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

I think it's a dangerous rule, we should be teaching our kids to wait until traffic is clear before crossing any road, not to just step out and expect cars to give way. I'm old enough to remember the tufty club and green cross code adverts and think thay they were invaluable in improving accident rates.
I witnessed a car stopping for pedestrians on a dual carriageway approaching a roundabout last weekend. The driver was waving them over, unfortunately the cars in the outside lane couldn't see the pedestrians due to the curve of the road and the stationary car. It was stupid of the first driver to wave them over into potential danger. Luckily they didn't go. There was also a light controlled pedestrian crossing about twenty yards before that which is where it was much safer to cross.

Perhaps people should read the actual rules rather than the complaining about the rules

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35

@MikeRafone
You can’t compare a charge of speeding with guidance in the Highway Code. Breaking the speed limit is a specific charge and an absolute one at that. You are either over the limit or you aren’t. And it’s one of those laws with no victim, and if there is one then the charge will be due care and attention or dangerous driving.

The Highway Code is guidance woven around certain rules and laws, And these changes very specifically say ‘should’ give way, not must or any other such wording. So proving who is at fault in the event of an RTC would be difficult, proving I or you should have given way and didn’t even more so.

And with hundreds of thousands of road junctions how is this to be policed? Most police forces have already made it clear the many recent 20mph limits are practically unenforceable. How could policing all these myriad junctions be any different?

For me giving way to pedestrians on quieter side streets I have no issue with. But within a few hundred yards of here are a busy junction and roundabout where the idea falls apart due to weight of traffic and sight lines.

You can’t compare a charge of speeding with guidance in the Highway Code. Breaking the speed limit is a specific charge and an absolute one at that. You are either over the limit or you aren’t. And it’s one of those laws with no victim, and if there is one then the charge will be due care and attention or dangerous driving.

I wasn't making a comparison, its an attitude observation and answering a question you asked

The Highway Code is guidance woven around certain rules and laws, And these changes very specifically say ‘should’ give way, not must or any other such wording. So proving who is at fault in the event of an RTC would be difficult, proving I or you should have given way and didn’t even more so.

Thats why the rules have been changed and the onus placed on the driver to take care with the change in hierarchy. See previous post on should not and must not

And with hundreds of thousands of road junctions how is this to be policed? Most police forces have already made it clear the many recent 20mph limits are practically unenforceable. How could policing all these myriad junctions be any different?

Why can't motorists just obey the rules? make life much easier and prevent many deaths

For me giving way to pedestrians on quieter side streets I have no issue with. But within a few hundred yards of here are a busy junction and roundabout where the idea falls apart due to weight of traffic and sight lines.

And for everyone else as the rule is for side roads busy roundabout etc aren't mentioned

@MikeRafone
'And for everyone else as the rule is for side roads busy roundabout etc aren't mentioned'
Rule H2
At a junction you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning.

The wording doesn't say side road, nor does it exclude roundabouts and what about a junction controlled by traffic lights?

The accompanying picture suggest a nice simple side road but that's not what it says. And if it is just for 'side roads' how are they to be legally defined and will they be marked so we all know which are which?

That's why I still contend it is at the very least ill-worded and impractical.

Weirdly I went for a walk yesterday and every drive gave way to me at side rds, bat one driver - but he was on his phone

Junctions and roundabouts are separate sections of the highway code though, with separate advice. The roundabout bit says "in all cases you must watch out for and give plenty of room to pedestrians crossing at the approach and exit roads" which is basically saying be aware and don't run them over.

In my opinion much of what's being described here of people unable to safely stop when cornering a junction are people playing a percentage game, it's like how you see some people driving country roads because they've taken that corner 700 times in the last 2 years and there's never been anything there until...

The updated code clarifies that:

• when people are crossing or waiting to cross at a junction, other traffic should give way
• if people have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, the people crossing have priority and the traffic should give way
• people driving, riding a motorcycle or cycling must give way to people on a zebra crossing and people walking and cycling on a parallel crossing

There is a distinct difference between "should" and "must".

Is the Highway Code the law?
Some Highway Code rules are legally binding. These are highlighted by the use of ‘MUST’ or ‘MUST NOT’ in the text.

For example, rule 106 concerns police stopping procedures. If a police officer wants you to pull over, then you must do this when it’s safe to do so. This is a legal requirement, and you’re breaking the law if you don’t.

Breaking these laws could land you with a fine, penalty points on your licence, or in some cases prison sentences.

The rest of the Highway Code provisions are good practice, but not necessarily legal requirements. That’s not to say you shouldn’t take them seriously, and breaking the Highway Code may still have legal consequences.

For example, rule 148 of the Highway Code notes that driving requires concentration. As such certain distractions should be avoided. Listening to loud music, eating or drinking, and smoking are given among the examples.

This doesn’t mean that it’s illegal to do any of these things while driving. What it does mean is that they could be a contributory factor in an offence. If you crash while eating something, you might be charged with dangerous driving, with the Highway Code violation providing supporting evidence.

Yeah your death by dangerous driving trial starts with:

"did you stop when you should have?"

"No"

And it's a bit of an uphill battle from there

You're doing better than me. Two drivers didn't give way to me today, when I was already crossing the bloody side street!