Drivers not following Highway code

This is why licence holders should be retested every 10 years, at their own expense. It’s ridiculous to pass age 17 as many do, and that’s it. I just walk out at junctions, when I’m on my own. My right of way.

So it’s the pedestrians’ fault there’s a traffic jam and pollution? I think I’ve heard it all now…. Thank god for ULEZ

I had motorbikes from 1992 (still do) and didn't do a car test until 2008. On my test, I had a left turn, where a couple was waiting to go, so I stopped and waved them over. After the test, the examiner asked me who had right of way and why I'd given way.

I said that pedestrians in the road have absolute right of way, but I thought that they might have stepped out, so exercised caution. He said that if I'd not stopped, he would have failed me -

I do not believe this at all.

Someone should tell the pedestrians where I live, they look at me like I'm insane when I stop for them.

On busy roads it's impossible, if you are turning right across a busy lane of traffic you are then stopped potentially blocking traffic both ways on the main road.

anotheranotheranotheranother · Yesterday 18:28

I said it is is a stupid change which is why people are not observing it, both drivers and pedestrians.

It's not a stupid rule at all. Drivers (i.e. me as well) should be looking ahead and stopping, instead of turning in, if pedestrians are present. Many pedestrians won't cross until a car has turned, because they're sensible in not wanting to be knocked down.

I've always waited and if necessary, waved pedestrians across, before turning. I had motorbikes from 1992 (still do) and didn't do a car test until 2008. On my test, I had a left turn, where a couple was waiting to go, so I stopped and waved them over. After the test, the examiner asked me who had right of way and why I'd given way.

I said that pedestrians in the road have absolute right of way, but I thought that they might have stepped out, so exercised caution. He said that if I'd not stopped, he would have failed me - that's before the law changed to say that you need to wait for people who are about to cross.

If you want to turn, you need to observe, look ahead and plan, in case you need to brake gradually, because of less observant drivers behind.

As Kat19899 says, she didn't know the law and she's passed since it came into law. I suppose many pedestrians are also unaware of it, even though it cause vast amounts of whingeing in the right wing press, at the time.

If you drive a car, you are responsible.

(Sorry, this isn't meant to be personal just towards you!)

Lol, I think you're stating the bleedin' obvious there.

if a pedestrian is already in the road, it would take an incredibly shit driver (aka a murderer) not to give way to them.

Agree. Or pause on a zebra crossing. All too often I have seen cars halfway over a zebra crossing and the pedestrian just walks into the road without even pausing to check. It's ridiculous

Recently did my theory test. Thought you only had to give way to pedestrians already in the road?

I don’t think it is dangerous and drivers should stop. I generally force them to b6 holding up my hand and stepping out. It mostly works. Obviously, I wouldn’t do that in front of a speeding car but cars should be going quite slowly if they are turning in any case.

I think in the real world common sense needs to come into play, and that is what unfortunately a lot of drivers lack.
in the situation in the video if I saw someone at the kerb of the road I was turning into I’d start to slow more and check my mirrors. If it was safe and there wasn’t a vehicle behind me who couldn’t necessarily see the pedestrian and wouldn’t expect me to to stop, I’d stop. If it was safer to carry on with the manoeuvre I would.

meanwhile, there is a special place in hell reserved for people who fail to grasp the very basic concept of zipper merging.

So in your example there are two car drivers who don't know how to drive.

If it's the one directly outside the hospital past the side entrance before hitting the large roundabout then it's a 40 limit with very fast flowing traffic and it's so busy it's difficult to change lanes, they've even added a bus lane very near the roundabout which you almost have to cut across for the first exit. This new code is a dangerous joke. Someone somewhere thinks the roads are nearly empty and any traffic is dwardling along at 10mph. Derby is a very full city, mainly because the council has fucked up most of the the road flows so it's difficult to get around the city. They even messed around with the outer ring road which was supposed to make it easier.

It's difficult. It just hasn't bedded in for drivers or pedestrians.

To do my most common journey from home in my car, I cross a busy road by leaving one side road and then entering another directly opposite. I need to give way to pedestrians crossing the first road, the cars/buses etc on the main road, the pedestrians crossing the second road.

It's a timing nightmare, especially as pedestrians are reluctant to cross in front of you, even if you wave them through, which I'm also reluctant to do as if cars are coming round the other corners I can't possibly know if they'll stop too and if it's actually safe for them to cross the whole way.

I do my best to follow the law and to also drive safely, but at some point if someone isn't going to start to cross, you just have to go.

I felt I had to refresh my knowledge of the highway code so I could take DC's out to practice - led to lots of arguments with DH.
The pedestrian and cyclist rules (and their use of phones and earbuds/headphones) make me not happy about driving in built up areas - much happier on motorways (in the left hand lane)

Yes ideally they should, (and the same for cycle paths) but it would be incredibly expensive to retrofit it now.

If this is actually correct, and the "fast moving dual carriageway" isn't in fact a 30mph road which happens to have two lanes, then it is a bit silly. Also, if you slow down to wait to turn in, the other traffic has a second lane to overtake you safely so it doesn't sound that stupid. You shouldn't have to come to a complete stop to turn in, you should be indicating in plenty of time, and should slow down gradually which leaves time for the driver behind to slow down or move over.

With the pedestrian right of way thing, it's much better for the pedestrian to have control over when they cross (i.e when they can see it's safe) rather than when a motorist deems it safe for them to cross. It would be very interesting though if pavements carried on across junctions and roads had to break for pavements rather than the other way round. That way the pedestrian wouldn't be crossing the road, the car would be crossing the pavement.

Ageist and sexist. Nice.

I try to do that but usually the driver who has decided not to wait for me then crawls along the road. Once I told them to get a move on so I could cross behind them and they told me I was rude.

The pavement has stopped. If you have to step down off of the pavement, into the road, cross the road, then step up onto the pavement, then the pavement has definitely stopped.

I think there's a case for making people do a theory refresher.

I couldn't get on with the hazard perception test because I thought everything was a hazard. One of the examples was a tractor in a field - I saw it and thought "well it's going to come out of the field in front of me at some point" but you weren't meant to press the button until it actually tried to come out of the field, which I think was completely wrong.

Then there was one where you can see people walking on the pavement. I pressed the button because they could decide to run in front of the car, but no, that's not a hazard either. I think it's a very hard test to get right.

You think women with children can't read, but you decided to post that on a website aimed at women with children despite the fact you think they can't read...

That seems counterintuitive?

Although it would be useful if they were marked in some way but that would cost far too much, so drivers just need to use their brain cells.