Page 10 | To think a driver (or cyclist) having to give way to a pedestrian waiting to cross is a crazy new rule?

flashbac · 2021-12-31T07:17:35+00:00

To clarify, if a pedestrian is waiting to cross on a road a driver is turning into, new rules from January state the driver has to let them cross. Also applies to cyclists as pedestrians have priority. All very well and good until you consider how chaotic this could be at junctions. Fine on unbusy roads. I'm thinking: What if you are turning into a 30 mph road from a 40? What if you are turning right at a busy junction? It sounds crazy to me. And before anyone jumps at me and says they do it in Europe and its fine. I'd like to know how congested and busy the roads in these countries are and what the public transport is like.

JabNotInArm · 31/12/2021 09:54

It's part of a shift towards prioritising pedestrians and cyclists (and public transport) more generally. It's better for the environment, for our health, to encourage those modes of transport
over the car as much as possible. We have devoted HUGE amounts of soace to cars and prioritised them for too long in my opinion.

New road layouts, planned improvements to current road layouts, etc all already have to take this new priority into account thanks to guidelines governing development and transport planning. At some point we have to change motorists expectations and behaviours and this is an obvious way to do it.

I think there'll always be resistance to this sort of change but, as a driver and a pedestrian, I agree with it.

MaryAndHerNet · 31/12/2021 09:54

It's a good change.

The mentality of drivers who think they rule the road needs to change.

It really is very very simple.
You want to turn left into a road..
Is there a pedestrian waiting? - stop.
Is there a pedestrian near or walking toward the road you wish to turn into? - stop.
Does it look as of a pedestrian may get to the road before you? - stop.

Thats it.
If someone collides I to you because you stopped. That's their fault, they should be paying attention. If things get congested as you wait for pedestrians, big fucking deal, you'll get to your destination a couple minutes later. If you miss an appointment, you should have given yourself more journey time instead of relying on being able to drive Google speed.
The only downsides to this change are imaginary ones people will invent to justify their bad driving.

Mofomo · 31/12/2021 09:54

Rina66 - the trick is to not drive down Oxford Street, especially as its so well connected for public transport

TractorAndHeadphones · 31/12/2021 09:56

@RedHot22

Anything that makes driving ‘inconvenient’ is a good thing imo.

Traffic congestion is a nightmare where I live.
There’s alway cries for improved pavements, cycleways, and public transport. Most people then expect other people to walk, cycle or get the bus/train, so the roads are less congested for them.

Well has there been proper planning or have these things been put in willy nilly? A bus twice an hour does not count as proper ‘public transport’ if you then have to catch another one making a 20 mins drive a 1 hours journey

TractorAndHeadphones · 31/12/2021 09:58

Easier to introduce ‘rules’ and pretend to prioritise walking/cycling than to plan proper transport isn’t it?

BabyLove22 · 31/12/2021 10:00

It's nice to know we pay road tax and congestion charges to not have right of way on roads, we now have to give way to fucking pedestrians.

Mofomo · 31/12/2021 10:02

the 'fucking pedestrians' also pay for the roads

shouldistop · 31/12/2021 10:03

@BabyLove22

It's nice to know we pay road tax and congestion charges to not have right of way on roads, we now have to give way to fucking pedestrians.

What road tax do you pay? Council tax pays for the roads.

JakeyRolling · 31/12/2021 10:03

@BabyLove22

It's nice to know we pay road tax and congestion charges to not have right of way on roads, we now have to give way to fucking pedestrians.

No one has pic road tax since 1937. The funding for roads comes out of general taxation, which pedestrians and cyclists also pay.

I have no problem making the roads safer for them but this is badly thought outs and poorly communicated.

LostForIdeas · 31/12/2021 10:03

My issue isn’t that much the pedestrian thing (even though I’m still wondering what happens if you can’t see if there is a pedestrian waiting).
The ones I have na issue with is telling cyclists to ride in the middle of the lane.

Fine if you are in a town centre and clearly marked lanes. Not so great on small countryside roads, no markings on the road. A cyclist ‘in the middle of the lane’ would probably mean it will be impossible to ever overtake them. The road won’t be wide enough iyswim.

Mofomo · 31/12/2021 10:06

Bloody pedestrians and cyclists slowing everyone down, where you drivers all going in such a hurry?

MaryAndHerNet · 31/12/2021 10:08

@BabyLove22

It's nice to know we pay road tax and congestion charges to not have right of way on roads, we now have to give way to fucking pedestrians.

What a stupid post..

There's no such thing as road tax, VED goes into a big pot of tax money same as all other tax. Congestion charge isn't to give you right of anything.

Kennykenkencat · 31/12/2021 10:10

I drive all over the country and see so many blind junctions (for the car or lorry driver) that I can only conclude that who ever thought of this rule either doesn’t drive, doesn’t have or never driven an HGV
Or lives in one place and only knows that one place and their commute to work.

I am not going to be stepping out in any junction till it is clear of vehicles. Utterly ridiculous rule

LostForIdeas · 31/12/2021 10:10

@RedHot22

Anything that makes driving ‘inconvenient’ is a good thing imo.

Traffic congestion is a nightmare where I live.
There’s alway cries for improved pavements, cycleways, and public transport. Most people then expect other people to walk, cycle or get the bus/train, so the roads are less congested for them.

Well… before doing that you might want

to ensure there is actually some buses running (none i can take to go to work for me - no bus after 5.30pm. I finish at 7.00pm. DH would need to walk about 1 hour, take the train and then bus in the other side. It takes 20 mins driving….)

realise not everyone lives in a town. In the. In the countryside, there is often no bus or just one in the day.

It’s not that people expect other people to use public transport. Its the fact that the public transport is often inadequate to their needs.

Eg for me, I can’t walk very far. Asking me to walk to the bus stop, take the bus (maybe standing up because, you know busy etc…) and then walk again just isn’t manageable for me.
There are many other cases where things just aren’t manageable for various reasons.
In place where there is a proper public transport system (London ?) people usually don’t owe a car!

MaryAndHerNet · 31/12/2021 10:10

A cyclist ‘in the middle of the lane’ would probably mean it will be impossible to ever overtake them. The road won’t be wide enough iyswim.

Then you wait...
Allow 20 minutes more time for your journey.

I'm glad I solved that issue for you.

Walkaround · 31/12/2021 10:11

@JabNotInArm

It's part of a shift towards prioritising pedestrians and cyclists (and public transport) more generally. It's better for the environment, for our health, to encourage those modes of transport over the car as much as possible. We have devoted HUGE amounts of soace to cars and prioritised them for too long in my opinion.

New road layouts, planned improvements to current road layouts, etc all already have to take this new priority into account thanks to guidelines governing development and transport planning. At some point we have to change motorists expectations and behaviours and this is an obvious way to do it.

I think there'll always be resistance to this sort of change but, as a driver and a pedestrian, I agree with it.

This is like saying we need to build more houses without actually providing all the rest of the infrastructure required around them as they are built, because the latter bit is just too much hassle and expense to work out, so ends up not being provided at all. Again and again, the important bits are never provided, so lowering everyone’s quality of life. You do not improve the situation for anybody by continuing to have poorly maintained roads, dangerous crossings (which remain dangerous regardless of poorly advertised Highway Code rules), houses too far from public transport, narrow pavements, non-existent cycle paths, and no new nearby schools, hospitals, shops, GP surgeries and other amenities to cater for the increased population, so that there is still not a genuine alternative to driving for the inhabitants. Making it harder and more frustrating to drive anywhere, but not actually any easier to walk, cycle or get public transport is not a great improvement, it’s an irritation.

LostForIdeas · 31/12/2021 10:11

@Kennykenkencat

I drive all over the country and see so many blind junctions (for the car or lorry driver) that I can only conclude that who ever thought of this rule either doesn’t drive, doesn’t have or never driven an HGV Or lives in one place and only knows that one place and their commute to work.

I am not going to be stepping out in any junction till it is clear of vehicles. Utterly ridiculous rule

Yep I agree there. The issue isn’t the rule itself. It’s the fact it’s unmanageable.

Kennykenkencat · 31/12/2021 10:12

I just see this being for some children a game of chicken to see who can cause the most accidents

Walkaround · 31/12/2021 10:12

And I’m fed up with developers’ promises to provide x, y and z as part of the new developments when the reality is, the money mysteriously runs out before the promises have been kept.

HattieBlue · 31/12/2021 10:13

I hate this as a pedestrian with young children I hate it when people stop to wave me across (on unbusy roads). I'm trying to teach my children not to walk in front of cars. I want to judge when it is safe for us to cross not some well meaning 3rd party.

bordermidgebite · 31/12/2021 10:13

Vehicles don't need to be blind , it's cheap-skating on design and mirrors

lightisnotwhite · 31/12/2021 10:13

It’s not law yet I don’t think? They’ll make a decision on the 29th Jan ( occurring to my son)

IamGusFring · 31/12/2021 10:14

So you could be turning into a road on the right hand side , have to stop and then you are in the path of the oncoming traffic on the first road as well as possibly being rear ended ?

GrumpyPanda · 31/12/2021 10:14

@SofiaAmes

This has been standard in the USA forever. And highly enforced in California. By the same token, pedestrians are not supposed to cross when the light is red and/or if they are not at an intersection.

California's pedestrian right of way goes much further than this and applies at every intersection including the main road. In other words, drivers have to give precedence to people crossing even when they themselves aren't turning but simply continue going straight ahead through an intersection.

Lived there for nearly a decade and it works just fine well it works fine in the Bay Area but those car addicts down in LA are plain morons. Obviously as a pedestrian you don't just step into the road like Moses expecting the waters of the Red Sea to part without you even looking out. You do have to develop the pedestrian stare of death - single step into the road, eye contact and make it very very clear that yes, I do indeed intend to use my right of way, thx so much.

shouldistop · 31/12/2021 10:15

@HattieBlue

I hate this as a pedestrian with young children I hate it when people stop to wave me across (on unbusy roads). I'm trying to teach my children not to walk in front of cars. I want to judge when it is safe for us to cross not some well meaning 3rd party.

Exactly! I've had drivers angry at me before because I won't accept their 'kind' offer to cross in front of them.