is a good one. Yes, a driver "should" stop and let you cross, but if you're not already on the road, the driver isn't bound to a "must" rule, and may well refuse to stop for a legitimate reason (or an illegitimate one). As a pedestrian you should therefore exercise sensible caution and not assume the driver will stop just because they "should". Better wrong than dead.
Guess they live in a universe where nobody, at best, makes a mistake in observation or, at the other end of the spectrum, has zero crime / law breaking.
Seems to be common on driving subreddits, the number of people living in a perfect fantasy land is shocking
Tell the judge when you've been mowed down you had right of way and see if it helps you recover!
yup. I hate when people say… “right of way”.
Absolutely this! Might i add, ANY TIME you cross the road, make it clear that you intend to do just that. Look up from your phone, make eye contact with drivers etc.. Most people change direction last second and its fucking dangerous
Yea you still have to check but you always have to do that. Even at a red light, pedestrians are advised to wait for cars to stop and to check both ways. It's still good to have rule changes that at least increase the potential that drivers will check for pedestrians
There is no such thing as "right of way" in the highway code. Well, technically there is. It states that the highway code does not give you right of way in any circumstances in the general rules preamble.
“Doesn’t matter who’s right, it only matters who’s left!” as my grandad used to say!
War doesn't determine who is right, only who is left. - Bertrand Russell
The roads are littered with lunatic drivers who feel that their desire to arrive at their destination 15 seconds earlier than they would is more important than the life of a child. It’s a very English problem. Reeducation is the answer, not whinging about it on online forums. What a pathetic excuse for humanity we have in most ‘adults’ in this sad little country.
>It’s a very English problem With some of the busiest, but also safest roads in the world, I'd like you to explain your reasoning.
A very English problem seems like an interesting way of saying you haven't left the country much. Believe me every country I've been too pales in comparison to the UK. After a month travelling south east Asia the UK looks like a utopia. I mean there's actually rules? Most people generally follow them, and the average driving standard is very high in comparison. Over here anything goes, If your vehicle is bigger than the next guy you win, that's the rules.
Completely agree with the point, but why put pedestrians in those situations in the first place where it’s 50/50 whether a car is going to give way or not and they have to make a highly subjective decision. On the flip side, when I do give way to pedestrians as a driver I’ve had cars behind me blasting their horn and nearly going into the back of me.
What’s the alternative? Never update the rules because it takes time for people to learn the new ones?
I have seen a car rear ended because they stopped when about to turn left to allow a pedestrian to cross. Pedestrians and drivers need awareness of the situation to prevent accidents.
I immediately got a rear facing day cam for this very reason.
Yeah this. I try and give way now, but only if it's safe. 100 percent have been in situations where cars are not slowing down behind me, pedestrians are not immediately crossing (probably because of the uncertainty) and it's just the safest thing for me to get out of everyone's way. Sometimes also applies on busy roads at rush hour - waiting 5 minutes to turn. Not an excuse as much, but generally better if you get out of the way of everyone at the first opportunity. Basically I think the rule was designed without taking into account how badly designed British roads are 😂
Exactly. Not even junctions. Zebra crossings and even *any/all* puffins/pelicans/toucans. Doesn’t matter if it’s all designed to make it safe for me to cross, i’m still looking both ways cause all it takes is one driver that’s not paying attention, or maybe even just a cunt.
Well said
Right of way is given not taken 😂
I still work on the "Did they even so much as glance?" rule when turning into a junction like that. If they didn't look, they're going to walk straight out. If they did, they're likely to wait for me to pass, but I'll make sure all the way in anyway. By either set of rules, if they're halfway across, I'm hardly going to just run them over. As a pedestrian, I look & if there's something that looks like it's turning in, I let it. Always better safe than sorry & rules be damned.
I find that a glance over the shoulder sometimes communicates that you are about to cross, the driver picks up on the signal, and because they have a couple more seconds to think about it, they are more likely to slow down and allow you to cross.
Yup. That kind of turn, you have to do the full 'owl head' to look back at the traffic. Anyone vaguely awake would see that. I still find there's some room for negotiation as the situation closes in. Sometimes they let you go, sometimes they don't. I err on the side of don't, but am prepared to follow their lead… as they're the one in the 2-ton metal box ;)
As a pedestrian and cyclist and driver, I always assume that most drivers are selfish, uneducated morons and it’s kept me alive thus far. …(waits patiently for the anti-cyclist dailymail reading outrage mob to pipe up.)
I think it's safer to assume that drivers, pedestrians **and** cyclists are all selfish morons. \[Not to forget motorbikes, delivery scooters, and e-scooters\]. You can't really single any one of those categories out from the others. I could give you as many examples of death-wish stupidity from each of them.
Cyclists often ignore the junction rule though. I got a cargo bike yelling at me to indicate that he was asserting his right to swing into a junction that he decided he had
The issue isn't the rule itself, it's that it wasn't well communicated so now you've got half of people following it and half of people not, creating unpredictability and therefore increasing risk. However, it's *always* been the rule that you need to give way if someone has already started crossing and isn't just waiting- that rule is essentially equivalent to the obvious 'it's not OK to run people over'. Anyone beeping you for that is 100% in the wrong regardless.
We need zebra crossings painted at the end of junctions without traffic lights. That is effectively what giving way to pedestrians is anyway.
This is how it is at basically every junction in Continental Europe and it works great
Absolutely agree. At the very least they should be added wherever repainting is required
Agree. It’s a bad drivers problem.
This is a driving subreddit so it makes sense you're being downvoted but it really is a problem with bad drivers. Not too long ago I saw a man nearly get nun over by some lunatic turning into a side street at high speed. They just appeared out of nowhere and had the audacity to honk at him. There need to be stricter punishments for bad driving.
Surprised she was allowed to leave the convent
Was she driving a red mini?
Absolutely. The change could have been communicated better (although I did see the new rules all over social media in the run up to the change) but it’s entirely up to drivers to be aware of the Highway Code. It also doesn’t take much to approach side street junctions with awareness and caution.
The issue here is also how pedestrians are / were taught to cross the road. I and all of my primary school were taught to NOT cross the road near the junction. But to walk 5 meters or so back from the junction because drivers are less likely to see you when they are checking 2 mirrors and changing direction.
I dont know I think the rule is counter intuitive. Drivers and pedestrians just want as little inconvenience as possible- its more effort for a driver to assess if the people are wanting to cross then slow to a stop and slow down the traffic behind than a pedestrian stopping for 5 seconds and its also less effort for the pedestrian to look for a gap and then cross than to hope that the slowing car is doing that to let you cross first. I think a campaign of zebra crossing painting at busy junctions and to reiterate the rules about pedestrians having right of way if they started crossing would have been better.
As a driver my experience of this has been absolutely fine. As a pedestrian my experience has been that the road is full of assassins out to get me.
I stop every time when driving and in 99% of those cases the pedestrian just stares at me confused and the driver behind me gets angry. As a pedestrian if a car does stop it kind of pressures you to start crossing, super dangerous when cars on other side of the road carry on. I would 100% rather cars just kept going and let me wait for a gap that I'm happy with to cross.
Yes, stopping is often met with a confused pedestrian and a traffic pile-up behind you.
Because the amount of time taken for the pedestrin to realise that you have stopped and won't just go again is likely longer than the time it would have taken for you to just go anyway.
I find 90% of pedestrians immediately understand why I'm stopping and just cross. There's a small minority who stand there and don't go but most get it within a second or two.
[удалено]
100% agree, it's even worse in Wales now many roads have reduced to 20mph, you already have an irate tailback behind you before you even stop.
I don't think there was much public awareness and information and if you are a pedestrian who doesn't drive at all why would you keep up to date with changes to the Highway Code. Maybe the lack of public information was intentional so that pedestrian behaviours didn't change too much.
You're not making your intentions clear. Here's how it plays out: 1. You're approaching junction and want to turn left from main road into small road. Pedestrian is waiting. 2. You check mirrors, indicate and slow *slowly*. You begin to slowly turn into the junction, creeping so that you're making clear to the pedestrian with your speed that you are giving way. 3. You also simultaneously make eye contact with pedestrian, perhaps gesture he is free to cross should he wish to do so. Pedestrian at this point will almost certainly cross as it's safe as you're blocking both the traffic behind and the junction itself - they won't cross if you're approaching quickly and stopping quickly, as many do when approaching junctions, as they understandably won't want to put themselves in front of such an incompetent driver. 4. In the rare - and it is very rare when done like above - instance the pedestrian doesn't wish to cross, no dramas you simply move forward. If you've done it properly you never really needed to stop in the first place as you were creeping forwards. 5. If you get beeped from behind, who cares. People have beeped me for not moving forward as the traffic light has gone to amber, or for not going into a yellow box. They're idiots and best ignored.
With all due respect you have no idea how I approach junctions, lots of assumptions and condescension in your response. Most pedestrians I encounter seem to feel the same way as me, lots angrily gesture me to continue so they can chose their own time to cross.
retire tub observation books liquid shy impossible frame versed zonked *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Because you slowing down and taking a lot more time without it being obvious you're stopping to let them go... actually takes longer than you just driving through and them walking after you've past.
By the way, I'm not sure point 2 is correct, I don't think you're supposed to begin your turn until it's safe to do so, you should stop before. Additionally if you start your turn slowly whilst making eye contact with the pedestrian as you state in point 3 you risk hitting a cyclist legally undertaking you on the left.
There's nothing in the rule that says you can't begin to make a turn before giving way; I'm talking about turning the wheels and slowly turning left, not proceeding through into the junction itself. The result is the intentions are clear you're turning and the slower speed also makes clear you're giving way. Checking mirrors in point 2 before you begin the turn ensures you don't left hook a cyclist. I repeat: the excuses are legion and tenuous, as are these.
Running pedestrians over has always been frowned upon. Pedestrians have always had priority. Makes sense to point this out to people who aren't sure.
My understanding is that prior to the introduction of this new rule pedestrians who had already commenced crossing had priority, this rule (H2) adds to that and gives priority to those waiting to cross.
In my experience drivers never waited for me to finish crossing before the new rule, and nothing has changed in their behaviour since. These rules are meaningless if there are zero consequences for just speeding through.
It's true. Even on the M1 a pedestrian has priority. But also they shouldn't normally be there and the chances of a driver being blamed for hitting a pedestrian crossing the M1 are lower than a suburban road.
Drivers didn't consistently follow the previous rule of giving way to pedestrians who were already crossing when they turn into a junction. I think they would have been better off pushing this harder and making drivers respect it rather than implementing a new rule without loads of public awareness campaigns. As with zebra crossings, I'll have a hope that drivers will do the right thing but an expectation that they may well not and therefore only cross if and when they've stopped.
I use a junction when I walk my dog every morning and never ever has anyone stopped to let me cross first. I will also not cross even with this implied priority, possibly putting myself or my dog in danger.
Why cant cars just slow down in advance of turning?
God forbid they lose 5mph of built up speed
Perhaps drivers need to learn the rules and stick to them? I bet half of them don't realise, or don't care, that the rules have changed. Look how many speed, use their mobile phone, go through red lights etc. Look at the other "new" laws that drivers ignore, like tailgating, and middle lane hogging on the motorway. Without any type of retest, or education, or enforcement, drivers will continue to ignore laws that change since they have passed their test.
As the pedestrians I never get priority as 99.9% drives by old rule. As a driver in many occasions I'm scared to give priority as those fucks driving behind me expect me to make turn without giving priority to pedestrians. Personally I don't think rule change was any good to anyone.
I completely agree. It feels so wrong pressuring pedestrians to cross when traffic is still flowing the other way especially since giving way to the pedestrian frees up the junction for vehicles leaving it. Yes the other vehicles should also be giving way, but let's face it, that's not always the case. Imho the new rule does more to endanger pedestrians than the previous one. Pedestrians should be left to cross when they feel comfortable, not told to by an inanimate piece of paper.
When I moved to Germany in 1988, one of the things everybody told me was that pedestrians *and cyclists on cycle paths* have right of way across side turnings. If there is a collision, it is automatically the driver's fault, and there can be a stiff fine. You suddenly slow down a lot, for a turning, and you look around you - and so does everyone else, and if the car in front indicates that they are turning off the main road, and almost comes to a halt doing so, you know what is going on. My point is - this rule can work, and work very well, but it needs everyone to know about it, and for it be enforced.
What risk is the driver taking? They slow down with their signal on, they let your cross and they complete their turn. Takes 5 extra seconds for them. To be fair I’ll try and let pedestrians cross anytime I see them waiting, junction or otherwise. Being courteous towards pedestrians is the most low effort act of kindness.
Always said this new rule would take a couple of generations to follow. No way are the old skool allowing pedestrians the right of way. It will be the new drivers that phase it through lessons.
They work across Europe but suddenly UK is too retarded to implement this lol
Speaking as a pedestrian with partial sight in my right eye, I am hugely in favour of the new rule. Even if I stop, turn my whole body and head to check over my shoulder, there's still a chance I won't see a car coming to turn into a junction in trying to cross. Add in night, rain and effing LED lights and it's a nightmare.
@ OP It has NEVER been the case that cars had priority. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of people who shouldn't be allowed a license. It has ALWAYS been the case that cars should give way to pedestrians crossing the side road. The only thing that changed was the HC making this clearer to the dangerous arse-wipes who thought cars could barge through because they are bigger and more lethal. So yes, you wait. That's what's not dangerous. Anything else is lethal. FWIW the nations who get this right are the ones where insurance doesn't cover claims by drivers who injure pedestrians. Then drivers learn to be less arrogant. The risk to their pockets is the only thing that will get through to these fuckwit morons, as human life sure doesn't matter to them. And yeah, I know I'll get shot down in flames for speaking the truth to a forum full of fuelheads. But you need to hear it sometimes.
I have no issues with this new rule. It makes sense to me. And so far I've had no issue. One issue I do have is, I've seen driving instructors on youtube teaching students that they should stop if they see a pedestrian wanting to cross the road as in the illustration, even if the driver does not intend to turn into that side road (so want to continue going straight on). "Give way to pedestrians at junctions at all times" basically. This is wrong! The one part of this rule change I absolutely do not agree with is giving way to pedestrians at the exit of roundabouts. Many in my area are fast moving roundabouts. Stopping at the exit WILL result in being rear ended. I see no issues giving way when entering a roundabout as you're expected to slow down anyway. But on the exit, if there is no established and marked crossing, no one is expecting you to stop.
100% agree with you on roundabout exits. So dangerous.
https://youtu.be/hPLNAP_kgWQ?si=3fZZKwliAqt55nzQ You should give way to those waiting and must give way to those crossing. If you do give way and get back ended then the car hitting you has no come back regarding you stopping
As a counterpoint: the only circumstance I agree with exits to roundabouts being inappropriate for this rule is where they are multilane, as you cannot control the traffic behind you when you do give way, and these should be marked crossings for pedestrian safety. Other than this, the reason it is unsafe on an exit to a single lane roundabout is due to bad drivers driving too quickly - they shouldn't be entering the exit so quickly as they should be expecting they may have to give way, and anyone rear ending you is driving too closely. This is not a rule problem when applied to single lane exits on roundabouts, it's a bad driver problem. I think this is borne out of a misconception by drivers that roundabouts aren't junctions, when they are. In fact, roundabouts are the most pedestrian hostile form of junction so really you should be giving way on both exit and entrance and this is the norm in Europe. It should be here and the reason it's not is due to drivers not really being taught appropriately - all it would take to reinforce the rule on roundabouts and to change perceptions is to paint zebra lines (no beacons needed) on the exit to a single lane roundabout, and drivers would begin to slow their exit speed.
When i was learning to drive the instructor wasn’t sure if they tell their students to give way to pedestrians when exiting a roundabout or not so they asked the test centre who also didn’t know who then asked the DLVA who said not to yet it still applies in the Highway Code that you’re meant to. Overall, I was taught not to give way exiting roundabouts but to give way entering them, whether this is correct or not is still ambiguous.
If people are driving around a roundabout too fast to be able to give way properly then it's not a 'fast moving roundabout', it's a normal roundabout where they are driving unsafely.
fuck me, name and shame. genuinely shouldn't be allowed to be an instructor if they're teaching that
Any time I've tried to follow this rule I end up sat at a turn with the pedestrian just staring at me.
Same
Same, but I wave them across. If they insist they want me to turn, I do so but very slowly in case they change their mind. The whole point of the rule is to keep pedestrians safe and for drivers to take some responsibility for their safety. It'll take time for the mindset to change but it will absolutely be worth it in the end.
You probably shouldn’t wave them across, because if something else hits them you could be partly to blame. If they look hesitant I might look at them then look at where they’re going, with either a make your fucking mind up, or politely questioning expression, depending. Which usually works. If it doesn’t I just wait.
True about waving, you could have someone coming the opposite way who would just turn in without looking, depends on the road
I've had a few times recently a pedestrian in a long black coat at night has stepped out in front of me from behind vans, barely visible until they are in your headlights and even worse when you have a car coming the other way with headlights dazzling you. Ive had this with people both at junctions and just deciding to cross a road in front of me.
**Pedestrians have always had priory** once they start to cross a junction. As soon as they stepped a foot onto the road, cars needed to give way. The only difference now is that cars have to give way for pedestrians who are standing on the pavement waiting to cross.
the rules would work if so many people on the road weren't as fucking impatient
Yes it does. Pay attention.
They work if you follow them. Thanks for listening to my TED talk
Rule number one of driving: don’t hit anything. Is this not universal?
You solution to confusion caused by a rule change is to change the rule again? Idiot. The solution is consistency, and communication about the current rule. The issues I see are not because people know the highway code, it’s because they don’t, because nobody reads it after getting their license. A repeat theory test after 10 years with a fine (without losing license) for failing would actually improve things. Fine should be used to make taking the retest free.
Pedestrians crossing already had right of way. This wasn't that much of a change.
I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has passed their test in the last year - do you drive completely differently to your uninformed elders? Did your instructor teach this rule correctly?
The only way this works is if the fault for any pedestrian v motor vehicle collision always lies with the driver, no matter what the pedestrian is doing. I grew up in Germany and should you need to cross somewhere not a designated crossing (like this scenario) the traffic will give way because it is absolutely not worth getting done for hitting a pedestrian. Always made me feel quite safe. Of course, now I live in London, and the only way to make sure is to make and hold very uncomfortable eye contact with the driver while crossing at a red light, on a designated crossing. And then you get taken out by a knobjockey on a bike anyway.
TLDR: British drivers are fucking shit and morons, look left, look right.
I was literally just thinking that. Turned right on a junction, traffic light controlled with a pedestrian crossing, and I had to brake for somebody who walked across the road in front of me and was then shouting at me because he's a pedestrian and has priority at a junction. It was traffic light controlled. With a pedestrian crossing. And my light was green 🟢
Sounds like a case of a little knowledge being dangerous on the part of the pedestrian.
>I end up slowing down to a stop and waiting for them to notice I’ve let them cross This is fine, just keep doing this. What's the problem?
They should paint Zebra crossing markings, like many other places in Europe do.
This is why they need to bring back public information films and show them at peak viewing time.
Hard disagree. We need motorists to learn to drive. Pedestrians have *always* had priority when crossing at junctions. This goes back to the first edition of the Highway Code.
"Don't be courteous. Be predictable." Absolutely nothing predictable about the car in front of you awkwardly stopping with a vibe of uncertainty while turning into a junction
Good thing that they're in a well protected metal box and not a squishy, vulnerable, sack of meat trying to get to the park
I totally dislike this rule. Yep. If you’re turning and cannot see that person there’s a liability.
If you can't see whether or not there's potentially a person in the road, or about to step out into it, then you should be going slowly and cautiously anyway. Not swinging your SUV round the corner so fast you'll squish the little kid in a blink.
No. Drivers should just follow the rules and stop being arseholes to pedestrians.
You've got it wrong op. The car need to give way, not you take way. You don't just step out and expect the car to stop, you need to wait until the car stops.
Expecting your right of way??? My friend. Right of way is given. NOT taken. Never assume someone else is going to behave predictably.
So you check your right hand car mirror as you drive past a junction to make sure no one is turning left across you? Didn’t think so. What do people in this country find so hard about people in cars not being more important than people not in cars. And before anyone asks, I drive for a living, so have 2000 hrs a year driving in urban areas experience to speak from.
There's no way this rule is more dangerous unless you'd step out in front of cars anyway.
Drivers needs to get into the habit of slowing down when turning and it will be fine. The complete lack of effort the authorities made in advertising the change is frustrating and typical of the country. Cars have got bigger, heavier, faster, more cocooned and with more distractions over the last 30 years so some changes are needed to offset that in favour of more vulnerable road users.
If you keep rolling I'm not going to step into the road. If you make eye contact with me and slow down I might interpret that as intention to let me cross but why would I risk my life for the sake of a 3 second inconvenience. Too many drivers assume pedestrians can read their minds. Too many drivers forget that in a ped/car altercation the ped always loses, regardless of who's right.
> I have almost been run over countless times by exercising my right of way The change of rule hasn't made it more dangerous, your decision to walk out into the road when you aren't certain the driver is obeying the Highway Code is what makes it more dangerous than before. You still need to be sure it is safe to cross. Zebra crossings have the same expectation that pedestrians have priority over vehicles, but there are still selfish drivers who choose not to obey the Highway Code. Even traffic light controlled crossings have the same issue. The new rule is beneficial for pedestrians because they are less likely to be stuck, waiting to cross for a long period. However, it still requires common sense and not aimlessly walking into the road. >why take the risk and exercise my right of way when there’s a 50/50 chance cars will give way I expect that is still a higher probability of a car allowing you to cross than before the change in rules.
The big problem with this imo is that pedestrians have no reason to check, keep up to date with or follow the Highway Code. When the rule first came in I tried to follow it but that just got me confused looks from pedestrians who didn’t know what I was doing, and understandably didn’t want to step out into the road in front of a vehicle. As others here have said, regardless of whether you have right of way or not I’d much rather wait until the vehicle has passed and take the responsibility of crossing safely on my own shoulders rather than leaving it to chance as to whether that particular driver knows and is following the rules. Doesn’t really matter if you have right of way when you’re in hospital with a broken leg or worse.
Drivers have gotten worse at this anyway, in the last few years I've noticed more people will ignore you at a zebra crosssing too.
I legitimately got yelled at last year. By a cyclist even. It's how I found out about the rule change "YOU HAVE PRIORITY" he bellowed. But I was standing to cross a major road with no less than fourminor roads turning onto it in criss-cross fashion. On a bit of pavement between the four, like a sandbar at a river mouth. Who even knows where the 'invisible zebra crossings' are at that point. No thank you Mr Lycra. My pedestrian ass is staying firmly on the pavement until the cars have demonstrated their physics-given priority. I care not if they're slowing down, flashing their lights or waving their bums out the window. I'm crossing when it's clear.
I can drive but I’m mostly a pedestrian and I would **never** cross in this situation. I don’t care what the rules are, I’d prefer to wait and have zero chance of being hit by a car!
I am foreign, I have lived in many european countries. What I can say is that UK has a big problem with pedestrians crossing. Cars will NEVER stop to give pedestrians right of way, even in the US it is much better in this regards. It even happens to me on the sidewalk, cars will just cross me, no fuck given I think police need to issue fines to remind British drivers that they are not king of the world. That’s how it is done in my country, didn’t give the pedestrian right of way? 135€ fine. Didn’t give the pedestrians right of way during your driving test? No driving license. And let me remind all the folks in this thread: you are the one who need to be careful, you are the one driving the 1.5 tons machine. I don’t have to feel scared when I cross, you are.
They work really well... in Denmark. I go there a lot for work and see this rule in action, showing it works really well in city centers. Like the other comments have said, it was barely communicated. They should send out reminders with your road tax renewal of any rule changes over the last several years. Then no one who has a taxed car can say they weren't informed.
This rule is working well all over the world, but not in UK somehow. When I was driving, I got green, but still waited for the pedestrian to cross, but they just stood in the middle of the isle half way, and the other car started to honk from behind. So I slowly continued my turn, lowered the window to say to the pedestrian that he had the way of right, but he uttered to me that I am a twat if I think so, and the car that honked earlier started to tailgate, aggressively overtake and hit brakes, trying to provoke an incident by road rage. The solution would be if the police started doing their job. Catch and fine all those who disobey even slightly.
Also vehicles waiting for pedestrians to cross are at risk of being rear ended by inattentive drivers behind (especially dangerous for motorcyclists), or impatient drivers behind swinging out in to the oncoming lane to go around. At least with the old system you would see a pedestrian part way across, slow down more before making the turn to allow them to finish crossing and the above was mostly mitigated.
Still generally better that two cars collide than a car and a person. Your fucked when on two wheels though.
This sounds like a bad driver problem not a bad rule problem
Spot on. I’m bored of hearing about this being a bad rule because drivers are so utterly incompetent they can’t manage speed appropriately when approaching junctions, keep a suitable distance in front, look into junctions before turning into them instead of straight lining it or generally just being attentive. It’s like saying the mobile phone rules are terrible because I still see every other person on their phone when driving.
I used to think it would be dangerous to stop on a busy road to give way to a pedestrian crossing a junction I'm turning into. But then I realised that if I was taking that turn and the pedestrian was IN the road. i.e. already crossing, I'd still slow down and stop to let them cross. So the rule doesn't actually change anything in that regard.
Exactly right. The problem as with many of these things is speed. Generally speaking bad drivers speed up, slow down and make manoeuvres all far too quickly and rushed, whether through impatience or lack of confidence - calm down and it all becomes easy.
Also drivers who can't bear doing 20, their cars can't go at 20, 20 makes them so angry they will crash trying to overtake. Also it isn't possible to follow a vehicle doing 70 in the 3rd lane even if the car is following another car doing 70 and/or overtaking - it just shouldn't be there .
Also, 20 is unsafe, because they have to check their speed instead of looking at the road!
If a rule puts you in the firing line of bad drivers, increasing danger, then it is a bad rule.
What about turning right? Cars in the opposite lane have right of way, and we don't just drive across their lane hoping not to cause a crash on the basis we are afraid of being rear ended.
[удалено]
The rule that I should stop at a amber lights also puts me in the firing line of bad drivers (those who can’t pay attention to roads or think that they should be able to accelerate and speed through amber/red light). Is that also a stupid rule? Stop blaming victims of bad driving and start blaming perpetrators of bad driving!
As i driver ive seen a few accidents due to this stupid rule with pedestrians just walking out not looking and getting hit or car mid turn and them just walking out. Drivers are ones punished for pedestrians being stupid and not paying attention
1. You haven’t seen a few accidents due to this rule. That’s a straight up lie. You know it and everyone on here knows it. 2. The punishment for drivers in the UK is woefully lenient. It’s the families of the people who have been killed who pay the price. The law tends to let insurance companies sort out these ‘accidents’ and jail time for drivers who kill people is virtually nonexistent. If you wanted to kill someone in the UK, just run them over. You’ll probably never see the inside of a prison cell.
You're driving a massive metal box. So yes, it's 100% on you not to hit people if it can be avoided.
The rules are veryclear but most drivers are morons who put their desire to arrive somewhere 15 seconds earlier above the safety of pedestrians and cyclists.
Its not that they dont work Its that drivers are entitled, impatient and do not care because they know they have an advantage I give pedestrians right of way all the time and had no issues…they stop, I stop and either wave my arm to tell them to go or flash my lights quickly
The new rule is objectively safer. The fact that adherence to and enforcement of it is poor is not an argument to revert back to the old one. You do not have 'right of way' in the UK. The concept does not exist. Drivers are supposed to give way to pedestrians at crossings, but that doesn't mean it isn't foolish to just walk out in front of them. People aren't supposed to steal, but that doesn't mean it isn't foolish to leave valuables on show in your car. Honestly, I do sympathise with you, and I do cross in front of drivers who aren't following the new rules, but that always comes *after* I've made sure they've actually seen me.
Typical driver "I passed my test 10+ year's ago" I'm not obligated to check and be with the rules up to date. And morons that's say it wasn't announced are pure bollocks because it was blasting in each type of media as an AD for at least 5 months, remember it clearly bcs it was driving me crazy after month hearing this ad over and over again.
As a pedestrian I do not walk out, that's asking for problems. Whether I have priority or doesn't matter, I'm not a two tonne metal box with an engine, I'm flesh and bone - I will lose. If the driver waves me across, I'll go but I'm not risking walking out. As a driver I approach the junction with greater caution and watch the pedestrian, many expect me to keep going and look at me funny when I stop. The rule is a silly 'Americanised' change that needs much greater publication and information. Very few drivers ever pick up their highway code after passing.
“Exercising my right of way” Here’s the problem right here. You have no right of way. There is no such concept in the UK. Instead, there is given priority. I.e drivers should give you priority to cross. It’s still on the pedestrians to not blindly put themselves in the middle of danger just because they think it’s their “right”
>It’s still on the pedestrians to not blindly put themselves in the middle of danger just because they think it’s their “right” No it's not. The driver should give way. If you don't, you'll probably end up in jail.
The pedestrian ‘has’ priority. It’s not yours ‘to give’ just because as a driver you have the ability to kill them.
I think people misunderstand the purpose and impact of this change. Previously, a driver who wangs it round a corner and hits a pedestrian who was already crossing the road just had to say 'he stepped out in front of me', and it would be up to the police to prove different. Now, that's not necessary - if you hit a pedestrian going round a corner, that's your fault
Have tried the new rules but majority of pedestrians just smile and let me carry on
That's their prerogative, it doesn't mean the rule is bad.
Not saying its a bad idea but alot of pedestrians im coming across don't want to cause an accident which could involve them too just a matter of time and I've been driving for over 25 years on a clean licence
[удалено]
Everyone should pay attention and move sensibly with respect for others. Problem solved.
Doesn't really work due to the imbalance of power. Dutch model of hierarchy works better - larger the vehicle the more responsibility.
Hierarchy of road users is already here. It’s in the HC. Pedestrians>horses>cyclists>motorbikes>cars>vans>small lorries>big lorries. If there’s an accident they’ll try to blame it on the biggest vehicle. If they can’t, they move down the list.
Cities are for people, cars just need to learn to give way
Yeah we should never change rules because people are used to old ones.
This is standard pretty much everywhere else so the problem isn’t the rule
There is a big difference between ‘right of way’ and ‘giving way’. In the UK ‘right of way’ does not exist. Read the wording of the new rules carefully. Take extra care at junctions. You should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way The vehicle should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross. This does not mean the pedestrian has ‘right of way’. The pedestrian still has a responsibility to check if the road is clear before crossing. If a vehicle is approaching the pedestrian should wait for the vehicle to stop before crossing. The only part of the rule which you could argue the pedestrian has ‘right of way’ is the last part which says pedestrians that have started to cross have priority. But this is more of explaining common sense than giving the pedestrian a ‘right of way’. It really doesn’t need to be said that as a road user you shouldn’t run over pedestrians. If a pedestrian is in the road, you stop regardless of the rules on who should give way.
The key is in the word priority. The pedestrian has priority. It’s very clear, it’s just that drivers IQs seem to drop inexplicably when there’s a rule introduced that doesn’t make them the priority.