RE: 10 Secrets of the Highway Code

[Midgster]

I'm gong to be "that" person that points out that the Highway Code is not law.

The only bits in the highway code that are law are when a rule states MUST or MUST NOT

The old argument of undertaking always brings this subject up. Undertaking itself is not illegal (removed from the Road Traffic Act in 1972), but driving without due care and attention is, which is what you are usually prosecuted for when undertaking, unless you can prove you did take care and it had your full attention.

The Road Traffic Act is what decides what is or isn't law when driving

[boyse7en]

saaby93 said:

two things wrong with this photo

you may not be any safer with a helmet than with out it
the reflective strip is too high and may make you feel safer than you are
Where are the reflective pedals / anklets spoke reflectors?

There are spoke reflectors in the second picture...

[saaby93]

boyse7en said:

saaby93 said:

two things wrong with this photo

you may not be any safer with a helmet than with out it
the reflective strip is too high and may make you feel safer than you are
Where are the reflective pedals / anklets spoke reflectors?

There are spoke reflectors in the second picture...

Doh - so there are - I was looking for round orange things

[dunc_sx]

Fetchez la vache said:

Sidelights are a minor bugbear of mine. Why is it acceptable for people to use them at all when driving unless they are stationary? Half the time they might as well not bother turning any on at all..

Keep in mind that on some vehicles they cannot be turned off - My transit custom for example and probably many others.

[Mr2Mike]

saaby93 said:

two things wrong with this photo

you may not be any safer with a helmet than with out it
the reflective strip is too high and may make you feel safer than you are
Where are the reflective pedals / anklets spoke reflectors?

You might as well add "Car's are not brushing the ends of his handlebars as they pass, so he may be feeling safer than he actually is". No more stupid than the other anti safety propaganda that certain cycling types like to repeat.

The main problem is that he's not wearing lycra so risks being called a nodder or something equally hilarious by 'proper' cyclists.

[Funk]

STiG911 said:

Funk said:

STiG911 said:

That's just the stupidity of people who forget to turn their actual lights on at night. DRLs were almost as stupid an idea as dashboards that light up regardless of whether the external lights are on...

I agree; DRLs should come on front AND REAR which would solve the idiot-with-no-rear-lights-showing problem.

IIRC EU legislation is due to kick in soon that will require DRLs at the rear, too.

About time - it should be made a recall on existing cars which don't do it...

Re. the above on towing - I'm one of the lucky ones who passed in 1996!

[HRCM]

Midgster said:

I'm gong to be "that" person that points out that the Highway Code is not law.

The only bits in the highway code that are law are when a rule states MUST or MUST NOT

The old argument of undertaking always brings this subject up. Undertaking itself is not illegal (removed from the Road Traffic Act in 1972), but driving without due care and attention is, which is what you are usually prosecuted for when undertaking, unless you can prove you did take care and it had your full attention.

The Road Traffic Act is what decides what is or isn't law when driving

My inner geek liked that. Stored for future reference

[Roma101]

On riding on the pavement, I think there are a couple of circumstances where you can, including where the highway is blocked or where it would be dangerous to cycle on the road. Oh, and also where a pavement is a dedicated cycle and pedestrian pavement.

I liked this article, but if you are going to do it, do it with full, proper answers.

[pyetookh]

I commute daily by motorcycle and guarantee you that cars using side lights or no lights are invisible to me in the dark especially when it's raining. Having driving lights on and no tail lights is equally silly. On the other hand don't understand drivers with rear fog light on in London city centre. Even when it's foggy the vehicle behind you is only a few feet distant so you can be sure he knows where you are. Thank you

[STiG911]

Funk said:

About time - it should be made a recall on existing cars which don't do it...

Re. the above on towing - I'm one of the lucky ones who passed in 1996!

When I do get the chance to drive my low, silver car I have my lights on all the time because far too many idiots pull out without looking properly, and I'm not about to give them a SMIDSY excuse.

[8V085]

These pictures are they serving any specific purpose?

I'm asking because



is a personal pet peeve of mine and it wasn't mentioned. Why are most drivers struggling to comprehend that peds who started crossing always have priority over traffic turning into the street they cross. Other civilised countries seem to have no problem getting it. Or is it just a London ting?

[exelero]

"3) Other than for holders of medical exemption certificates, is there any driving scenario in which you're not legally obliged to wear a seatbelt?"

Visibly pregnant women (?), at least according to the Romanian "Highway code"

[tannhauser]

Ray_Aber said:

Flibble said:

Ray_Aber said:

What's wrong with sidelights?

Genuinely curious.

When moving? They are way too dim to be of any use - if you're moving and lights are required you should be using headlights.

I once saw a fellow switch his headlights off on a motorway because we were in a lit section. That seemed particularly foolhardy (and illegal; the rule doesn't apply to motorways).

When it's daytime, I use sidelights. I frequently drive in the country, where there are dark patches of road under tree shade. I don't see why "always on" sidelights are a problem.

The moment it gets dark - whether dark clouds, rain, twilight, Saharan dust storms, underpasses in towns - the dipped lights go on.

Fogs - used in fog, and sometimes on really small back roads, because (a) they light up the verges and (b) my dipped lights are rubbish.

Are you for real? If you need lights to be seen with - especially in the daytime - you need dipped headlights, not your stupid pissing little 5w candle (parking) lights! Don't you get the logic that if ambient light levels are high (i.e. daytime), you need brighter lights?! Ergo, sidelights are more effective (though still useless) at night time, for being seen with.

And you admit to being a fog light wker?! Fog lights only light up about a metre or two in front of your car! You should be looking much further ahead!! They're used primarily for being visible during very low fog; and are only of any practical use to the driver when crawling along in such low level fog - they are not for general navigation of country roads!

Edited by tannhauser on Wednesday 6th December 15:03

[essayer]

8V085 said:

These pictures are they serving any specific purpose?

I'm asking because



is a personal pet peeve of mine and it wasn't mentioned. Why are most drivers struggling to comprehend that peds who started crossing always have priority over traffic turning into the street they cross. Other civilised countries seem to have no problem getting it. Or is it just a London ting?

This winds me up too! I would never do what that woman is doing - only because I don’t want to have a gravestone engraved with, “died defending his right of way”

[saaby93]

8V085 said:

These pictures are they serving any specific purpose?

I'm asking because



is a personal pet peeve of mine and it wasn't mentioned. Why are most drivers struggling to comprehend that peds who started crossing always have priority over traffic turning into the street they cross. Other civilised countries seem to have no problem getting it. Or is it just a London ting?

the tricky thing to get across is that you dont have to give way to pedestrians that havent yet started crossing, mainly because theres an empty turning with nothing to give way to

[eldar]

8Ace said:

I think there's also an exception for ancient cars that weren't fitted with seatbelts. You can't buckle up in an Austin Seven if there's nothing there.

Pre 1965, I think. Unless seatbelts are actually fitted. If there are mountings, but no belts fitted then no requirement to fit or wear.

I think seat belts were an option on some cars until 1965.

[Hungrymc]

saaby93 said:

you may not be any safer with a helmet than with out it

Because they “suddenly stop working at 12kph” or because they make you feel so safe that you and everyone around you becomes even more reckless?

[feef]

Point 9 : Both the ministry for Transport and the police recognise that discretion should be exercised when dealing with incidents of cycling on pavements, as it may be deemed acceptable for "responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

[Ardennes92]

eldar said:

8Ace said:

I think there's also an exception for ancient cars that weren't fitted with seatbelts. You can't buckle up in an Austin Seven if there's nothing there.

Pre 1965, I think. Unless seatbelts are actually fitted. If there are mountings, but no belts fitted then no requirement to fit or wear.

I think seat belts were an option on some cars until 1965.

Think 65 was fitting of anchorage points, 67 was fitting of front belts to cars including those that have anchorage points back to 65. Not sure how it was enforced as I have a 67 built/68 registered and that didn't come with belts originally although it does now

[varsas]

eldar said:

8Ace said:

I think there's also an exception for ancient cars that weren't fitted with seatbelts. You can't buckle up in an Austin Seven if there's nothing there.

Pre 1965, I think. Unless seatbelts are actually fitted. If there are mountings, but no belts fitted then no requirement to fit or wear.

I think seat belts were an option on some cars until 1965.

According to Wikipedia it's actually quite complicated. I must admit I thought all post 1959 cars had to have them but it looks like up until 1972 you could buy cars without, and drive said car presumably today, without seatbelts even in the front!

"In the UK, a requirement for anchorage points was introduced in 1965, followed by the requirement in 1968 to fit three-point belts in the front outboard positions on all new cars and all existing cars back to 1965.[citation needed] Successive UK Governments proposed, but failed to deliver, seat belt legislation throughout the 1970s. Front seat belts were compulsory equipment on all new cars registered in the UK from 1972, although it did not become compulsory for them to be worn until 1983. Rear seat belts were compulsory equipment from 1986 and became compulsory for them to be worn in 1991. However, it has never been a legal requirement for cars registered before those dates to be fitted with seat belts.[7] In one such attempt in 1979 similar claims for potential lives and injuries saved were advanced. William Rodgers, then Secretary of State for Transport in the Callaghan Labour Government (1976–1979), stated: "On the best available evidence of accidents in this country - evidence which has not been seriously contested - compulsion could save up to 1000 lives and 10,000 injuries a year."