For me as a pedestrian and Im sure most would be the same, is that Im waiting at a junction to cross but will only walk when it is clear or when the driver acknowledges its ok for me to cross, otherwise I wont bother. As a driver or cyclist, I will acknowledge Ive seen them and indicate its ok for them to cross. If they arent waiting to cross then I will turn as normal
road rule changes 2022
- Thread starter DanF
- Start date
For me as a pedestrian and Im sure most would be the same, is that Im waiting at a junction to cross but will only walk when it is clear or when the driver acknowledges its ok for me to cross, otherwise I wont bother. As a driver or cyclist, I will acknowledge Ive seen them and indicate its ok for them to cross. If they arent waiting to cross then I will turn as normal
Echoing the same as others have said wrt updated junction rules. I always thought if a pedestrian were crossing the road they had right of way - seems odd that this has only just been updated.
But stopping at every junction if it looks like a pedestrian might cross is ridiculous and will cause gridlock around central areas where you'd typically find lots of pedestrians.
But stopping at every junction if it looks like a pedestrian might cross is ridiculous and will cause gridlock around central areas where you'd typically find lots of pedestrians.
Going to cause absolute chaos on one road I drive a lot - horrifically bad roundabout layout where people from 3 different directions, all of which can flow at once, try to merge into the one lane. though it is a dual-carriageway most people will want lane 1 for onward traffic, just after the point everyone is trying to merge there is a left turn off the dual-carriageway to the district hospital - you often have people who've been forced into the outside lane wanting to take that turn as well just to add to the chaos. Pedestrians cross just into the turn off as well so aren't always readily apparent not to mention everyone's attention divided with the whole merging nightmare - having traffic stopped in or partially into lane 1 to let people cross as a regular thing is going to cause all kinds of fun.
https://goo.gl/maps/Kz4ePUwd7wzCRju1A
The roundabout is one of the worst designed I've seen - not sure how well just how much chaos this bit of layout causes to someone who doesn't drive it regularly though.
https://goo.gl/maps/Kz4ePUwd7wzCRju1A
The roundabout is one of the worst designed I've seen - not sure how well just how much chaos this bit of layout causes to someone who doesn't drive it regularly though.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 319
I asked my colleague this morning. They were mostly single file with a pair side by side near the front.
Yeah , I told him at the time he was being silly, even more so when he said he ws going to try and work out the collective cost of the extra fuel used by all the cars stuck behindThat viewpoint is overloaded with hypocrisy, tell him for me
Not an entirely silly point - if I end up crawling behind cyclists for a good proportion of my journey in the kind of vehicles I'm mostly in it probably offsets a good bit of any potential environmental benefits from them being on a bike vs doing the trip in a car (and I'm not driving vehicles like this just for the fun of it).
Yeovil in general in the last few years has seen a number of road layout changes that are questionable at best. The whole Lysander road out to the 3088 and/or towards Asda is a completely cluster **** of traffic lights, roundabout being replaced with 4 way lights (why?!) and 3 lanes + traffic lights on a roundabout barely big enough for two lanes (by Asda itself).
I actively avoid going that way now if I can help it.
Sadly I work in Yeovil, though I don't live there, so can't avoid it.
That through-about thing at the 3088 actually makes sense once you've driven it a couple of times - but anyone approaching it for the first time must think they are having a stroke...
Whoever came up with these changes to the highway code has definitely not driven from one side of Yeovil to the other LOL and neither apparently has whoever designed the layout.
The through lane thing makes sense (well coming from Lysander road way) it's just the rest that doesn't
Used to live on Abbey Manor so just up from Asda but thankfully moved to Street before all of these changes came in.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 319
I hadn't thought about it in that much detail. I just assumed that a car doing 20mph would use about the same or less fuel than one at 60mph. But if you are having to constantly slow down and accelerate in lower gears then the fuel consumption and emissions would be measurably higher, especially if you were in an HGV for example.
I can imagine the confusion if you could show that a single cyclist on a busy road would have less enviromental impact if they drove a big petrol V8
One of my colleagues lives around there and moans about the roundabout at Asda every possible opportunity heh.
Yeah especially if loaded that frequent slowing down and having to accelerate in lower gears really isn't doing the fuel consumption or emissions any favours.
I can imagine the confusion if you could show that a single cyclist on a busy road would have less enviromental impact if they drove a big petrol V8
Those in lycra on country lanes are not typically replacing a car journey with cycling. The challenge the government has is getting people to move from cars to bikes in towns and cities*. You are not averaging much different from a bike here anyway, certainly I'm not in my car where I live (my car average speed on tanks when I haven't left the city is well below 20mph with low 20mpg's. My cycling average speed is not far from 20.)
*Tbh I think they will have as much a challenge to convince those who cycle for sport as those who haven't ridden a bike since getting their first car.
I really think they've not thought this though properly, and can't believe so many people in the consultation thought it was a good idea.
I think my main concerns are:
- The rule about giving way to pedestrians wishing to cross a road you're turning into or from is massively overpowered. Will create more ambiguity and conflict (ie potential for accidents) in interactions between pedestrians and other road users. While I can see the attraction for quiet residential streets etc, it seems like it's got the potential to cause lots of sudden braking (ie more potential crashes) and poor traffic flow at faster junctions, coming off roundabouts, etc. Also potential to almost bring junctions to a standstill and prevent turning in busy areas, and ruining traffic light sequencing as pedestrians waiting at a crossroads will be able to cross whenever the perpendicular road has the green light.
- Slowing to 10mph "when you see a horse on the road" is just unnecessary and will cause queues for no reason. Overtaking and passing slowly and giving them lots of room makes sense. Slowing down to 10mph whenever you see them does not.
- Cyclists being encouraged to undertake other road users turning left at junctions, or overtake Road users turning right just creates more conflict & danger where there didn't need to be any.
I think my main concerns are:
- The rule about giving way to pedestrians wishing to cross a road you're turning into or from is massively overpowered. Will create more ambiguity and conflict (ie potential for accidents) in interactions between pedestrians and other road users. While I can see the attraction for quiet residential streets etc, it seems like it's got the potential to cause lots of sudden braking (ie more potential crashes) and poor traffic flow at faster junctions, coming off roundabouts, etc. Also potential to almost bring junctions to a standstill and prevent turning in busy areas, and ruining traffic light sequencing as pedestrians waiting at a crossroads will be able to cross whenever the perpendicular road has the green light.
- Slowing to 10mph "when you see a horse on the road" is just unnecessary and will cause queues for no reason. Overtaking and passing slowly and giving them lots of room makes sense. Slowing down to 10mph whenever you see them does not.
- Cyclists being encouraged to undertake other road users turning left at junctions, or overtake Road users turning right just creates more conflict & danger where there didn't need to be any.
Another odd thing about this give way junction rule is that the car turning in must give way to the pedestrian, but if there are cars on the other side of that road turning into the first road, those cars don't have to also give way.
You could therefore have a situation with a steady flow of cars going the other way (and turning into the first road) with the pedestrian not moving because they don't want to be run over by that stream of cars. Meanwhile the original car must remain stationary because it is required to give way to the pedestrian. In theory this could go on forever. Madness!
You could therefore have a situation with a steady flow of cars going the other way (and turning into the first road) with the pedestrian not moving because they don't want to be run over by that stream of cars. Meanwhile the original car must remain stationary because it is required to give way to the pedestrian. In theory this could go on forever. Madness!
Tbf, I think traffic waiting to pass through the junction has to give way to the pedestrian too so this shouldn't happen.
H2 says: "At a junction you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning. ..."
[new thought - at crossroads that situation could happen though, since traffic isn't turning if it's all going straight on. Unsure if roundabouts count as 'turning' or not!]
I think it's just not been explained properly by most of the news articles etc
What it does mean is that green traffic lights for the side road at traffic light controlled T-junctions now mean nothing if a pedestrian is waiting to cross
. Green traffic lights at crossroads and junctions in general mean a little bit more if you're going straight on, but not if you're going left or right (might be wrong? Can't see why though, based on the rule)
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,634
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
For Gods sake do your homework, Road Tax was abolished in 1937, nobody you know has ever paid an imaginary Road Tax.
However back in 2015 Ex Chancellor George Osbourne announced it may be time to go back to a Road Tax where everybody that uses the road pays for it but it hasn't happened yet - https://citymonitor.ai/politics/his...rne-has-just-told-drivers-they-own-roads-1212
TBH in those kind of situations I think there is more potential for pedestrian or cyclist hidden by vehicles waiting emerges suddenly into the path of cars from the other direction who can't see why those vehicles are waiting and/or doesn't realise they are waiting due to the timing involved or may assume someone is giving way to them, etc. (in which case people often move quickly in appreciation and/or attention split thanking the other driver, etc. increasing the chances of a more serious incident).
As mentioned above seems like something which might work in quiet residential streets but in a broader context there are way too many places our infrastructure is poorly laid out for these changes and will bring people into conflict with the potential for increasing the chance of serious incidents even while it might reduce overall incidents.
Which wouldn't surprise me as some of these representative groups, who seem to have had some sway with these changes, these days seem quite militant and actively push measures which will ramp up the conflict for varying reasons - some just enjoy the fight and/or see the other side as "the enemy" and don't care who gets hurt despite protesting against it, some with a misguided sense of "for the greater good" with the notion that you have to break the system to actually fix it, but others with more sinister intent.
What's it called then? Because the Gov website calls it tax https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax
Also, the rule about stopping for pedestrians at junctions isn't even a rule, it's guidance (a "should" rather than a "must") so it's not strictly the law to have to do so.
Nearly all local roads are maintained by the local council, certainly all the ones that you’ll typically find a cyclist. They are paid for from council tax and central government funding from general taxation.
VED raises about £6-7b per year. Not a lot in reality given how much administration goes into it and it just goes into the magic money tree, it’s not ring fenced for anything.
Ah yes, all those cyclists don’t own cars or pay taxes and don’t forget how those mean heavy bikes cause so much damage to the roads
Bicycles emit 0g/km and cost less then £40k so their VED rate will be £0. Feel free to petition the government to create the administrative burden of managing VED on bicycles for the zero rate due.