Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by Rjk
exactly. Same people who fear their masculinity is threatened if somebody overtakes them or ask to be let in on a slip road or when merging 2 lanes to 1.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Rule H2
Provides stronger priority for pedestrians at junctions and clarity of who has right of way.
The new rule states that instead of cars having priority when they turn left or right into junctions, pedestrians crossing the road will now have priority over those vehicles.
Nothing new about this, it has been the same for over 50 years, when I took my test::
"Vehicles turning from a major road to a secondary road must give way to pedestrian crossing the minor road"
I don't know why they have said this is new but at least highlighting it might educate some modern drivers,
Another point to bear in mind is that the Highway code is not law. It is intended to make road users aware of their rights and obligations. A lot of the things in it are covered elsewhere by statue but not everything. It very cleverly doesn't tell you which are and which aren't.
I've read several articles like the one mentioned in the last couple of weeks and they are all the same.... basically click bait. The highway code does not change the actual law so whatever it says about cyclists and pedestrian is either already enshrined in law or is merely advice.
Why on earth would you object to cyclists keeping to one side to allow vehicles to pass more easily?
Is that not just deliberately antagonising people, creating more stress, conflict etc, ultimately discouraging cyclists in the long run?
Seems to me that if you can safely pull to one side it's the sensible, polite and reasonable thing to do.
Could have sworn that the article linked to said "Changes to the Highway Code
Major changes are being made to the Highway Code on the 29th January 2022".
Yes but some of the things mentioned aren't changes at all
Just in case Delmbox wants to know where I've been between 15:34 and 23:27...... I've been in work.
I went by what I heard on the radio yesterday morning - the rules were already in force. Anyway, even if that was wrong, you would have thought any advertising campaign would have been in full swing now with the rule changes four days away.
There appears to be some disingenuous mis-information being broadcast here - a difference between what is being reported and the actual new Highway Code - which can be read at https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...e-highway-code.
An example of why there should have been a campaign. Like virtually all of us you dont understand the new rules re pedestrians.
If I was a pedestrian i wouldn't step into a road. Car driver could be a member of the Tory Govt. These rules probably dont apply to them.
NaH Man, tOrIES wUD dRiVe uP on ThE pavEmenT 2 NoCK u DoWn. EsP iF u R waItInG 4 a BuS cOS ToReEs h8 ThE pOOr LOl
you are a grown man.
Mocking another grown man.
Angry Tory.😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂Mocking another grown man.
Because it doesn’t really allow motorists to pass them more easily it allows them to pass them more dangerously.
When over taking a bike or a horse you should give it a full car width. When they’re on one side of the lane it encourages people to over take on single carriage roads when there isn’t enough space.
You can always spot people who can’t not be biased in these situations because they constantly turn it into us vs them when what is actually needed is understanding from the other person’s point of view.
It depends entirely on the road, the widths of which vary, there may be parked cars, the other lane may be quiet or busy.
It does seem that much of the chat in this thread is based on a misinterpretation anyway, but I don't see what is gained by keeping in the middle of the lane when the left hand side of it is safe. I think, in practice, it will make cyclists more in danger as it will enrage drivers who may be late etc. And yes, maybe they shouldnt be enraged, but this is a Real Politik situation.
And I am a cyclist and a driver. In fact, driving comes below the train and walking for me, so I'm not remotely a petrol head, I just dont see the benefit in winding people up.
If people are getting wound up by cyclists they shouldn’t be on the road.
If there are parked cars etc how could there be space to safely pass? I imagine what will happen is people will use common sense but I think people knowing cyclists are safer in the middle of a lane is what we should be aiming for.
Why should someone not be wound up if they are late for their kids school or for an important train journey? Theres one train an hour now from my local station - things like that make time more precious. It's understandable someone would get fed up.
And again, Real Politik - you can say they 'shouldnt be on the road' but they are on the road. So it's reckless to just pretend it away.
I cited the parked cars as an example of where someone wouldn't want to be to the side of the lane (due to opening doors), but where its safe to do so, I think cyclists should be.
That said, as I acknowledge, there's misinformation on this thread anyway, and so I'm sure that's what will happen in most instances!
I just think beware the rule of unintended consequences that can come from advising cyclist to go down the middle of lanes, or advising pedestrians they have priority at certain junctions etc
The average length of time it takes to read a JamesWales post is longer than that!Mr J!
JustThe average length of time it takes to read a JamesWales post is longer than that!
BringingThe average length of time it takes to read a JamesWales post is longer than that!
DownThe average length of time it takes to read a JamesWales post is longer than that!
MyThe average length of time it takes to read a JamesWales post is longer than that!
Posting Permissions
