drew
Drew
Your usual response.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Travel] Changes in the Highway Code from 290122
- Thread starter LamieRobertson
- Start date
Your usual response.
Don’t tell the government, they’ll lock us down!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Brighton Rocker
Active member
Advice not rules
My understanding is that the ‘changes’ to the code are advice NOT rules and attempt to clarify the previous code. Don’t want to encourage the hatred of cyclists and yes some are idiots like some drivers but, in the last couple of weeks a women got community service for killing a cyclist in Hailsham. Also a cyclist was killed on the A22 near Hailsham and another near Pevensey. A tragedy for the cyclists, their families and the drivers involved. Please drive, cycle, ride and walk safely and with respect for others.
My understanding is that the ‘changes’ to the code are advice NOT rules and attempt to clarify the previous code. Don’t want to encourage the hatred of cyclists and yes some are idiots like some drivers but, in the last couple of weeks a women got community service for killing a cyclist in Hailsham. Also a cyclist was killed on the A22 near Hailsham and another near Pevensey. A tragedy for the cyclists, their families and the drivers involved. Please drive, cycle, ride and walk safely and with respect for others.
Deleted member 37369
Well-known member
- Aug 21, 2018
- 1,994
Yep ... I had this when crossing road near Red Lion/Amsterdam roundabout (Shoreham) walking to bus stop for Seagull Travel coach to Spurs game. I actually waiting as I'd seen 2 cars indicating they were coming round. They cleared and so I started to cross. Its a fairly wide bit of road and I was 3/4 way across when another car appeared - coming up from Shoreham and turning right. I carried on swiftly but the car wasn't going to stop and flew past me blasting his horn at me!! Needless to say if he was looking in his rear view mirror he'd have seen what I thought!!
And this was with the new 'rules' !!
One for the YPLAC Twitter account.
GREASED WEASEL
New member
- Dec 10, 2017
- 2,893
In France the car is still king,you literally take your life into your own hands when venturing out onto the road
Even zebra crossings, the French wouldn't dream of putting a speculative toe out unless it was absolutely clear
Being British, it's a tough habit to get out of,I regularly stop for pedestrians, but I've had the blast of the horn from behind a few times,wondering what the hell I'm doing
This new rule must be music to the ears of the whiplash brigade
Even zebra crossings, the French wouldn't dream of putting a speculative toe out unless it was absolutely clear
Being British, it's a tough habit to get out of,I regularly stop for pedestrians, but I've had the blast of the horn from behind a few times,wondering what the hell I'm doing
This new rule must be music to the ears of the whiplash brigade
What number would it have to be before you decide the deaths caused by motor vehicles is worthy of yours and everybody else's attention?
drew
Drew
Firstly, motor vehicles dont kill anyone, bad drivers do. Secondly, where did I say anyones death isn't worthy of my attention? I'm just pointing out that in my view the changes are poorly thought out.
Also as a cyclist, how do you feel about having to stop to give way to pedestrians waiting to cross a road your turning into?
1066familyman
Radio User
- Jan 15, 2008
- 15,185
Two things I'm struggling with there unfortunately.
Twitter and YPLAC.
I've absolutely no idea about either.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say. You are emphasising it being rules not advice, then you mention a woman who killed a cyclist and got community service for it with the proviso of 'don't want to encourage hatred of cyclists'. Making it seem like the dead cyclist is at fault for her getting community service (with an apparent implication that they were doing smething they were advised to do, but that it wasn't the rule so they shouldn't have?). Then follow it up with two more cyclist deaths. But then end with the quite sensible points of everyone being affected, and calling for everyone to be safe and respect others.
I'm sure that's not what you intended, it's just how it reads so I thought I'd point it out to allow clarification.
Took me a while, but I'm pretty YPLAC is a twitter account that has name that explains the content it posts and I'm pretty sure it's
You
Park
Like
A
Coco the clown impersonator.
*Might be wrong on one of them.
Parking on pavements? Is that all they're for? These drivers see them as a bigger opportunity...
https://twitter.com/BBCSpotlight/status/1492177875272933378
GT49er
Well-known member
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
- Thread starter
- #35
dsr-burnley
Well-known member
- Aug 15, 2014
- 2,194
The shadow of the wing mirror is pretty close to the shadow of the cyclist. In those circumstances, you'd be mad not to take the driver course opportunity.
Badger Boy
Mr Badger
- Jan 28, 2016
- 3,656
He's clearly in the wrong. I can accept him refusing liability if there were no footage, one man's word against another. But when the video is so clear, you should apologise and take the slap on the wrist. He's unhappy with the fine and the costs, but he's brought those on himself through his refusal to see reality. He should try being passed so closely whilst riding a bike. The cyclist couldn't have been further in the gutter of the road, by the way, so let's not hear they should have been further over.
Mr Humphreys refused to accept any wrong doing and said he left enough room
If the next cyclist finds himself under the wheels of the massive Audi A8 will be to blame as well.
If the next cyclist finds himself under the wheels of the massive Audi A8 will be to blame as well.
Besides which, there's no requirement for the cyclist to move over. They're allowed to use any part of the lane, same as any other road user.
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.
Last edited: