[Travel] Changes in the Highway Code from 290122

[Stat Brother]

A new career?:-

[tweet]1537334952991375360[/tweet]

 

[Deleted member 37369]

I was cycling through Shoreham Airport last Saturday. A small van came from behind and gave me loads of space as they went past. I've actually seen more drivers give space since the new Highway Code rules - which is encouraging. If a driver gives me space, when they get in front of me and I think I'd be visible in their wing mirror I put my hand up to show my appreciation and give a little nod.

I was getting ready to do the same to the driver of this van ... except I had to suddenly brake as they cut in unbelievably close to my front wheel.

"Oi' I shouted ... and stopped to take a photo of the number plate ... which they must have seen as the van stopped a little way ahead ... obviously wanting to have a 'chat' with me. It was a lady driver and when I explained why I had shouted "Oi' ... she said why wasn't I on the floor then!! I tried to explain that you don't have to actually knock someone off their bike to be driving dangerously ... but she repeated her 'defence' about 5/6 times!

 

[LamieRobertson]

I was cycling through Shoreham Airport last Saturday. A small van came from behind and gave me loads of space as they went past. I've actually seen more drivers give space since the new Highway Code rules - which is encouraging. If a driver gives me space, when they get in front of me and I think I'd be visible in their wing mirror I put my hand up to show my appreciation and give a little nod.

I was getting ready to do the same to the driver of this van ... except I had to suddenly brake as they cut in unbelievably close to my front wheel.

"Oi' I shouted ... and stopped to take a photo of the number plate ... which they must have seen as the van stopped a little way ahead ... obviously wanting to have a 'chat' with me. It was a lady driver and when I explained why I had shouted "Oi' ... she said why wasn't I on the floor then!! I tried to explain that you don't have to actually knock someone off their bike to be driving dangerously ... but she repeated her 'defence' about 5/6 times!

That’s Women drivers for you

 

[drew]

This is the sort of thing that does my head in. If the first sentence is correct the second sentence is redundant. If the second sentence is necessary then the first sentence is incorrect. The first sentence implies that you should give way to pedestrials waiting to cross but unlike those who are crossing they don't have priority. The correct statement should be: ""give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning because they have priority."

That is pretty extreme and reminds me of roads in Vancouver when I lived there in the 80s. I would be walking along a main road and if I happened to aproach a junction and look across the road the traffic would screech to a halt. Not a biggie on their massive quiet roads (they were quiet then) but imagine this on Western Road

I was recently told I had £1600 of a budget allocation that had to be spent by July or I would lose it. So I spent it. Now I'm told I'm £1500 in debt. The information I had not been given was that I could spend up to 10% of my reserves (£1600) this financial year, and need to do so by the end of July. I was not told how much of that I had already spent.

The key word is 'should'. It doesn't say you must give way, only that you should, very subtle difference. Effectively, you should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross but it's not required but if they have started to cross then you must give way.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The key word is 'should'. It doesn't say you must give way, only that you should, very subtle difference. Effectively, you should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross but it's not required but if they have started to cross then you must give way.

I see. That is a subtlty that had hitherto escaped me. So when you should give way, if instead you pile into them, that's fine. Handy to know.

Incidentally I now understand why Johnston isn't worried about the ministerial code.

"Ministers should be professional in all their dealings and treat all those with whom they come into contact with consideration and respect."

"Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 "

"Ministers should similarly require civil servants who give evidence before Parliamentary Committees on their behalf and under their direction to be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and full information in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of civil servants as set out in the Civil Service Code ;"

"Ministers should not accept any gift or hospitality which might, or might reasonably appear to, compromise their judgement or place them under an improper obligation;"

So how come the fact that what the code now says ministers should do means they don't have to do it isn't being paraded up and down fleet street like Cromwell's head on a pike?

And just for laughs, I include this one:

"Where the Prime Minister determines that a breach of the expected standards has occurred, he may ask the Independent Adviser for confidential advice on the appropriate sanction. The final decision rests with the Prime Minister. "

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

The key word is 'should'. It doesn't say you must give way, only that you should, very subtle difference. Effectively, you should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross but it's not required but if they have started to cross then you must give way.

Meat and drink for a Mr loophole lawyer for the rich.

 

[Audax]

This is the sort of thing that does my head in. If the first sentence is correct the second sentence is redundant. If the second sentence is necessary then the first sentence is incorrect. The first sentence implies that you should give way to pedestrials waiting to cross but unlike those who are crossing they don't have priority. The correct statement should be: ""give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning because they have priority."

That is pretty extreme and reminds me of roads in Vancouver when I lived there in the 80s. I would be walking along a main road and if I happened to aproach a junction and look across the road the traffic would screech to a halt. Not a biggie on their massive quiet roads (they were quiet then) but imagine this on Western Road

I was recently told I had £1600 of a budget allocation that had to be spent by July or I would lose it. So I spent it. Now I'm told I'm £1500 in debt. The information I had not been given was that I could spend up to 10% of my reserves (£1600) this financial year, and need to do so by the end of July. I was not told how much of that I had already spent.

I suspect the authors have tried to recognise the fact that most pedestrians who haven't already started to cross will cede the right of way to the car (regardless of what the Highway Code says). So they've been prescriptive in the case of pedestrians who've already started to cross, but left it a little more open to interpretation in situations where neither pedestrian nor driver have "committed" themselves yet. As a driver, you need to be aware and very confident before starting your turn that the pedestrian has seen you and ceded the right.

I agree it's messy, though!

 

[drew]

I see. That is a subtlty that had hitherto escaped me. So when you should give way, if instead you pile into them, that's fine. Handy to know.

Incidentally I now understand why Johnston isn't worried about the ministerial code.

"Ministers should be professional in all their dealings and treat all those with whom they come into contact with consideration and respect."

"Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 "

"Ministers should similarly require civil servants who give evidence before Parliamentary Committees on their behalf and under their direction to be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and full information in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of civil servants as set out in the Civil Service Code ;"

"Ministers should not accept any gift or hospitality which might, or might reasonably appear to, compromise their judgement or place them under an improper obligation;"

So how come the fact that what the code now says ministers should do means they don't have to do it isn't being paraded up and down fleet street like Cromwell's head on a pike?

And just for laughs, I include this one:

"Where the Prime Minister determines that a breach of the expected standards has occurred, he may ask the Independent Adviser for confidential advice on the appropriate sanction. The final decision rests with the Prime Minister. "

Not quite, you should give way to people waiting to cross but if you don't, you won't plough into them unless you decided to drive on the pavement!!

However, I agree with your sentiments re the ministerial code. Bit like the Pirate Code in Pirates of the Caribbean!!!

 

[LamieRobertson]

….gawd more fekin politics

 

[1066familyman]

A new career?:-

[tweet]1537334952991375360[/tweet]

If they were introduce that here tomorrow and include cars hitched up on the pavement, thus forcing pedestrians to walk into the road to get round them, then that's me sorted for a full time job with a large regular income