Drivers not following Highway code

[MikeRafone]

https://x.com/citizenuddin/status/1687092237786820608?s=46&t=6ReKAbxD2gRFwL---KRV8w

why do drivers not follow the Highway Code?

if you’re not going to update yourself regularly on Highway ide you should lose your licence to drive

Perhaps every three five years - there are slight changes in laws etc each year so need a few years so the rules have changed enough.
Insurance may even reduce if less accidents.

Not every year surely? Insurance is going up enough as it is without adding yet more costs!

the government will not bring this in as it would be so unpopular with the over 65s, this is the group mostly likely to fail. It would automatically take 30% of drivers over 65 of the roads. Some would take the test and fail, others would give up their licence without any attempt

Considering most over 65s are still working I can see why it might be unpopular if people lost their licences!

I've never taken a theory test so I have no idea how I'd do but another reason I don't think it'll ever be brought in is it's hard enough to book a test as it is without adding even more people needing one.

Maybe we should ask people to do a theory test/hazard perception test as a condition of renewing photocard licences?
Perhaps also make it a condition that we've had an eye test too?
That would just be once every 10 years until we turn 70 (as it would be daft to do it if you're only changing the name or address on the licence).
It wouldn't cost a fortune to do because it wouldn't need extra examiners and the licence renewal and theory test infrastructure are already in place. But at least it would make people read the latest Highway Code once a decade!

That's a better idea providing people aren't penalised by not being able to drive if there are delays. While the infrastructure is there, it can't cope with people trying to book a test now.

I really don’t understand the fuss over this change - you’ve always had to give way to a pedestrian who has already stepped onto the road. All this means is you should also stop for someone who is just about to step onto the road.

All the arguments about it not being safe to stop when turning off busy roads - presumably you’d stop for someone who has started to cross the road who is elderly or disabled, crossing with small children or for any other reason moving more slowly than average? You’d be able to do it in that situation, right? So why is this any different?

Anyone turning into a side road should be signalling well in advance, slowing down appropriately and looking for any hazards on or off the road.

I frequently have to turn off a 60mph road onto a narrow driveway crossing a cycle path which has priority. It has to be approached at an almost standstill, and sometimes a stop while waiting for cyclists. No-one has ever rear-ended me because I signal early and brake gradually.

If something be stops for me and I’m not ready to cross for any reason I just wave them on. Happens quite a lot as I have one kid who dawdles and another who races ahead.

I’m a partially sighted pedestrian. I don’t trust car drivers as a whole to stop. Just recently had problems near my work. Big main road at a junction. Our green man is on while traffic on the other road can only go straight on. Twice had car turn into me. Luckily due to the direction I could see and avoid. I have a homonymous hemianopia. See under homonymous the Tyne Bridge as I do (though I can see left and not right. ) i just have to pray it doesn’t happen the other way.

All the arguments about it not being safe to stop when turning off busy roads - presumably you’d stop for someone who has started to cross the road who is elderly or disabled, crossing with small children or for any other reason moving more slowly than average? You’d be able to do it in that situation, right? So why is this any different?

The difference is that in the old system, the pedestrian does a risk assessment, checking to see where nearby cars are going, and whether they have time to cross. So, unless the pedestrian is not paying attention, or it's a junction with poor sightlines, they are rarely in the road when a car is turning in, and so cars turning in rarely have to give way.

In the new system, the car will have to give way a lot more frequently. (Or would, if they followed this system...)

From my last post wanted to say there are some great drivers but I don’t think this system works well. I hang back to try to make it obvious for drivers not to stop. I can’t be sure often whether a driver is waving me across then they get annoyed. I don’t have a symbol cane because I’d likely drop it.

The difference with regard to crossing is an upgrade of ‘should’ to ‘must’ with it being covered by legislation that a vehicle must not run into a pedestrian that is already crossing

At a junction vehicles must give way to pedestrians that are already crossing. This has always been the rule of the road and junctions have dashed line markings on both sides to indicate this. The Highway Code now more explicitly stresses the rule

At a crossing vehicles are to give way to pedestrians waiting to cross - which ought to have happened anyway, but again the Highway Code is reinforcing the rule

The difference with regard to priority is a formal list of the hierarchy which should already have been common sense (and was the rule of the sea - steam gives way to sail)
People are upset about cars being told to be aware of pedestrians and cyclists, but fail to notice that vans are to be aware of cars and lorries are also to be aware of vans

These are how people should have been using the road already

I find this quite interesting as I'm currently training for a pilot's license and you literally have to memorise the pilot's version of the highway code, and pass 10 exams, of which 9 are theory.
In order to keep your license valid you have to go up with an instructor once every two years to check you still know what you're doing and also as a member of my flying club I have to sign a form saying I've read their air rules booklet on a regular basis.

Obviously crashing a plane is far more catastrophic than crashing a car, but considering the number of car accidents that happen because of people's complacency, I'm surprised it isn't alot stricter.
I feel safer flying than I do driving as I know how knowledgeable and aware you have to be to fly a plane safely and the sky is a quiet place.

I come across a lot of terrible drivers on the road, daily, and they're everywhere.

It’s not my experience (either as a pedestrian or a driver) that it is rare for a pedestrian to be in the middle of crossing a road when a car is looking to turn into that road. It takes maybe 5 seconds on average to cross a road on foot - that’s plenty of time for vehicles to appear that weren’t there (or were there but not yet indicating to turn).

And whether it’s rare or not, as a driver you have to anticipate that possibility - if you have a clear line of sight you can see what’s happening and adjust ahead of time. If you don’t have a line of sight you have to assume you don’t have a clear road ahead - whether that’s because of a pedestrian on the road, a bin truck, fallen branch or whatever - and be prepared to have to stop.

So then it just comes down to frequency then - a slight inconvenience for drivers having to give way to pedestrians more often. Frankly drivers just have to suck that up.

@MikeRafone Obviously you have not read or understood the highway code either.

The driver in the video has not broken the highway code or broken any laws by not stopping for the pedestrian waiting at the road side.

The Highway code states

"Rule H2 (Pedestrians Crossing): Highlighting that at junctions, drivers should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross on a road into which they are turning.
The 2022 Highway Code says that if pedestrians have started crossing the road and drivers want to turn into the road, pedestrians crossing have priority, and the traffic should give way to them. And lastly, when it comes to pedestrians on a zebra and parallel crossing, drivers, motorcyclists, and cyclists, must give way to pedestrians waiting to cross."

So two words it would be worth you learning should and must.

Should means something that is recommended but not mandatory.
Must means something that is mandatory.

Drivers do not have to give way to people waiting to cross on the kerb as it is not a mandatory action, It is suggested that they should but do not have too.

Where as it does say it is mandatory for vehicles to give way on crossings.

As a pedestrian if you are going to walk in front of vehicles turning because they should stop is both irresponsible and dicing with injury and death. Sure you can say at least I was not at fault but a lot of good that will do if the driver has not noticed you and your are dead or injured.

I just hope this is not how you are going to teach your kids to cross the road.

For me I will judge if I feel if it is safe to wait for a pedestrian waiting to cross, and I will abide by the Highway code and If I consider it not safe for myself or other drivers I will not wait, as it is not mandatory.

Hmm, just heard a public-service radio ad which seems to conflate the waiting/already crossing, and ignoring any should/must distinction - something about Sue picking up a Jalfrezi takeaway, hope I've quoted this right: "Remember, pedestrians who are crossing, or waiting to cross, have priority."

Rules in the Code which are legal requirements, and which you will be committing a criminal offense if you disobey, use the words “must/must not.”Violating other parts of the Code, which use the words “should/should not” or “do/do not”, can be used as evidence against you in Traffic Court, even if violating them is

@moneyplantnation just so you’re aware if you decide that should Isn’t for you, it can be used against you in a court of law. Good luck explaining the above to a magistrate

@KajsaKavat
I’m confused how many people talking about getting rear ended when they stop for someone crossing. So what?
What a fatuous thing to say.
The changes were ill-publicised to drivers and not at all to pedestrians. It's a virtue signalling style one size fits all 'solution'.

Drivers who crash into the back of other drivers are at a minimum not driving with due care and attention

“Don’t run over pedestrians” is not virtue signalling, just as “don’t knock over cyclists” is not virtue signalling

For something “ill publicised”
to drivers and “not at all” to pedestrians, there’s been a lot of publicity on advertising, the news, the papers, social media etc

@Tomikka
Drivers who crash into the back of other drivers are at a minimum not driving with due care and attention
What I clearly meant was saying 'So what' was fatuous, regardless of who is at fault - which could just as easily be the pedestrian as either driver.

“Don’t run over pedestrians” is not virtue signalling, just as “don’t knock over cyclists” is not virtue signalling
The change to the rules is virtue signalling. It's an ill thought out change that can't possibly work safely in every situation at every junction or roundabout but hey not only are the powers that be 'doing something' but any nay sayers clearly don't care about others safety. It's not like I'm alone in thinking this and the rule doesn't say 'don't run over, knock over'.

For something “ill publicised” to drivers and “not at all” to pedestrians, there’s been a lot of publicity on advertising, the news, the papers, social media etc
I don't agree at all. I saw very little publicity, I don't get a newspaper and do little social media. I had it brought to my attention by my DP, who is on a driving forum - and that was because someone had put up an image of a newspaper article which managed to explain the new rules incorrectly.
The DoT could and should have sent every driver in the country a leaflet. And it really isn't difficult to imagine the majority of pedestrians not having a clue this had happened - especially if they don't drive.

Laughingravy · Yesterday 09:04

The changes were ill-publicised to drivers and not at all to pedestrians. It's a virtue signalling style one size fits all 'solution'.

How can you say that the change was ill-publicised and then that you don't read, or watch the news, nor go on social media? What do you want? Someone to knock on your door and to explain it to you?

As for it being virtue-signalling; what rubbish! Clarifying the law to give the most vulnerable road users encoded priority over more dangerous ones couldn't be more sensible.

Negligent drivers, who make turns without bothering to consider people crossing shouldn't be on the road, especially ones who would blame said pedestrians for being there. The same applies to idiots not paying attention, who run into the backs of cars.

It was the best publicised change to the highway code since I got my license. Loads of exposure mostly because of the utter conniptions it caused amongst impatient Jeremy Clarkson type arseholes.

Regardless of this the contract you effectively sign up for when you get your license, that you as a driver will keep up to date with changes, is very clearly ignored by many of the aforementioned types. It's not anyone's responsibility other than yours

If we accept what has been said in the last few posts. That there was enough publicity that no one can claim they were unaware. And that the new rules can be safely acted upon by all concerned at every road junction and every roundabout. Then why are we seeing so little compliance? Is it simply that drivers know and don’t care? Or something else? If so what is to be done? How would you ensure better compliance?

Take speed limits, they are a legal requirement & drivers know they must be adhered. There was 346,840 speeding tickets issued in the first half of 2022. All the drivers would know about law if speeding, fines. If you take that 75% we’re caught but 25% speeding weren’t caught that negates the drivers caught speed through lack of sign posting

Thise drivers deliberately broke the rules, so in answer to your question do drivers not care - I’d say yes, they don’t care

In answer to you question what could be done to drivers who break the rules

a quick short sharp automatic shock of not having the privilege of a licence for 2 weeks when they get 3 points, 4 weeks if they get 6 points & 6 weeks if they get 9 points 12 points a ban of 12 months

the driver would struggle to claim mitigating circumstances and they’d know what it’s like not to have the privilege of a driving licence

I like when pedestrians do this as it shows me they know the law and I can clearly see their intention to cross. Usually though I get a confused look as they stand firmly on the pavement and I have to stay where I am until they decide to finally cross, shaking their heads at me.
When do pedestrians read the Highway code? This new rule should have been publicised far more.