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

[flashbac]

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.

id always taken it thats why drivers take over the pavements as to leave the roads clear for other drivers & sod the pedestrians which the pavement is meant to be used by and don't give a second thought to mobility aids or prams. even when there is more than enough to park on the road, they drive on the pavement?

Pretty much. See it all the time on top of parking right in front of a bus stop so buses have to wait til they return or try and move around them which holds up traffic and makes it unsafe for about everyone.

In theory I'm fine with the new rule as long as it's widely publicised and understood, but it's not been and that worries me. Taking a nearby road as an example, there's a turn from a 60mph road into a 40mph. A car turning in should be paying attention and be able to stop for a pedestrian without much difficulty. The issue will be the cars behind, that will expect the car turning in to slow, but not to stop (as they won't see the pedestrian and there is no other reason a car would ever stop there). Without lots of awareness about this change, it's likely to cause accidents. One would hope that pedestals would continue to exercise common sense and choose to cross in safe places etc, but that can't be guaranteed

Agh. We need an edit function. I meant pedestrians, not pedestals. If they start crossing roads we've got bigger problems

I was always taught in other European countries the cars ALWAYS had right of way over pedestrians. However this is something my parents told me when I was young so could of just been to make me extra cautious crossing the road abroad.
Can anyone clarify?

@Signalbox

I’d be grateful if cars just gave way to already crossing pedestrians on side roads. The number of drivers who are not aware that they should is surprising.

I don't on my side road because I got fed up over the years of cars behind almost rear ending me (and on one occasion did). It happens all the time because most drivers are so impatient they don't allow for the car in front to stop and let someone cross without either ploughing into them or swerving round them blasting their horn causing chaos to oncoming traffic.

@Tilltheend99

If they arrived at the road before you they are probably already crossing rather than waiting to cross. It was alway common sense/politeness to slow down and let someone cross who was already in the road before you turned into it but as so few people seem to have either sense or politeness anymore they have clearly had to make a basic etiquette law in order to stop the madness of drivers acting as if no other person on the planet existed or had a right to life.

In case that wasn’t clear enough, UABVU.

No, you can be waiting for a gap in the traffic by which point you can see pedestrians walking up the side road. If they decide to wait by the curb you need to stop. Normally they would be looking out for cars and wait for the car to finish turning. They don’t have to now do they.

I don't on my side road because I got fed up over the years of cars behind almost rear ending me (and on one occasion did). It happens all the time because most drivers are so impatient they don't allow for the car in front to stop and let someone cross without either ploughing into them or swerving round them blasting their horn causing chaos to oncoming traffic

Surely you do sometimes have to give way to pedestrians who are already crossing the road as the alternative would be to drive right into them, or to swerve round them on the wrong side of the road? I assume you don't just mow down pedestrians who are directly in your path, so you must give way to them?

@Bigassbeebuzzbuzz

I was always taught in other European countries the cars ALWAYS had right of way over pedestrians. However this is something my parents told me when I was young so could of just been to make me extra cautious crossing the road abroad. Can anyone clarify?

Dunno if that's the law - but times I've spent in France, Italy and Spain suggest drivers think pedestrians in those countries need to get the fuck out of the way at all times and in all circumstances, including on pedestrian crossings.

As a pedestrian I always look and make that sure no cars are there and about to come around the corner before I start to cross. However some drivers drive so fast that they don’t appear until I’ve just stepped out. It’s a problem in this area where there isn’t much traffic so roads are clear, meaning cars tend to speed. It also means there are no crossings for pedestrians because it isn’t a busy area. This rule should stop cars driving up fast and turning in without considering pedestrians, making it safer.

Utter bollocks. Most drivers following turning cars do, actually, have the awareness that the car turning is going to need to slow significantly or stop.

It's not bollocks though; hence rear end collisions being the most common type of crash.

@elelel

Utter bollocks. Most drivers following turning cars do, actually, have the awareness that the car turning is going to need to slow significantly or stop.

It's not bollocks though; hence rear end collisions being the most common type of crash.

Yes, it is.

There aren't crashes at every side junction every day, are there? And it's still safer for a car to drive into another car at low speed than it is for a car to hit a pedestrian.

Yes, it is.

There aren't crashes at every side junction every day, are there?

No, of course not. I didn't claim this to be so.

And it's still safer for a car to drive into another car at low speed than it is for a car to hit a pedestrian.

Probably, but the idea I was basing my post on is one where this new rule doesn't make more accidents, not that it makes 'safer' accidents.

@IamGusFring

Aaah *@MaryAndHerNet* is a cyclist - hence the grumpiness 😂😂

I think you will find it’s the motorists who are grumpy, not the cyclists.

As a pedestrian I really do welcome this new rule. Motorists and cyclists need to be much more aware of us and stop thinking they own the road

@Iamanunsafebuilding

Another change included in this is if you're turning left as a motorist it will now be your responsibility to check there's not a cyclist riding up your inside, and if they are you have to give way to them

You mean to say you haven’t been doing this already?!

@elelel

Utter bollocks. Most drivers following turning cars do, actually, have the awareness that the car turning is going to need to slow significantly or stop.

It's not bollocks though; hence rear end collisions being the most common type of crash.

Well, that would indicate that drivers are too busy on other things rather than whats in front of them.

Do you not what is the most common form of car/cyclist collision is? yep car driver ploughs into cyclist from the rear.

It has only next year to become illegal to play with your phone whilst driving i.e. stream music.

Hardly then surprising then that despite all the safety features a car has, we don't look where we are going :(

@JakeyRolling

Some pedestrians will absolutely walk out without looking if they think they have "right of way" - it already happens in my town. We have a one-way street (one of the main ones in town) with high buildings either side and a narrow pavement. The council in their wisdom put a zebra crossing right at the top. Pedestrians either appear from behind the buildings and cross without looking or pausing or you get groups chatting at the corner, and just as you've decided they don't want to cross one breaks off from the group and crosses.

I can also see a situation where a car turning left stops to let a pedestrian cross then just as they start turning a cyclist zooms up their inside and across their path.

It's a disaster waiting to happen and the only real winners will be the insurance industry.

Yep.

Well, that would indicate that drivers are too busy on other things rather than whats in front of them.

Which was my whole point

@elelel

Yes, it is.

There aren't crashes at every side junction every day, are there?

No, of course not. I didn't claim this to be so.

And it's still safer for a car to drive into another car at low speed than it is for a car to hit a pedestrian.

Probably, but the idea I was basing my post on is one where this new rule doesn't make more accidents, not that it makes 'safer' accidents.

The point being that the claim about rear collisions being the most common is completely irrelevant to the fact that a few more cars having to slow down a bit turning right is not going to lead to a massive increase in the number of cars rear-ending other cars as they turn off.

People at worst might be slowed down a bit and might have to learn to be a bit more observant as they turn. Ohthehorror.

@elelel

Well, that would indicate that drivers are too busy on other things rather than whats in front of them.

Which was my whole point

Well then maybe those twats need to get off the road then. The idea that we shouldn't introduce rules to make things safer for pedestrians because a few braindead fuckwits aren't watching what is going on is fucking stupid.

It's going to be fun in a few (though maybe quite a few) years when self-driving cars, or at least ones with more AI safety systems show up on the roads. I bet the AIs will be expected to give correct priority to other road users. Maybe they'll have to have extra rear lights spelling 'back off, dickhead' to try to deter idiots driving too close and/or fast behind?

@ErrolTheDragon

It's going to be fun in a few (though maybe quite a few) years when self-driving cars, or at least ones with more AI safety systems show up on the roads. I bet the AIs will be expected to give correct priority to other road users. Maybe they'll have to have extra rear lights spelling 'back off, dickhead' to try to deter idiots driving too close and/or fast behind?

I think it'll be hard for non AI vehicle drivers because pedestrians will perhaps assume all cars will stop on AI response times!

Could we all just try no into crash into each other and slow down and let people go first if they need to cross the road.

Well then maybe those twats need to get off the road then.

Yes, but realistically nobody is policing low level bad driving every day of the week. By low level I don't mean not dangerous, I mean not drawing attention etc, so fitting the driving a bit close to a turning car.

The idea that we shouldn't introduce rules to make things safer for pedestrians because a few braindead fuckwits aren't watching what is going on is fucking stupid.

I agree, but I didn't say that we shouldn't introduce new things anyway.

for years pedestrians have had to wait patiently at junctions to cross, drivers didn't complain. Now though the rules have swapped and there seems to be many disgruntled drivers - its only at junctions and not at other places, its as if they are making a mountain out of a molehill.

drivers kill 1800 people every year and maim and injured many thousands, for years the message has been aimed at pedestrians to take care but still drivers kill. now the message is to drivers to slow down and give priority, lets see if they do or if they just keep on the same