New Highway Code rules and other drivers
Discussion
Sometimes it seems hard to do the right thing.
Theres a busy dual use foot/cycle path which runs along the side of a 40mph road locally with various supermarket entries. I always try to give them precedence, as it’s the right thing to do. Today I was turning in to the supermarket and not less than 4 cars just breezed out whilst I was stopped for 2 young lads on bikes.
Surely if a car was stopped halfway in you’d kind of get the hint, or can people just not be bothered?
Theres a busy dual use foot/cycle path which runs along the side of a 40mph road locally with various supermarket entries. I always try to give them precedence, as it’s the right thing to do. Today I was turning in to the supermarket and not less than 4 cars just breezed out whilst I was stopped for 2 young lads on bikes.
Surely if a car was stopped halfway in you’d kind of get the hint, or can people just not be bothered?
I just checked - these 'new' rules have been in force for over four years now!
It certainly seems like many drivers are either totally oblivious of them, or they just don't care. I wonder how many collisions have been caused by ignorant drivers rear-ending others who are actually observing the rules?
It certainly seems like many drivers are either totally oblivious of them, or they just don't care. I wonder how many collisions have been caused by ignorant drivers rear-ending others who are actually observing the rules?
The “give way to pedestrians when turning into side roads” rule? Because in the real world almost nobody actually follows it. It was flawed from the moment it was conceived, pushed through largely to satisfy a particular lobby group rather than because it reflected how traffic actually works. Predictably, when you introduce rules that feel disconnected from reality, people just ignore them.
You can see the same thing happening with blanket 20 mph limits. When rules feel arbitrary or over-engineered, compliance drops off because drivers don’t see them as sensible or necessary. The end result is a Highway Code that becomes less about practical guidance and more about box-ticking for campaign groups.
You can see the same thing happening with blanket 20 mph limits. When rules feel arbitrary or over-engineered, compliance drops off because drivers don’t see them as sensible or necessary. The end result is a Highway Code that becomes less about practical guidance and more about box-ticking for campaign groups.
Tarby said:
The give way to pedestrians when turning into side roads rule? Because in the real world almost nobody actually follows it. It was flawed from the moment it was conceived, pushed through largely to satisfy a particular lobby group rather than because it reflected how traffic actually works. Predictably, when you introduce rules that feel disconnected from reality, people just ignore them.
You can see the same thing happening with blanket 20 mph limits. When rules feel arbitrary or over-engineered, compliance drops off because drivers don t see them as sensible or necessary. The end result is a Highway Code that becomes less about practical guidance and more about box-ticking for campaign groups.
Yet its been accepted practice is Europe for 10s of years. You can see the same thing happening with blanket 20 mph limits. When rules feel arbitrary or over-engineered, compliance drops off because drivers don t see them as sensible or necessary. The end result is a Highway Code that becomes less about practical guidance and more about box-ticking for campaign groups.
Clearly flawed Sir
Tarby said:
The give way to pedestrians when turning into side roads rule? Because in the real world almost nobody actually follows it. It was flawed from the moment it was conceived, pushed through largely to satisfy a particular lobby group rather than because it reflected how traffic actually works. Predictably, when you introduce rules that feel disconnected from reality, people just ignore them.
You can see the same thing happening with blanket 20 mph limits. When rules feel arbitrary or over-engineered, compliance drops off because drivers don t see them as sensible or necessary. The end result is a Highway Code that becomes less about practical guidance and more about box-ticking for campaign groups.
I have tried crossing a side road when I have seen a car turning off to see if they would stop, as per the "new" rules. Without fail, they don't. If you are lucky you will get a beep and mouthed abuse, normally they don't even see you and you have to jump back on the path.You can see the same thing happening with blanket 20 mph limits. When rules feel arbitrary or over-engineered, compliance drops off because drivers don t see them as sensible or necessary. The end result is a Highway Code that becomes less about practical guidance and more about box-ticking for campaign groups.
Red9zero said:
I have tried crossing a side road when I have seen a car turning off to see if they would stop, as per the "new" rules. Without fail, they don't. If you are lucky you will get a beep and mouthed abuse, normally they don't even see you and you have to jump back on the path.
They do give way to pedestrians around here in North Wales, in fact they did it before the 'new' (four year old) rules. Last week I found it is poorly observed in Nottingham. I was on the M5 Southbound at about midday on Wednesday and they had put a notice on the gantry saying “Cyclist reported” and lowered the speed to 50. I passed Junction 2 heading towards 3 and there was an unmarked BMW estate and a Peugeot Police car on the hard shoulder and I thought great they’ve caught the cyclist. The overhead gantry then said “ End” and that NSL was back in place. I then passed a Highways Agency Volvo that was cruising along at about 50 mph about 300 metres further along. About another 300 metres ahead ……I passed an Indian/Asian Deliveroo rider on one of their electric assisted bicycles complete with food bag and liveried high vis merrily cycling along the hard shoulder of the M5 at about 20 mph.
The point I’m making is that if the Police were less inept and pulled over all the dodgy number plates and middle lane hoggers maybe the standard of driving would improve.
The point I’m making is that if the Police were less inept and pulled over all the dodgy number plates and middle lane hoggers maybe the standard of driving would improve.
TheDrownedApe said:
Yet its been accepted practice is Europe for 10s of years.
Clearly flawed Sir
“Accepted practice in Europe” isn’t really the killer argument you seem to think it is. The UK isn’t Europe, and our roads, traffic density, and driving culture are different in plenty of ways.Clearly flawed Sir
More importantly, something existing somewhere else for years doesn’t automatically make it sensible or appropriate here. Plenty of European road policies simply wouldn’t work well on the UK’s far more congested, tighter road network, particularly in older towns and cities.
The real test of a rule is whether it works in practice and whether people actually follow it. If a rule is widely ignored because it doesn’t reflect how traffic realistically flows, then pointing out that it’s been done in parts of Europe for decades doesn’t really prove much.
Interesting one. It’s a complete disaster at the moment as you’ve got half drivers not believing it’s a thing, and half of pedestrians believing it is a thing walking out in front of the half of drivers who don’t believe it’s a thing.
On this particular road I’m a little bit pushy of it when I’m on my bike and yes, its abuse or avoidance.
We don’t have a Waitrose 😭
On this particular road I’m a little bit pushy of it when I’m on my bike and yes, its abuse or avoidance.
We don’t have a Waitrose 😭
Tarby said:
The give way to pedestrians when turning into side roads rule? Because in the real world almost nobody actually follows it. It was flawed from the moment it was conceived, pushed through largely to satisfy a particular lobby group rather than because it reflected how traffic actually works. Predictably, when you introduce rules that feel disconnected from reality, people just ignore them.
You can see the same thing happening with blanket 20 mph limits. When rules feel arbitrary or over-engineered, compliance drops off because drivers don t see them as sensible or necessary. The end result is a Highway Code that becomes less about practical guidance and more about box-ticking for campaign groups.
It’s a mess. I’ve had a couple of occasions where, adhering to the rule, the pedestrians looked at me as if I’d lost my mind. And you run the risk of being seenYou can see the same thing happening with blanket 20 mph limits. When rules feel arbitrary or over-engineered, compliance drops off because drivers don t see them as sensible or necessary. The end result is a Highway Code that becomes less about practical guidance and more about box-ticking for campaign groups.
beckoning people indirectly into the road (yes, I know you’re not meant to actively direct people to move), risking a driver traveling in the other direction coming into contact with them.
At a minimum, it needs a much greater awareness campaign.
TheDrownedApe said:
Tarby said:
The give way to pedestrians when turning into side roads rule? Because in the real world almost nobody actually follows it. It was flawed from the moment it was conceived, pushed through largely to satisfy a particular lobby group rather than because it reflected how traffic actually works. Predictably, when you introduce rules that feel disconnected from reality, people just ignore them.
You can see the same thing happening with blanket 20 mph limits. When rules feel arbitrary or over-engineered, compliance drops off because drivers don t see them as sensible or necessary. The end result is a Highway Code that becomes less about practical guidance and more about box-ticking for campaign groups.
Yet its been accepted practice is Europe for 10s of years. You can see the same thing happening with blanket 20 mph limits. When rules feel arbitrary or over-engineered, compliance drops off because drivers don t see them as sensible or necessary. The end result is a Highway Code that becomes less about practical guidance and more about box-ticking for campaign groups.
Clearly flawed Sir
The only problem I have with 'new' rules is the idea of encouraging pedestrians to cross at roundabout exits. This works in urban areas with 20 or 30mph speed limits, just about, but is suicidal on multi lane junctions where traffic is faster and drivers are negotiating lane changes as they leave the roundabout.
carreauchompeur said:
Interesting one. It s a complete disaster at the moment as you ve got half drivers not believing it s a thing, and half of pedestrians believing it is a thing walking out in front of the half of drivers who don t believe it s a thing.
On this particular road I m a little bit pushy of it when I m on my bike and yes, its abuse or avoidance.
We don t have a Waitrose ?
Don't forget the rising numbers of people who seem to walk everywhere on autopilot looking down into a phone. That, imo, is absolutely wild.On this particular road I m a little bit pushy of it when I m on my bike and yes, its abuse or avoidance.
We don t have a Waitrose ?
mac96 said:
Flawed or not the idea is not new in the UK either. My driving instructor banged into me that when turning you had to watch out for and give way to pedestrians crossing the road you were turning into. That was in 1975.
The only problem I have with 'new' rules is the idea of encouraging pedestrians to cross at roundabout exits. This works in urban areas with 20 or 30mph speed limits, just about, but is suicidal on multi lane junctions where traffic is faster and drivers are negotiating lane changes as they leave the roundabout.
Yes - the ‘new’ rules aren’t really very new at all. Any vehicle turning and hitting a crossing pedestrian would have been in the wrong long before the rules were clarified a bit. It makes complete sense that traffic changing direction gives way to traffic (pedestrian or otherwise) that is maintaining course.The only problem I have with 'new' rules is the idea of encouraging pedestrians to cross at roundabout exits. This works in urban areas with 20 or 30mph speed limits, just about, but is suicidal on multi lane junctions where traffic is faster and drivers are negotiating lane changes as they leave the roundabout.
I think all roundabouts should have rudimentary zebra crossings painted at entries and exits, to make it clear what is expected. This would also help with the problem of excessive speed at roundabouts, which, along with volume of traffic, means that some no longer function as originally intended.
mac96 said:
Flawed or not the idea is not new in the UK either. My driving instructor banged into me that when turning you had to watch out for and give way to pedestrians crossing the road you were turning into. That was in 1975.
The only problem I have with 'new' rules is the idea of encouraging pedestrians to cross at roundabout exits. This works in urban areas with 20 or 30mph speed limits, just about, but is suicidal on multi lane junctions where traffic is faster and drivers are negotiating lane changes as they leave the roundabout.
Watching out for pedestrians when turning into a road has always been common sense, and good instructors have been telling people that for decades. That’s not really the point.The only problem I have with 'new' rules is the idea of encouraging pedestrians to cross at roundabout exits. This works in urban areas with 20 or 30mph speed limits, just about, but is suicidal on multi lane junctions where traffic is faster and drivers are negotiating lane changes as they leave the roundabout.
The issue is that the Highway Code change effectively tries to formalise pedestrian priority in a way that assumes drivers can always see and react to someone who might step out while they’re already committed to the turn. In theory it sounds neat, but in practice it creates ambiguity and hesitation, particularly in busy urban traffic where visibility is often poor.
So yes, being aware of pedestrians when turning has always been part of good driving. Turning it into a blanket “priority” rule is a different thing entirely, and that’s where people think it becomes flawed in the real world.
Agree with 2nd point.
Foss62 said:
Yes - the new rules aren t really very new at all. Any vehicle turning and hitting a crossing pedestrian would have been in the wrong long before the rules were clarified a bit. It makes complete sense that traffic changing direction gives way to traffic (pedestrian or otherwise) that is maintaining course.
I think all roundabouts should have rudimentary zebra crossings painted at entries and exits, to make it clear what is expected. This would also help with the problem of excessive speed at roundabouts, which, along with volume of traffic, means that some no longer function as originally intended.
I don’t think it’s quite that simple.I think all roundabouts should have rudimentary zebra crossings painted at entries and exits, to make it clear what is expected. This would also help with the problem of excessive speed at roundabouts, which, along with volume of traffic, means that some no longer function as originally intended.
Historically the position was pretty clear: drivers had to take care and avoid hitting pedestrians, but pedestrians didn’t automatically have priority just because a car was turning. The recent Highway Code changes shift things toward giving priority to pedestrians who are waiting to cross, which is a different concept and introduces a lot more ambiguity at already busy junctions.
The idea that “traffic changing direction gives way to traffic maintaining course” sounds neat in theory, but roads don’t work like a tidy diagram. When you’re turning at a typical junction you’re already dealing with oncoming traffic, cyclists, parked cars, poor sightlines and the car behind expecting you to keep moving. Adding an expectation that you must also stop for someone who might be waiting to cross the side road just complicates things further.
As for putting zebra-style crossings on every roundabout entry and exit, that would likely make roundabouts function worse rather than better. The whole point of a roundabout is to keep traffic flowing. If every exit becomes a potential stopping point for pedestrians, you’re effectively turning the roundabout into a series of mini stop lines, which will just back traffic up and increase congestion.
Roundabouts work because they maintain movement. Filling them with crossings and extra priority rules risks undermining the very thing they were designed to do.
Tarby said:
The give way to pedestrians when turning into side roads rule? Because in the real world almost nobody actually follows it. It was flawed from the moment it was conceived, pushed through largely to satisfy a particular lobby group rather than because it reflected how traffic actually works. Predictably, when you introduce rules that feel disconnected from reality, people just ignore them.
You can see the same thing happening with blanket 20 mph limits. When rules feel arbitrary or over-engineered, compliance drops off because drivers don t see them as sensible or necessary. The end result is a Highway Code that becomes less about practical guidance and more about box-ticking for campaign groups.
It's because giving way to pedestrians is "should" in the highway code, rather than "must" like this oneYou can see the same thing happening with blanket 20 mph limits. When rules feel arbitrary or over-engineered, compliance drops off because drivers don t see them as sensible or necessary. The end result is a Highway Code that becomes less about practical guidance and more about box-ticking for campaign groups.
"you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing"
raspy said:
It's because giving way to pedestrians is "should" in the highway code, rather than "must" like this one
"you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing"
That distinction actually proves the problem rather than solving it."you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing"
“Must” rules in the Highway Code are tied to specific legislation and are legally enforceable. Everyone understands them because they’re clear and binary — for example, if someone is on a zebra crossing you must give way. There’s no ambiguity.
“Should” rules are guidance. They aren’t legally binding and they rely on judgement in real-world conditions. That’s exactly why the new junction guidance hasn’t translated well into actual behaviour on the road. Expecting drivers to stop because someone might be waiting to cross a side road isn’t the same as a clearly marked crossing where a pedestrian has already stepped onto it.
In other words, the Code has introduced a situation where pedestrians are told they have priority, but drivers are only advised that they should give way. That mismatch is precisely why the rule is confusing and inconsistently followed.
So pointing out the “must vs should” wording doesn’t really defend the rule — it highlights why the whole thing is muddled. If something genuinely needs universal compliance, it needs to be clear, enforceable and obvious in practice, not based on soft guidance that conflicts with how junctions actually operate.
Message Board | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff