New highway code rule.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Anthony Kendall on 26/01/2022 09:15:09:

Mmm! So it's all down to common sense and courtiousness, according to The Guardian.

Have to say I'm not seeing so much of it really – particularly on the roads.

Depends where you drive. Out in the country, behaviour on lightly loaded main and side roads is pretty civilised. Country lanes are dodgy because a few drivers travel too fast, presumably not realising pedestrians, horses, cyclists, cattle, and agricultural machinery might be on the road. Or their twin is coming the other way!

In busy towns when roads are very heavily loaded, people generally behave well. The dangerous point is when traffic is busy, but not quite clogged. It's the point at which motorists who don't make progress get caught at traffic lights, junctions, road-works, and crossings etc. The likelihood of getting caught encourages cut-throat selfish behaviour – not giving way. Unfortunately many British roads are nearly overloaded most of the time – too many cars on not enough road.

Towns and cities often have local characteristics. In my youth, driving in Bristol was remarkably brutal – worse than London. Back then, Bristol city centre featured traffic merging into a single-lane fly-over, chicanes, and two A-roads crossing in a flat X, with no lights or either road having priority. The system worked by terrifying drivers into good behaviour, but I'm sure everyone drove in a bad temper around the rest of Bristol because they were all sky-high on adrenaline.

Anyone else have a list of worst drivers? Top of my list are people who consider themselves entitled: Taxis, Caravans, Boy Racers. SUVs, Couriers, White Van Man, and certain cyclists and motor cyclists. I'm more tolerant of learners, lost, bemused, elderly and other temporarily confused motorists. Lorry and bus drivers are pretty good in my experience, except buses like to stop, and trucks like to keep going!

Dave

[Mike PooleParticipant @mikepoole82104]

My eldest son lives in Bristol and has done since he went to university there, they keep moving the goalposts so as soon as you think you know where you are going they change it round. It may not be a problem for much longer as my diesel cars are probably going to be banned so may have to bus or train to visit. I collected a parking ticket once when moving son and girlfriend to new digs, the traffic warden was most apologetic as he had given us as much time as he could and had just written the ticket when we returned, he advised us to appeal and the council cancelled the ticket. My fault really for developing a removal man’s thirst and grabbing a quick cuppa instead of parking the car properly. The motorbike killers used to be Volvo drivers, they seemed utterly oblivious to motorcycles and they rarely disappointed when pulling out of side roads to test your brakes, BMW and Audi drivers now seem to want the top spot for bike killers now. I have joined the BMW drivers now and I hope I still drive courteously and considerately, the car has not changed me I hope.

Mike

[Nigel McBurney 1Participant @nigelmcburney1]

Cycles,mobility scooters etc ,should have a registration plate and their riders,/drivers have third party insurance and all pay road tax. plus an audible means of warning ie a bell,modern cycles can be ridden at high speeds and are inaudible to the average pedestrian . This latest highway code must have been written by some government office loony who walks everywhere. I live on a country lane minimum or no verges,last year I saw a horse rider leading another horse on a rein held in her left hand for exercise ,and using a mobile phone at the same time in her other hand,with no real control of her own horse,just idiotic. And last night there was a bit on TV news suggesting that if the new driverless cars are involved in an accident ,the manufacturer of the guidence system would be liable rather than moron supposedly in charge of the car.

[Mark RandParticipant @markrand96270]

There seems to be a lot of 'all vehicle classes are wrong except the one I use' in some of the recent comments.

In other news:- When I lived in Devon with a lot of single track, twisty roads that had gates or passing places every 1/4 mile or so, reversing was something that happened as a matter of course when meeting oncoming vehicles. Living in a town, it seems almost impossible for many drivers to reverse 10 yards to let someone past let alone a few hiundred…

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Nigel McBurney 1 on 26/01/2022 15:21:04:

…

This latest highway code must have been written by some government office loony who walks everywhere.

…

And last night there was a bit on TV news suggesting that if the new driverless cars are involved in an accident ,the manufacturer of the guidence system would be liable rather than moron supposedly in charge of the car.

I'm surprised a few changes to the Highway Code are causing so much excitement.

And even if the new rules are raving mad, why did no-one on the forum respond to the Government's 'Call For Evidence', when it was issued in March 2018? Sleeping on the job? Or it easier to wait for the yellow press to get us in a froth than it is to engage in a boring consultation process?

Not sure it makes much difference who is liable for accidents involving driverless cars. All that's needed is for the vehicle and maybe the manufacturer to be insured. Not dissimilar from the existing system, where the driver is insured rather than the vehicle.

In the UK's record insurance payout, a woman crippled for life received a £7.5M lump sum, plus £230,000 per year for life from the insurer. Total cost of the accident expected to be about £23M. The driver who caused the accident received a 6 month jail sentence suspended for 1 year, was banned for 18 months, and ordered to do 300 hours community service. Though liable, his legal punishment for causing a record breaking accident isn't severe : punishments rarely are. Had the accident been caused by a driverless car, the driver would have been innocent and the victim would have got similar compensation.

If driverless cars become common it will be interesting to see how the cost of insuring them compares with insuring human drivers. As most accidents are caused by drivers rather than mechanical failures, I predict human premiums will become relatively expensive. Insurers prefer low risk clients, and people are unreliable compared with machines. Computers don't get ill, drunk, angry, tired, over optimistic, race other cars, or make mobile phone calls.

Dave

[Ex contributorParticipant @mgnbuk]

Computers don't get ill, drunk, angry, tired, over optimistic, race other cars, or make mobile phone calls.

Indeed.

But computers rely upon software to operate & I'm sure we have all had experience of how infallible that can be !

Nigel B.

[VicParticipant @vic]

We will have to wait and see but the last time I looked at an article on the subject they claimed it would reduce accidents by 95%. No surprise really when you see the state of some driving on UK roads. I suspect the ultimate goal is or will be to take private transport out of public hands completely. Having a cheap reliable on demand service will certainly not appeal to most motorists now but for those that can’t drive or afford to buy a car it will be a godsend. I never forget waiting nearly an hour in the freezing weather for a bus that was supposed to be every 14 minutes.

[Anonymous]

Posted by Vic on 26/01/2022 21:15:20:

I suspect the ultimate goal is or will be to take private transport out of public hands completely.

At which point the original objective will become lost and it will simply become another method of taxation.

[John HaineParticipant @johnhaine32865]

**LINK**

[Mike PooleParticipant @mikepoole82104]

Well that is a sensible balanced analysis of the changes. If cyclists and motorists use common courtesy and common sense there should be no problems. I got stitched up by a couple of cyclists once, driving on a B road with good visibility of two cyclists I decided to pass them without slowing too much, there was a small turning to the right which I had not allowed for the cyclists turning in to, one cyclist put his arm out and moved to the middle of the road, the other decided to stay on the left, the road is now completely blocked and I had to brake rather hard, I have to admit that I seriously misjudged that scenario but I feel the cyclist who moved to the middle did not note the speed with which I was approaching and contributed to the creation of a near miss. I fully accept that I should have read the situation better and slowed long before it became an emergency. It raised my heart rate but if I was one of the cyclists I would have needed a change of underwear. I traveled that road daily so I was totally familiar with the turning which has little use as it only goes to 4 houses but the cyclists manœvre was put your arm out and simultaneously move to the middle of the road, had I been the cyclist I would have indicated my intention to turn well before moving to the centre of the road which gives the motorist a bit more of a chance to respond to the situation. I feel it taught me a lesson but I wonder if the cyclist took anything from the event.

Mike

[Paul MParticipant @paulm98238]

An interesting and possible cause for concern regarding the new advice when turning into a side road. Motorists should allow pedestrians to cross at a junction where the motorist is turning into a side road. So if the motorist can see a pedestrian waiting to cross they should let them cross. My friend is partially sited and has a guide dog. The guide dog is trained NOT to lead the person across the road until it cannot see any traffic. So a car may be waiting for the person to cross and the guide dog will be waiting for the car to drive past.

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

The BlackBeltBarrister explains.

Edited By blowlamp on 05/02/2022 13:06:21

Edited By blowlamp on 05/02/2022 13:07:01

[Mark RandParticipant @markrand96270]

Guidance from the guide dogs association has now changed for people and dogs in that situation, to whit:- it you are happy crossing, then tell the dog and proceed. If you are not happy, then deliberately wave the car on. That's good as all three parties involved are clear about what's happening.

PS:- guide dog brood bitch Bailey is here in the front room as I write, having produced five out of an expected eight puppies. It's been a long night!

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by blowlamp on 05/02/2022 13:05:29:

The BlackBeltBarrister explains.

…

Utter rubbish!

I think if he read it, BBB would find Guide Dogs don't understand any of the Highway Code!

In any road situation were drivers encounter an unusual situation, like a dog waiting for him while he waits for the dog, it's always has been the drivers responsibility to sort it out. Usually done by moving slowly and taking care of what others are doing until the problem is resolved. A driver might choose to get out of the way by manoeuvring around the pedestrian; he might wind down the window and talk to them; or he could put the hazard flashers on, get out, and escort the blind person safely over the junction. It's a short confusion on the road with low risk of contact, not a legal minefield, bureaucratic blunder, or carnage unleashed.

Second, BBB assumes the Highway Code has to cover all situations, which it can't and doesn't. For example, the action guide dogs should take at railway level crossings. If the dog can see or hear a train coming it's unlikely to get run over. But there's an obvious loophole where the line appears quiet after a train has passed, but another is approaching at high-speed. As the dog is trained to wait for cars, not locomotives it might get it wrong! Likewise, a pooch might walk it's blind owner across a quiet motorway, which the dog doesn't know is illegal, or that a car a mile away travelling at 100mph will be here in 36 seconds.

Whist there are a multitude of situations that can and do go bad on the roads, it's not total mayhem out there. About 350 billion road miles per year in 2019 resulted in 1870 deaths in a total of 157,630 injuries of all severities. COVID is far more likely to kill you! I don't think this particular change to the Highway Code will make much difference – Wikipedia says there are only 4800 Guide Dogs in the UK, and most motorists avoid colliding with them.

Unfortunately people prefer bunk to boring reality. Even going so far as to pay good money for it!

Dave

[Mark RandParticipant @markrand96270]

In another niggle 'causing following drivers to rear-end them if they are stopped' The law has been quite clear on that since adam rode his bike…

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 05/02/2022 15:05:50:

Posted by blowlamp on 05/02/2022 13:05:29:

The BlackBeltBarrister explains.

…

Utter rubbish!

I think if he read it, BBB would find Guide Dogs don't understand any of the Highway Code!

In any road situation were drivers encounter an unusual situation, like a dog waiting for him while he waits for the dog, it's always has been the drivers responsibility to sort it out. Usually done by moving slowly and taking care of what others are doing until the problem is resolved. A driver might choose to get out of the way by manoeuvring around the pedestrian; he might wind down the window and talk to them; or he could put the hazard flashers on, get out, and escort the blind person safely over the junction. It's a short confusion on the road with low risk of contact, not a legal minefield, bureaucratic blunder, or carnage unleashed.

Second, BBB assumes the Highway Code has to cover all situations, which it can't and doesn't. For example, the action guide dogs should take at railway level crossings. If the dog can see or hear a train coming it's unlikely to get run over. But there's an obvious loophole where the line appears quiet after a train has passed, but another is approaching at high-speed. As the dog is trained to wait for cars, not locomotives it might get it wrong! Likewise, a pooch might walk it's blind owner across a quiet motorway, which the dog doesn't know is illegal, or that a car a mile away travelling at 100mph will be here in 36 seconds.

Whist there are a multitude of situations that can and do go bad on the roads, it's not total mayhem out there. About 350 billion road miles per year in 2019 resulted in 1870 deaths in a total of 157,630 injuries of all severities. COVID is far more likely to kill you! I don't think this particular change to the Highway Code will make much difference – Wikipedia says there are only 4800 Guide Dogs in the UK, and most motorists avoid colliding with them.

Unfortunately people prefer bunk to boring reality. Even going so far as to pay good money for it!

Dave

I'll remind him he should stick to what he knows about.

Martin.

[mark costello 1Participant @markcostello1]

What is "happy crossing?"

[SteviegtrParticipant @steviegtr]

So on a sombre note to all this. My mate thought he would try out these new rules. He walked in front of a steam roller.

Anyone who knows him can visit him in the local hospital. He can be found in wards 8- 9 & 10.

Steve.

Sorry coat & hat on.

[Colin WhittakerParticipant @colinwhittaker20544]

Somebody commented on the liability of autonomous vehicles which reminded me of something that has puzzled me for a while.

Does a driverless car have to be 100% safe (whatever that means)? Or should we be happy if it is just 10% (or better) safer than the average road user?

Is there any chance of us being rational about this?

[pgk pgkParticipant @pgkpgk17461]

Posted by Colin Whittaker on 06/02/2022 00:52:25:

Somebody commented on the liability of autonomous vehicles which reminded me of something that has puzzled me for a while.

Does a driverless car have to be 100% safe (whatever that means)? Or should we be happy if it is just 10% (or better) safer than the average road user?

Is there any chance of us being rational about this?

A prerequisite has to be that it's better than a human driver but the trolley problem means there is no 100%
Trolley problem

Ethical dilemmas abound: does the car crash into a bus queue or hit a stone wall and kill it’s fewer occupants – even if one is a baby?

Asimov's three laws of robotics avoided such dilemmas

pgk

[Bill PhinnParticipant @billphinn90025]

The trolley problem isn't the only thing limiting the safety of autonomous vehicles; there is also the reduced capacity of autonomous vehicles to read the intentions of and take cues from human road users [something human road users do a lot more than they're probably aware of] as well as the pronounced inability of autonomous vehicles to make what to us are very easy distinctions, but to them almost impossibly difficult.

An example of this is the autonomous car that was following a truck transporting directional road signs and visibly obeyed the road signs in the back of the truck when all other road users were safely and logically ignoring them.

Autonomous vehicles will only be viable en masse, I think, when they are allowed to share the roads with nothing other than fellow autonomous vehicles, i.e. when human drivers have been removed from parts of the road system only autonomous vehicles are allowed to use.

This will almost certainly be piloted first in China, where the legislation required to close off a city or part of one to human-driven vehicles can be obtained and enforced literally overnight without the need for niceties like parliamentary debate or public consultation.

The question for us is whether local authorities in the UK, in their haste not to be left behind by the Chinese, will end up forcing human drivers off the roads with the same sort of draconian measures that have been foisted upon us over the last few years to create so-called Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.

[pgk pgkParticipant @pgkpgk17461]

The original simple concept was to interpret still images by presenting so-called AI with multiple copies of such and it learning their meaning. That is where such issues as bicycles strapped to backs of cars or road signs loaded on lorries immediately cause confusion. Even with multiple copies there are all the variants – signs partially obscured by hedges, faded signs, trick paper signs made by locals and signs that have a legend signifying their hours of operation. A lot of that can be resolved by a much wider range of copies presented to the AI and adding text interpretation and finally using multiple stacked images related to surroundings to know if a sign is stationary or moving. However, apart from the issue of data collection is the need for way faster and larger on-board computers to handle the approach with the weight and power needs. There are moves in all those directions but when finally figured out it still needs redundant cameras and cleaning systems and systems to cope with low sun, mud splatter etc.
But cameras do have some advantages. I had a close call recently at night on a single track country lane on a long downhill section where I thought I could see something like a plastic bag in the road way ahead. As I got closer it became obvious it was a dirty sheep fast asleep in the middle – hit the brakes but with loose dried debris on the surface I just slid despite traction control and ABS but did manage to swerve enough to make a compromise between sheep,verge and hedge and just brushed sheep's wool with the front wing – no damage to it or car. Looking back on the dashcam footage did demonstrate how much better a camera switched to low light conditions can 'see' compared to a human – even if the car didn't react with AEB.

pgk

[Peter VennParticipant @petervenn53369]

Its just typical nanny state rubbish.

To start with if the girl in the picture on the link had used her other hand and been turning round to look over her shoulder as they advocate she would definitely have missed the cyclist coming towards her from the front! Maybe they think people approach from the back more than the front! 😂😂😂

[Mike PooleParticipant @mikepoole82104]

When we no longer have to drive cars ourselves the signage on roads could be dispensed with as it could all be in the database for the navigation system. I sometimes wonder why every junction is different from all others, every aspect of a junction could be fairly rigidly defined and standardised. I know terrain is a factor but we do have the technology to move that around, obviously the roads in more ancient settlements are a difficult area as the modern vehicle requirements are rather different from the pedestrian and horse traffic that defined the original layout. It will be fascinating to see how things develop but unfortunately most of us will probably have checked out from this world before all the problems are sorted out and fusion power comes on line.

Mike

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Peter Venn on 06/02/2022 09:22:32:

… Maybe they think people approach from the back more than the front! 😂😂😂

They do Peter, they do. When a car parks on the street the driver's door opens out into traffic overtaking from behind. Unfortunately most vehicles have a blind spot near the rear driver-side wheel and a poor view of what's behind through three separate small mirrors. When a car, lorry or bus hits the door, only the driver is likely to be hurt, probably not seriously. Cyclists and motor-cyclists are likely to be badly hurt.

As the parked driver has always been responsible in the UK for any accident resulting from him opening the door, Road Traffic Act confirmed by Case Law here, it makes sense to apply any trick that avoids the hassle caused by having an accident. Dutch door opening forces drivers to make a quick 120° scan covering front, side, and back. I think it's a neat trick, not the Nanny State trying to crush my spirit.

Dave

[Author]

Posts