To post this for road users unaware of upcoming highway code changes

[FluffyBooBoo]

That's loads of info available online, but the AA have done a study that shows that two thirds of people are unaware of the charges.

Photo attached with basic info.

@Octavia174 and @drainitallout - my Mum was knocked out and brain damaged by a cyclist whilst crossing a pedestrian green light. Did they stop to help or take responsibility? Did they fu(k. I reiterate - cyclists should pass a mandatory proficiency test and actually, they should have registrations and insurance too!!!!!!

@EvilPea

I missed that as well. You’d have to be mental to be a cyclist and risk going up the inside as a car turns left. I do slow and check they’ve stopped before turning, I will also not bother over taking if it means I will cut in front to turn but you could easily miss them in blind spots etc.(especially lorries with their massive blind spots).

It’s just common sense for the cyclist to stop and wait for the car in front who is busy looking at junctions, looking for pedestrians before turning. Adding in another obstacle they have to look out for is asking for trouble.

My issue is more with those cars who overtake, and then immediately turn left. A practice known as "left hooking".

My issue with this is the cyclists that come out of a cycle lane into the road centre with no warning. In the new rule are they meant to indicate their intent? Or can they just come with no warning and car drivers must break or be at fault. There are a number of cyclists that already overtake other cyclists without warning causing drivers to swerve or break suddenly. It's so dangerous

@SirChenjins

but it means that drivers who hit cyclists or pedestrians are automatically at fault thereby simplifying the legal process

Automatically? Surely there should be something which allows all factors to be taken into account as opposed to simply assigning fault to the driver?

In most European countries the more powerful road user is presumed to be at fault (in civil matters, rather than criminal), unless they can prove otherwise. Hitherto this wasn't the case in British law (liability is presumed to be shared unless proven otherwise) which meant that many drivers got away with it because dead cyclists are unable to testify.

www.slatergordon.co.uk/newsroom/cycling-accidents-and-presumed-liability-uk-vs-europe/

[quote Blinkingbatshit]**@Octavia174* and @drainitallout* - my Mum was knocked out and brain damaged by a cyclist whilst crossing a pedestrian green light. Did they stop to help or take responsibility? Did they fu(k. I reiterate - cyclists should pass a mandatory proficiency test and actually, they should have registrations and insurance too!!!!!![/quote]
Terrible as that is, a person willing to crash into someone and then ride off, will do that whether trained, insured or registered, just as 100s of car drivers do when running over a child or a cyclists etc.

Need to look at who is the biggest problem on the roads.

Look at this women? killed by a driver who chose to ignore the law.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55361818

the vast majority of cyclists are drivers too, so if some are arseholes on a bike, chances are they are in a car too, so perhaps looking at our ridiculously easy driving test might be a start?

@Chocolatewheatos

Stupid advice. So now cars can't overtake cyclists and have to stop for every pedestrian? They're just trying to make it impractical to drive.

That's not what it says.

Who in their right mind would step out in front of a car turning into a junction?! It doesn't really matter if you had a legal right of way if you end up in hospital with a life-changing injury as a result of being hit by a car. Surely you cross in a safe place when there are no cars coming - as was drilled into us all as children, and crossing at a busy junction doesn't seem very safe to me.

SOmeone with £££££ in front of their eyes, it'll be another red letter day for the claims companies, It's another example of how people are being expected to take less and less responsibility for their safety. Someone will be along soon so say this should be dealt with as a lesson in school.

This is such nonsense. No-one is going to risk death or permanent disability for the possible prospect of getting the somewhat limited damages that our courts award.

It’s not in the highway codes DVSA update list. Doesn’t sound right to me. That’s wgT zebra crossings are for

@pinkstripeycat

It’s not in the highway codes DVSA update list. Doesn’t sound right to me. That’s wgT zebra crossings are for

Most roads and junctions don't have any zebras, or any other type of pedestrian crossing

@pinkstripeycat

It’s not in the highway codes DVSA update list. Doesn’t sound right to me. That’s wgT zebra crossings are for

There's plenty on info online about it including the .GOV website. It isn't a scam!

In most European countries the more powerful road user is presumed to be at fault (in civil matters, rather than criminal), unless they can prove otherwise

That doesn’t mean it’s the right approach.

@mugandspoon

This is really interesting - in Scandinavia this has always been the law, and I was very confused when I started moving around here to notice that no cars seemed to stop for pedestrians. Have had many an 'argument' with my partner who finally managed to convince ;-) me that yes, it is actually the law that cars don't have to slow down around corners for example to take care if there are people who want to cross. Cars should take additional responsibility for, statistically speaking, more vulnerable pedestrians.

I'm really pleased to see that the UK is now also doing more to protect the more vulnerable groups moving about :-)

And no, there are no more accidents in Scandinavia than here - probably less, since drivers have a definite responsibility to adjust their speed to the road and conditions. If there are trees, bins, parked cars you reduce your speed. If it is dark, you reduce your speed.

And pedestrians do not dart out all over. Most people are sensible and take care. But I think it's absolutely right that a more dangerous road user takes more responsibilty.

I was just thinking of lots of other countries where people crossing at the start of a junction like that take priority. ... its not a new idea

Well we've got to keep personal claims solicitors afloat haven't we.

Just give that certain element of cyclists even more reason to ride like twats. Not all of them. Yes car drivers can be douche nozzles too.

The pedestrian thing will have the arse ripped out of it.

Haven’t RTFT but cars giving way to pedestrians is stupid (and I say that as a frequent pedestrian!)
Pedestrians should be crossing the road at safe areas not wherever the hell they like.
Also cyclists already ride in the middle of the road if it’s narrow - If it’s wide plenty of room for side by side

Cyclists in the middle unnecessarily is is just going to lead to more dangerous overtaking

Cyclists in the middle unnecessarily is is just going to lead to more dangerous overtaking

Only if people drive dangerously, which is illegal.

@ArblemarzipanTFruitcake

I don't drive. I wouldn't step out in front of an obviously approaching car but it does annoy me when drivers seem to expect pedestrians to be able to anticipate`their moves in the same way a driver would.

No, pal, I don't know what the different colours of lights mean on your car. I can never remember which ones are reversing and which ones are the brakes. If I could I might have been able to pass a driving test.

See attached - signals are meant to warn other road users, including pedestrians of their actions. You’re in the wrong for not knowing and it’s really not that difficult! Passing a driving test is about a lot more.

Tbh i always thought pedestrians had right oF way though unless dual carriageway or motorway
But they should then bring in a law that people should cross at designated crossings when there is one
Although when i was in france i went to what looked like a zebra crossing and they don't stop there !! Not sure of thats rule or i was just unlucky

Only if people drive dangerously, which is illegal

And you really think that the police have the resources to prosecute every single driver who nearly causes an accident? Of course they don’t, just as they don’t have time to prosecute every cyclist that nearly runs into a pedestrian on the pavement (or even does run into a pedestrian)

@Lockheart

Cyclists in the middle unnecessarily is is just going to lead to more dangerous overtaking

Only if people drive dangerously, which is illegal.

So is not giving cyclists enough space. If people cannot even drive safely with cyclists at the side of a wide road do you think they’re going to happily stay behind a cyclist? Especially in roads widely used for commutes etc.

The solution to this is obviously better public transport
. But nope, people want the cheap solution of blindly putting in restrictions and letting drivers and cyclists fight for space.

@SirChenjins

Who in their right mind would step out in front of a car turning into a junction?! It doesn't really matter if you had a legal right of way if you end up in hospital with a life-changing injury as a result of being hit by a car. Surely you cross in a safe place when there are no cars coming - as was drilled into us all as children, and crossing at a busy junction doesn't seem very safe to me.

Unfortunately lots of people do. I live on a side road off a main road. The amount of people who just carry on walking across the side road often earphones in staring at their phone is unbelievable! I have always slowed down when turning left into the junction and in effect 'given way' as the majority of people just don't check.

There was one notable incident when some stupid woman dragged what looked like a four year old across the road, with him shrieking 'Car Mummy' while his half wit mother just carried on walking staring at a her phone!

@SirChenjins

In most European countries the more powerful road user is presumed to be at fault (in civil matters, rather than criminal), unless they can prove otherwise

That doesn’t mean it’s the right approach.

Indeed, and not does it mean much in practice if my experience of trying to cross the road legally in Paris or Rome is anything to go by.

You’re in the wrong for not knowing and it’s really not that difficult! Passing a driving test is about a lot more.

There's no legal requirement to know the highway code before going out for a walk.

@worriedatthemoment

Tbh i always thought pedestrians had right oF way though unless dual carriageway or motorway But they should then bring in a law that people should cross at designated crossings when there is one Although when i was in france i went to what looked like a zebra crossing and they don't stop there !! Not sure of thats rule or i was just unlucky

In my experience that’s normal in France

@SirChenjins

Only if people drive dangerously, which is illegal

And you really think that the police have the resources to prosecute every single driver who nearly causes an accident? Of course they don’t, just as they don’t have time to prosecute every cyclist that nearly runs into a pedestrian on the pavement (or even does run into a pedestrian)

Close passing is illegal, so yes the police will and do pursue this. Again lovely victim blaming. The cyclist is putting themselves in a position to actively stop close passing, so the car driver must try and get past anyway

This has always been the rules in Canada. I was shocked when I moved here to see cars don't have to stop at junctions for pedestrians.