UK Highway Code Changes

Maniac

Maniac

Unknown member
Site Supporter
Forum Sponsor
The UK is thinking about adding a priority definition to their highway code based on a size of a participant. Pedestrians will get the highest priority, while semis get the lowest. It's not clear what all that means beyond "car drivers will be responsible for ensuring cyclists are safe, while cyclists will be responsible for looking out for pedestrians." And what those the responsibilities are. Motorcyclists are in the middle between the "horse riders" and "cars/taxis." So the car drivers will have to "look after" the motorcyclists.

www.forbes.com

New Highway Code To Rule That Motorists Should Cede Priority To Pedestrians And Cyclists

U.K. pedestrians will be at the top of a new road user hierarchy with motorists being told in the revised Highway Code that they have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger they pose to others.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

What do you think about it?
 
I understand the idea, but it has serious possibility of causing mayhem and backlash if priority based on size is a significant factor.

Pedestrian can have priority over a motor vehicle but that can't allow the pedestrian to do anything they want wherever they want.

HGV ("heavy goods vehicle" - what we call "a big truck") can be lowest on the priority list but that can't allow someone in a car to cut it off and do whatever they want around it.

If a pedestrian/car driver/motorcyclist does something in front of a truck that has no way of accommodating what they've done (i.e. physically can't stop in time in response to being cut off), the liability still has to remain with the pedestrian/car driver/motorcyclist.

Likewise ... if a pedestrian steps out from an invisible spot between two parked cars into a traffic lane and an oncoming vehicle cannot physically stop in time, that has to be on the pedestrian.
 
They say that “The hierarchy, added the DfT, “does not remove the need for all road users to behave responsibly.”

So without defined responsibilities I don’t see these changes making any difference. Or until the court will find someone guilty because they were lower in the hierarchy.
 
It's a good concept. But I think they seriously underestimate "the stupid", and overestimate people being considerate to each other.

Picture brake checking an 18 wheeler and it being their fault if they hit you.
Now apply that all the way back to pedestrians jumping out in front of bicycles or electric wheelchairs.
 
Having trouble finding a version of this story that contains any details... I don't understand at all what they're trying to accomplish here
 
Jayv said:
Wonder where e-bikes are on this list.....
Click to expand...
If their ebikes are like ours, I would put them at the bottom/top (yield to absolutely everything). Pedelecs I am ok with classifying as bicycles in the hierarchy.
 
That kinda puts me back where I started. So is Rule H1 a law? Is it supposed to be the basis for future, more specific law-making? Is this like the Pirate Code, where Rule H1 is more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules?

Edit: Ooooookay, I think I get it now. The UK "Highway Code" is more like the MTO Driver's Handbook - it does contain many references to legal requirements, but not everything in it has to do with law.

This seems like maybe it's not a super big deal then, though
 
I am sure this priority definition started with good intentions. Add people into the equation and things can easily start to go astray.
 
I think initiatives like this are counter productive. While they say in their response to the negative polling that revised wording will "emphasize" an aspect of personal responsibility the existence of the act/legislation implies otherwise.

I've had countless conversations with friends and family where they rant about an avoidable (in my view) close call because somebody else did not yield when they should have.

Like many here I observe/live by the old adage that EVERYBODY else on the road can't see me, doesn't see me, doesn't know I'm there, doesn't care that I'm there, and their very presence is a threat to my well being.

Dead is dead.

"But I had the right-of-way!" doesn't look very good on a tombstone.
 
xrljoel said:
I think initiatives like this are counter productive. While they say in their response to the negative polling that revised wording will "emphasize" an aspect of personal responsibility the existence of the act/legislation implies otherwise.

I've had countless conversations with friends and family where they rant about an avoidable (in my view) close call because somebody else did not yield when they should have.

Like many here I observe/live by the old adage that EVERYBODY else on the road can't see me, doesn't see me, doesn't know I'm there, doesn't care that I'm there, and their very presence is a threat to my well being.

Dead is dead.

"But I had the right-of-way!" doesn't look very good on a tombstone.
Click to expand...
I agree with your reply, very well written!
 
xrljoel said:
I think initiatives like this are counter productive. While they say in their response to the negative polling that revised wording will "emphasize" an aspect of personal responsibility the existence of the act/legislation implies otherwise.

I've had countless conversations with friends and family where they rant about an avoidable (in my view) close call because somebody else did not yield when they should have.

Like many here I observe/live by the old adage that EVERYBODY else on the road can't see me, doesn't see me, doesn't know I'm there, doesn't care that I'm there, and their very presence is a threat to my well being.

Dead is dead.

"But I had the right-of-way!" doesn't look very good on a tombstone.
Click to expand...
I don't know the UK penalties. In Ontario, it would seem to be much simpler to up the fine for failure to yield by an order of magnitude for a first offence and escalating quickly. Right now it is $110. If a first offence was $1000 and subsequent offences within three years $5000, do you think people would drive differently? I think many people would change their behavior. Even better, if failure to yield results in an injury or death, add a 10 times multiplier to those fines. Most of the time I had issues on a bicycle were with a vehicle that passed me seconds before they pulled to the right (often taxis making a right turn downtown, once a hamilton bus that crushed me against the curb and drove off).

With our embarassingly low penalities, we are basically yielding based on personal responsibility. We are quickly getting to the point where the majority put their own time ahead of everyone else's safety.
 
I haven't been able to find the actual text of the proposed code changes, only the survey findings. There's discussion about how to deal with bicycles passing other vehicles on the left (being in mind that as far as traffic flow is concerned, "left" and "right" have opposite meanings there).
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom