Highway Code changes Changes are being introduced on January 29

[JezzerB]

Totally agree re helmets Darren. Some cyclists are belting along at 20-30mph with no protection at all. The motorbike cbt/test fills you with horror about how much skin is lost per 10mph in a fall-and as for helmets-we all know they are compulsory on motorbikes/scooters.

 

[Raywood]

This new code seems to be nothing more than a sop to the pedestrian and cycling lobbies and has less common sense than anything I have seen for a long time. The idea of them having right of way is stupidly dangerous and encourages them to try to enforce their theoretical right of way and can only end up with more deaths and injuries than ever. In the real world you just have to accept the reality of the old hierarchy. trying to turn it on its head is just plain stupid.

 

[otherclive]

This new code seems to be nothing more than a sop to the pedestrian and cycling lobbies and has less common sense than anything I have seen for a long time. The idea of them having right of way is stupidly dangerous and encourages them to try to enforce their theoretical right of way and can only end up with more deaths and injuries than ever. In the real world you just have to accept the reality of the old hierarchy. trying to turn it on its head is just plain stupid.

Wonder why it works in several other European countries. Could it be a "mind set" thing.

 

[Jcloughie]

This new code seems to be nothing more than a sop to the pedestrian and cycling lobbies and has less common sense than anything I have seen for a long time. The idea of them having right of way is stupidly dangerous and encourages them to try to enforce their theoretical right of way and can only end up with more deaths and injuries than ever. In the real world you just have to accept the reality of the old hierarchy. trying to turn it on its head is just plain stupid.

You could well be persuaded by the media rhetoric rarther than the true wording. I must admit to being misled in the first instance. Look back at posts from about #32 on. Tobes put me right.

John

 

[Bluetonic]

Abided by the new pedestrian crossing the road on a road I was turning in to. Almost got the back end of my car wiped out and a load of abuse from white van man.
Dangerous new rules IMO

 

[otherclive]

Abided by the new pedestrian crossing the road on a road I was turning in to. Almost got the back end of my car wiped out and a load of abuse from white van man.
Dangerous new rules IMO

Surely if they were crossing the old Highway Code would have required you to give way wouldn’t it?
I have been tooted at times when I allow a pedestrian to continue crossing. But this is because I slow down before the turning with indicators going. So the toots I get are probably in frustration that the following driver has had their progress slightly impeded.

 

[Jcloughie]

Abided by the new pedestrian crossing the road on a road I was turning in to. Almost got the back end of my car wiped out and a load of abuse from white van man.
Dangerous new rules IMO

Or perhaps a dangerous white van man!

I remember once turning into a side street and giving way to a young woman crossing from the right. She had not looked. The white van behind me hit my trailer. The woman completed her crossing looking rather embarrassed. We pulled over and had a look. The other driver was very apologetic. I was able to assure him that my towing board had always looked trashed and it was not his fault.

John

 

[Beachball]

Not a lot of kids wearing a helmet on these scooters either

 

[JezzerB]

No and that is appalling imo-when we were kids our next door but one neighbour fell off his bike , hit his head and died. He was about 16 . It was all very, very sad. Spent lots of time telling children things like this in assembly-it wasn't all doom and gloom I hasten to add, and there was even a scheme to give away free helmets in Notts at one point for those without, when they did their Bikeability (cycling proficiency in our money) course. But you can only lead a horse to water. Needs parents to enforce it too.

 

[Raywood]

Or perhaps a dangerous white van man!

I remember once turning into a side street and giving way to a young woman crossing from the right. She had not looked. The white van behind me hit my trailer. The woman completed her crossing looking rather embarrassed. We pulled over and had a look. The other driver was very apologetic. I was able to assure him that my towing board had always looked trashed and it was not his fault.

John

You are required to drive at a speed that allows you to stop if the vehicle in front does, even if it is an emergency stop. If you fail to stop you are either too close or not paying attention. Either way it is the fault of the driver at the rear.

 

[Jcloughie]

You are required to drive at a speed that allows you to stop if the vehicle in front does, even if it is an emergency stop. If you fail to stop you are either too close or not paying attention. Either way it is the fault of the driver at the rear.

Absolutely, but in the case I quoted the damage was virtually non existent and the following driver had accepted fault. Just not worth pursuing.


John

 

[Dustydog]

On exiting my car I must remember to use the “Dutch “Reach , or was it Rub, Courage, Barn,Cap, or simply Highway Code Double Dutch😜😜😜

 

[woodsieboy]

Now now Dusty, you're not taking this seriously are you, just behave yourself before the Thought Police come looking for you