I'm hoping this is a correct route to suggest a change to clarify the HWC.
It seems to me that many people get confused about the traffic priorities at mini roundabouts. Whilst Rule 185 is fine for larger roundabouts (which is what I think it originally and solely applied to) the Rule states that a driver should " give priority to traffic approaching from your right,......" I believe this statement to be too simplistic for mini roundabouts as drivers are interpreting that traffic joining from the left must give way to traffic that has yet to reach the roundabout.
Dangerously, drivers approaching a mini roundabout and intending to drive straight across, seem to think that, even before they have got to the roundabout, they have some sort of standing priority over vehicles joining from the left, who's wheels have already crossed the give way lines. Also, interpreting the rule literally, two cars approaching a mini roundabout head to head and one car needs to turn right, the rule can (and has been) interpreted that it must give way to the other approaching car, which is also on the right; collisions a commonplace because of this misconception.
My understanding is that once a vehicle's front wheels have crossed the give way lines, that vehicle is technically on the roundabout and has established its priority; others vehicles yet to reach the roundabout must then give way. For example, a mini roundabout that was once a T junction: a vehicle enters the roundabout from the side road but there is another vehicle bearing down from the right but, at this moment in time, has not yet reached the roundabout. Rule 185 can be interpreted that the car bearing down and on the right, that has yet to reach the roundabout, has the right of way, even though it hasn't crossed the give way lines. This would make a nonsense of the concept of the mini roundabout which is to slow down traffic and enable priorities to change according to the position of the vehicles.
I believe that Rule 185 should be amended to clarify that the priorities shall only apply to vehicles that have crossed the give way lines and are now, technically, on the roundabout; if you have not yet reached the roundabout you have not yet established your priority.
S.126 is no longer applicable. The DVSA in their wisdom have demolished the 2 second rule and of being able to stop in the distance that you can see to be clear.
5. Control of the vehicle
Under 'Separation Distance 'in the Government's own DVSA Handbook on safe driving they recommend a lessening of the full Stopping Distance in urban traffic and this is also supported by some ADI's and advanced Drivers and Riding Schools/Authorities. They, as the DVSA advise is to ignore the Full Thinking Distance and to keep not less than the Thinking Distance when following other vehicles. This they say is to make best use of valuable road space and further on . Later they do say that the only safe distance is the Full Stopping Distance and that by driving closer, ie. the Thinking distance only, one puts oneself into a position of greater risk. Why then do they recommend a Tailgating position? Surely they have sacrificed safety for another consideration which should never happen.
Further many drivers are now being instructed, during training, to keep a distance between themselves and the vehicle in front so that if the vehicle in front slows or stops they can do so also. This is obviously when it's anticipated and expected that the vehicle in front is likely to slow or stop such as at traffic lights or at a bus stop.
This is not what the H.C. envisages as its recommending a safe distance in the event of an 'unexpected and sudden stopping' of the vehicle in front and not a following on slowing and stopping under normal traffic conditions. This contrary advice has placed all new drivers into that once again insidious position of being far too close to the vehicle in front in the event of an accident ahead, of a sudden and unexpected halt of traffic ahead.
The result of this is also one of fixation on the car in front and this creates a lack of safer vision. Being so close to the vehicle in front that one cannot see the road ahead and one cannot be seen by others. This leads to not only rear end shunts but also the the
more dangerous side on smidsy at road junctions as vehicles being so close together are not being at all or seen in time.
Finally as drivers are pre instructed to give closer distances around town it follows that they will do so and consider it normal, So under faster road circumstances at 50 and 60 mph on main arterial roads they assume a distance of 50 or so feet is safe behind and more dangerously still at motorways speeds of 70 mph plus they drive far too close behind and that's when pile ups, occur. Multiple crashes with death and devastation are created when every car becomes part of a domino effect. One where the effect is only stopped from proceeding and becoming more dangerous merely by a vehicle or vehicles that give the safer full stopping distance.
Something need to be done about Tailgating and its knock on effects to road safety in general as its responsible for by far the greatest numbers of incidents than any other more popularly believed cause.
My complaint is about motorists, and there are a great many of them, who fail to cancel redundant indicator signals when leaving roundabouts. For example very frequently when leaving by, say, the third exit on a roundabout, they keep their right-hand indicator flashing even while making the left- hand turn to leave by the third exit.
I find this carelessness very annoying and time-wasting when I'm looking to the right when joining roundabouts.
Rule 163 "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car"
For me as a pedal cyclist Rule 163 "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car" is as good as a death sentence. Many drivers pass with just enough clearance for their wing mirrors. I get run off the road 3 or four times a week the police do not seem to care either.
A member of the public has complained that bikes are not giving way to pedestrians crossing the bike lane in our local area
A member of the public has complained that bikes are not giving way to pedestrians crossing the bike lane in our local area.
The Highway Code does not provide specific guidance on who has the right of way in a bike lane - the pedestrian or the cyclist - other than:
Rules for pedestrians:
Bus and cycle lanes. Take care when crossing these lanes as traffic may be moving faster than in the other lanes, or against the flow of traffic.
Rules for cyclists:
Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements......Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary.....
An internet search of other countries indicates people crossing a bike lane on foot should treat it like a regular street lane and that cyclists usually have the right-of-way in a bike lane, unless the law states that the lane is also for pedestrian use.
A common sense approach for pedestrians crossing a street should also apply to crossing a bike lane; look both ways and only cross when it is safe.
It is suggested that the Highway Code be updated to clarify/stipulate this for pedestrians and cyclists alike; and that cyclists have the right of way on a bike lane, but should give due consideration to pedestrians in the vicinity.
I am 73 and passed the driving test in 1961, before retirement drove up to 1000 miles per week and well aware of the highway code rules and my pet hates involve pavement and double parking, in the cul de sac where I live the rules must have changed as residents have mainly empty driveways and think that it is ok to park completely blocking the pavements and double parking , and in the road at the end of the cul de sac which is a bus route vans, cars and lorries park on all the bus stops, also they think it alright to park on corners, preventing a view of any oncoming traffic, it is just as bad in the nearby town roads, where cars park just about anywhere they please disrupting the traffic flow like you would not believe, there double yellow lines just get ignored, the very rare sightings of a traffic warden are only to be made in the towns car park where you find a person sitting in the car while the passenger goes shopping so that they do not have to pay for a parking ticket however they have the engine running so that the heater keeps the car warm, they usually drive into the space so that the can reverse out after shopping(some drivers will understand my or their logic in doing this) the most popular place in the town to park is outside any of the banks, they then park in the bus lane,on the pavement,on double yellow lines , you will not believe any of this but I can assure you that it is true, this is the same town which has very tiny notices fixed in rare positions saying that you will be fined £80 if you drop a cigarette end on the floor, the signs have been there for years but no one has been caught yet, I spoke to a man at the areas parking offices about the parking and put the phone down when he said that it did not matter as long as they were not parked there too long.
The understanding myself and other instructors have is that when nearing the end of a bus lane, about a couple of bus lengths from the end, if the lane and your exit lane is clear then there's no problem cutting into the end.
Particularly if you're part of a queue of traffic going ahead where you'll ease that flow. However last year I was given a ticket by Newcastle Council for doing this. It really irritates me that sensible driving seems to be secondary to revenue generation, where authorities treat every inch as a capture zone for their coffers.
I always observe parking restrictions and until a couple of weeks ago had never been given a parking ticket
I have been driving for 47 years, driving on average 22,000 miles per year. I always observe parking restrictions and until a couple of weeks ago had never been given a parking ticket.
Then I parked in the London Borough of Hounslow with 2 wheels on the road and 2 on an unmade mud & grass verge. I am aware of Highway Code Paragraph 244, but this mud & grass verge was definitely not a pavement, there was no kerb, and no parking restriction signs were displayed.
I received a Penalty Notice which I challenged, and the reply was that the Notice was valid because the car was parked with “one wheel (or more) on the pavement or off the road. Pavement or off-road parking is not allowed unless signs say otherwise. This rule applies 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and is enforced because vehicles:
• can get in the way of pedestrians, especially blind people or people with prams; and
• can damage paving or underground pipes.”
In the light of this please consider changing the wording of Highway Code Paragraph 244 to indicate that the restriction applies to any partial or wholly off-road parking and not just partially or wholly on the pavement.