Driving standards

[ejstubbs]

2 hours ago, Reorte said:

AIUI it's always been the case that crossing pedestrians have priority

 

That's correct (current HC rule 170 - honoured more often in the beach than the observance IME). However, from my (brief) scan of the draft of the new version of the HC I believe that the wording will be amended to give right of way also to pedestrians waiting to cross.  In other words, in future you will need to take into account what's happening on the footway as well as what's immediately in front of you on the carriageway.  It's all part of the "Hierarchy of Road Users" which is introduced in the new version,  which "places those road users most at risk in the event of a collision at the top of the hierarchy."

 

As to how that will work out in practice, well, taking into account the sort of behaviour which regularly gets reported and discussed in this thread, and which is already Inn beach of the existing version of the HC, I'm sorry to say that I'm not totally optimistic...

Edited January 17, 2022 by ejstubbs

[boxbrownie]

49 minutes ago, craneman said:

I think that you are making a mistake in assuming that there is any logic. Most of the irritations which one experiences on the roads today suggest that many drivers do not apply any thought to the task they are undertaking and rely on programmed behaviours, luck, and technology to survive, and that is at the root of my earlier comment.

 

The more we make it possible for people to drive with out thinking, and the more that we as society accept that driving without thought is acceptable, the more it will happen and the worse it will get.

 

On other themes which have cropped up in this thread lately:-

 

Auto wipers - one vehicle I drive regularly (fortunately only one) has auto wipers, i.e., instead of having a tradition "intermittent" setting and the ability for the driver to adjust to an extent the frequency of wipe, it has an auto setting then the usual normal and fast continuous wipes settings. It is totally useless and infuriating, and very often on auto it will wipe too infrequently or too frequently. I think this has to do with the way the sensor works (and it can certainly be fooled by bugs and flies). This is extremely distracting, and generally means that you can't use the mode at all, instead you have to turn the wipers on and off manually at an interval appropriate to the drizzle/rain, which is distracting as well as annoying. The vehicle (a Mitsubishi L200) does not have any alternative to this setting, you cannot opt for a traditional intermittent setting.

 

Side lights - there are many times when it is entirely legal, appropriate, and helpful to other road users to drive with sidelights rather than headlights. Why therefore do many manufacturers (for example SKODA and presumably the rest of the VAG) insist on turning off the instrument panel lights when the sidelights on their own are on, rendering them impossible to use when driving?

 

Auto-dipping headlights - as someone who tries to be a considerate driver, I dip my headlights whenever I feel that they are likely to inconvenience or distress other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists (and even horse riders who are of course allowed to use the roads at night, although wisely few do). I am afar from convinced that auto-dipping headlights can detect the full range of other road users that I can detect. I think that this problem will become much, much worse as "matrix" or "adaptive beam" headlights become commonplace, since these never actually dip, they (supposedly) intelligently adjust just that part of the beam that is dazzling the other road user. To my mind that means that they must be able to distinguish between  a pedestrian and a tree, and I seriously doubt they can do that.

Auto wipers rely on the diffraction of light through water droplets on the screen, it should not (and when we tested ours it was one of the criteria that it should comply with) be triggered by dirt or bugs on the screen, of course this is not to say other manufacturers don’t alloy the same rules.

 

I believe it is illegal to drive on sidelights (parking marker lights as is their correct name) alone.

edit: apparently it is legal as long as your in a 30mph area and it is well lit.

 

Auto dipping lights are exactly as you say, I’ve not found any that I think I can rely on.

Edited January 17, 2022 by boxbrownie

[Michael Hodgson]

49 minutes ago, craneman said:

To my mind that means that they must be able to distinguish between  a pedestrian and a tree, and I seriously doubt they can do that.

If it's a pedestrian it should be moving, albeit not very fast.

If it's a tree and it's moving you'd best jam the brakes on.

[Michael Hodgson]

Driving Standards - Page 404   

 

This page does not exist !

[boxbrownie]

35 minutes ago, ejstubbs said:

 

That's correct (current HC rule 170 - honoured more often in the beach than the observance IME). However, from my (brief) scan of the draft of the new version of the HC I believe that the wording will be amended to give right of way also to pedestrians waiting to cross.  In other words, in future you will need to take into account what's happening on the footway as well as what's immediately in front of you on the carriageway.  It's all part of the "Hierarchy of Road Users" which is introduced in the new version,  which "places those road users most at risk in the event of a collision at the top of the hierarchy."

 

As to how that will work out in practice, well, taking into account the sort of behaviour which regularly gets reported and discussed in this thread, and which is already Inn beach of the existing version of the HC, I'm sorry to say that I'm not totally optimistic...

That’s how I understand the new regs now, but as soon as I heard about them the first thing that I thought was there is going to be a lot more rear end shunts as cars suddenly slow and stop in the main road while signalling to turn left and the following vehicle just thought they were going to turn in and keep going, and yes I know people will say “ah but if they were driving observantly it shouldn’t happen”…..well that’s not the world most people live in.

[leopardml2341]

44 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

That’s how I understand the new regs now, but as soon as I heard about them the first thing that I thought was there is going to be a lot more rear end shunts as cars suddenly slow and stop in the main road while signalling to turn left and the following vehicle just thought they were going to turn in and keep going, and yes I know people will say “ah but if they were driving observantly it shouldn’t happen”…..well that’s not the world most people live in.

I'll certainly be keeping my dashcam, for evidence of pedestrians distracted when on their phones or with ear phones in........

 

Yes that contributes to their vulnerability, but why yet again is it race to the lowest common denominator? 

 

Will people ever again take some responsibility for their own actions rather than it having to be someone else's fault?

Edited January 17, 2022 by leopardml2341

[craneman]

1 hour ago, boxbrownie said:

...

I believe it is illegal to drive on sidelights (parking marker lights as is their correct name) alone.

edit: apparently it is legal as long as your in a 30mph area and it is well lit.

...

 

Not so. It is legal to drive on sidelights during the evening and morning twighlight periods (between sunset and "lighting up time" - half-an-hour after sunset - and similarly between half-an-hour before sunrise and sunrise), and during these times it is generally possible for a driver to see far more when not confronted by approaching headlights. It is also, as you note, legal to drive anywhere where there is both a 30mph or lower speed limit and regular streetlighting provided there is also not fog nor falling snow, or anything (other than darkness) causing reduced visibility.

[craneman]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

If it's a pedestrian it should be moving, albeit not very fast.

If it's a tree and it's moving you'd best jam the brakes on.

 

This may come as a surprise, but pedestrians do not always move, they are allowed to stand still. They remain pedestrians, at least up until the time they become casualties and cadavers.

 

In the brave new world you no longer need to worry about braking for falling trees, the car will take care of that for you:

 

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/autonomous-vehicles-news/tesla-model-xs-automatic-brakes-just-saved-two-families-from-a-falling-tree/

[craneman]

1 hour ago, ejstubbs said:

...  It's all part of the "Hierarchy of Road Users" which is introduced in the new version,  which "places those road users most at risk in the event of a collision at the top of the hierarchy."

 

As to how that will work out in practice, well, taking into account the sort of behaviour which regularly gets reported and discussed in this thread, and which is already Inn beach of the existing version of the HC, I'm sorry to say that I'm not totally optimistic...

As far as I can tell, the most significant effect of this "Hierarchy of Road Users" will be to assure that the most vulnerable remain statistically the most vulnerable.

 

Several junctions round here (Dorset) have recently been reworked so that the "give way" lines for traffic leaving the side road and joining the main road are now set back behind the pavement/cycleway boundary of the major road. Fair enough, this encourages drivers to give way not just to vehicular traffic but also foot and pedal traffic on the main road (which may in turn encourage those reprehensible cyclists who persist in riding on the road despite a cycleway being provided for them to use said cycleway) but it now also presumably means that traffic turning either left or right off the main road has to give way to foot and pedal traffic from either direction on the pavement/cycleway it is to cross. This I can anticipate will be a problematic concept to many drivers and I can foresee the casualties piling up.

[craneman]

1 hour ago, boxbrownie said:

That’s how I understand the new regs now, but as soon as I heard about them the first thing that I thought was there is going to be a lot more rear end shunts as cars suddenly slow and stop in the main road while signalling to turn left and the following vehicle just thought they were going to turn in and keep going, and yes I know people will say “ah but if they were driving observantly it shouldn’t happen”…..well that’s not the world most people live in.

Do not forget either the fact that cars with autonomous collision avoidance systems are capable of braking extremely effectively without any prior warning. The follow-too-close brigade will have to wake up to the new reality, especially if they drive older cars.

 

It is also now well established that some of these systems are not as reliable as might be desired. For example, there are now many reports of the new Landrover Defender, when operating in its adaptive cruise control mode with automatic speed limit recognition operative, misinterpreting side-road speed limit signs as being applicable to the road it is on and spontaneously braking hard to reduce speed.

 

There will, I think, be many who will have decades of complacency to redress, and who will have trouble adapting to the fact that the car in front may now do something utterly unpredictable and very sudden. Perhaps, eventually, people will return to the approach of driving at a speed which allows them to stop in the distance they can see to be clear (which incidentally, is how, many years ago, I was taught to drive). Meanwhile insurance premiums will continue to rise and punish us all for the misdeeds of idiots. 

[Reorte]

15 minutes ago, craneman said:

Several junctions round here (Dorset) have recently been reworked so that the "give way" lines for traffic leaving the side road and joining the main road are now set back behind the pavement/cycleway boundary of the major road. Fair enough, this encourages drivers to give way not just to vehicular traffic but also foot and pedal traffic on the main road (which may in turn encourage those reprehensible cyclists who persist in riding on the road despite a cycleway being provided for them to use said cycleway) but it now also presumably means that traffic turning either left or right off the main road has to give way to foot and pedal traffic from either direction on the pavement/cycleway it is to cross. This I can anticipate will be a problematic concept to many drivers and I can foresee the casualties piling up.

How does that work for vehicles joining from side roads? It's fine when there are traffic lights but without them putting the give way lines further back is putting joining traffic in a position where it can't see as well what's on the main road before it starts to pull out.

 

Nothing reprehensible about a cyclist riding on the road, they've just as much right to be there as a car even if there's a cycleway (motorways and a few other special roads notwithstanding); I hope "reprehensible" was tongue-in-cheek.

[craneman]

Yes, it is much harder to see either way at the junction when the give way line is ten feet back from the carriageway. No provision has been made for this, and at many junctions you have to pull past the GW lines and block the pavement/cycleway area before you can see. It isn't a very helpful arrangement, and no doubt the wicked motorist will be held to blame for any problems.

 

Re. the "reprehensible cyclists" comment, I have some sympathy (and I ride a bicycle extensively myself) but where there is a designated cycleway then I use that, not the main carriageway. I accept and agree that there are situations in which it is preferable from the cyclists' perspective to stay in the carriageway, but these are rare, and I am happy to criticise those who choose to remain on the road in the absence of a sound reason to do so. It is particularly daft since round here many of our cycleways were provided because the roads are considered dangerous for cyclists and after lobbying by cyclists. Why, then, do so many choose to remain in the carriageway and put themselves at risk? There are those who appear to have the attitude that it is their "right" to cause a nuisance to motorists (they don't have this right, of course - they have a right to be on the road but no road user has the right to cause a nuisance to another).

 

I suppose, bearing in mind that the recurring theme of this thread is the incompetent, inept, or stupid vehicle driver, that statistically there must be a similar proportion of incompetent, inept, or stupid cyclists. Perhaps this is the reason. I mean no offence with these thoughts to cyclists (or drivers, for that matter) who are not incompetent, inept, or stupid.

[boxbrownie]

2 hours ago, craneman said:

 

Not so. It is legal to drive on sidelights during the evening and morning twighlight periods (between sunset and "lighting up time" - half-an-hour after sunset - and similarly between half-an-hour before sunrise and sunrise),

So OK during daylight hours then? 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, craneman said:

 

Not so. It is legal to drive on sidelights during the evening and morning twighlight periods (between sunset and "lighting up time" - half-an-hour after sunset - and similarly between half-an-hour before sunrise and sunrise), and during these times it is generally possible for a driver to see far more when not confronted by approaching headlights. It is also, as you note, legal to drive anywhere where there is both a 30mph or lower speed limit and regular streetlighting provided there is also not fog nor falling snow, or anything (other than darkness) causing reduced visibility.

 

Legislation dating from the days of dynamos when idling in traffic with headlights on would flatten your battery. 

[PhilJ W]

I thought that dipped headlights were the norm and sidelights were only for parking.

[caradoc]

18 hours ago, craneman said:

It is particularly daft since round here many of our cycleways were provided because the roads are considered dangerous for cyclists and after lobbying by cyclists. Why, then, do so many choose to remain in the carriageway and put themselves at risk?

 

Because cycleways are frequently obstructed by pedestrians (both adults and children), dogs (at differing levels of restraint), parked cars, vans etc, are frequently littered with debris including broken glass, and because motorists simply cannot be trusted to give way to cyclists as they should at suitably marked places where side roads cross the cycle path. And a personal example; Last year I was cycling downhill, so at a decent speed, on a cycle path marked off from the main carriageway and separated by bollards every couple of yards, when I came round a bend to see a 'men at work' sign blocking the cycle lane with a Water Board van parked just beyond it, leaving me a split second to look behind me to see if I was safe to move into the road while at the same time avoiding hitting either the sign and a bollard. By sheer luck I just about managed it. 

 

[PhilJ W]

A lot of cycleways are poorly designed and/or signed. 

[MarkC]

21 hours ago, leopardml2341 said:

I'll certainly be keeping my dashcam, for evidence of pedestrians distracted when on their phones or with ear phones in........

 

Yes that contributes to their vulnerability, but why yet again is it race to the lowest common denominator? 

 

Will people ever again take some responsibility for their own actions rather than it having to be someone else's fault?

I've just returned to sea, so will miss the first few weeks of the new legislation in action, but had a discussion with my wife about this, and we concluded that dashcams are going to be essential pieces of kit everywhere from now on. (I have made sure that mine is operational before entering areas well known for "crash for cash" activities, for a while now, but these new developments are a worry, particularly as they've not (yet) been widely reported on in the MSM...)

Edited January 18, 2022 by MarkC

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, MarkC said:

I've just returned to sea, so will miss the first few weeks of the new legislation in action, but had a discussion with my wife about this, and we concluded that dashcams are going to be essential pieces of kit everywhere from now on. (I have made sure that mine is operational before entering areas well known for "crash for cash" activities, for a while now, but these new developments are a worry, particularly as they've not (yet) been widely reported on in the MSM...)

I'm going to take the chance and remain without one, this "everything you do is recorded, must always put measures in place to protect yourself from everything conceivable" society saddens and depresses me immensely; I'd rather take my chances than contribute to it.

[MarkC]

32 minutes ago, Reorte said:

I'm going to take the chance and remain without one, this "everything you do is recorded, must always put measures in place to protect yourself from everything conceivable" society saddens and depresses me immensely; I'd rather take my chances than contribute to it.

Which of course is your perogative - and long may it remain so 

 

However, in these ever more litigious times we find ourselves in - driven by the "where there's blame, there's a claim" leeches - I for one will try to protect myself - and my pocket - from unjustified and, frankly, specious falsehoods and accusations. Having been through such matters 13 years ago (a very acrimonious divorce), I have no wish to have to defend myself in court again... 

[boxbrownie]

39 minutes ago, Reorte said:

I'm going to take the chance and remain without one, this "everything you do is recorded, must always put measures in place to protect yourself from everything conceivable" society saddens and depresses me immensely; I'd rather take my chances than contribute to it.

Your choice of course, we have been using them for over a decade and thankfully never had to use it for any kind of insurance evidence which is what it’s only purpose for us is, only once did I get asked if I could show footage to the police (we were all stopped at a pedestrian crossing when a motorbike overtook the oncoming traffic and almost knocked over a pram and mother crossing) otherwise everything recorded just gets overwritten every four hours.

It certain doesn’t sadden and depress me if I film an idiot coming from a side turning without looking into our carriageway 

[Titan]

3 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

And a personal example; Last year I was cycling downhill, so at a decent speed, on a cycle path marked off from the main carriageway and separated by bollards every couple of yards, when I came round a bend to see a 'men at work' sign blocking the cycle lane with a Water Board van parked just beyond it, leaving me a split second to look behind me to see if I was safe to move into the road while at the same time avoiding hitting either the sign and a bollard. By sheer luck I just about managed it. 

 

 

Or you could have just stopped, because you were travelling at an appropriate speed and not relying on sheer luck...

Edited January 18, 2022 by Titan

[ejstubbs]

3 hours ago, caradoc said:

Because cycleways are frequently obstructed by pedestrians (both adults and children), dogs (at differing levels of restraint), parked cars, vans etc, are frequently littered with debris including broken glass, and because motorists simply cannot be trusted to give way to cyclists as they should at suitably marked places where side roads cross the cycle path.

 

3 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

A lot of cycleways are poorly designed and/or signed. 

 

If I might add a little further context to this: people have an inherent right to use bicycles on the road (strictly speaking, on the carriageway - and bicycles are classed as "carriages" which is why it's illegal to 'drive' them on the footway, same as any other "carriage").

 

Drivers of motor vehicles, in contrast, are permitted to drive their motorised carriage on the carriageway provided that they are able to pass a one-time test to demonstrate that they are sufficiently competent to be allowed to be in charge of such a potentially lethal piece of machinery in a public place, and that they continue to abide by the regulations and guidance set down by the government for such use (including such nanny-like requirements as driving with respect and consideration for other road users). Fail your test: no licence. Break the rules too often or too egregiously: licence suspended.

 

Unlike pedestrianising or cycling, which require no permission, only possession of a valid licence allows the use of a motor vehicle in public places.  (Certainly the payment of "road tax", properly called Vehicle Excise Duty, has nothing whatsoever to do with it - it is a non-hypothecated tax on motor vehicles, not a ticket giving privileged access to tarmac).  And that permission can be withdrawn if abused. (In that sense, the US term "driver's permit" is arguably both more accurate than and/or preferable to the UK's "driving licence".)

 

The fact that the guidance and regulations on the use of motor vehicles are so weakly enforced these days is not the fault of cyclists or pedestrians, although they do seem far too often to be the ultimate victims of it. The provision of dedicated cycling infrastructure can with some reason be regarded as a reflection of the inability of too many motor vehicle users to police themselves, and the failure of the authorities to fill that gap, rather than any kind of indication that cyclists "shouldn't be on the roads".  The need to provide such infrastructure is arguably a mute admission that the regulation of motor vehicle use has for many practical purposes failed, allowing inconsiderate, antisocial and plain dangerous behaviour behind the wheel (pavement parking, speeding, handheld mobile phone use etc etc) to somehow become normalised and almost accepted (and in some cases even expected), when deep down everyone knows it shouldn't be happening.

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, MarkC said:

Which of course is your perogative - and long may it remain so 

 

However, in these ever more litigious times we find ourselves in - driven by the "where there's blame, there's a claim" leeches - I for one will try to protect myself - and my pocket - from unjustified and, frankly, specious falsehoods and accusations. Having been through such matters 13 years ago (a very acrimonious divorce), I have no wish to have to defend myself in court again... 

I understand that, but it's also really, really not the sort of world I want to live in, where that is the norm. That that is the world we live in is just another reason I suffer from depression. I find the risk of being on the receiving end of such less obnoxious than contributing towards that sort of world, where everything is monitored, tracked, and recorded, and respect for human beings as human beings is regarded as a quaint old-fashioned attitude.

[MarkC]

8 minutes ago, Reorte said:

I understand that, but it's also really, really not the sort of world I want to live in, where that is the norm. That that is the world we live in is just another reason I suffer from depression. I find the risk of being on the receiving end of such less obnoxious than contributing towards that sort of world, where everything is monitored, tracked, and recorded, and respect for human beings as human beings is regarded as a quaint old-fashioned attitude.

Indeed so, and I wish you every success in combating your 'orrible affliction.

 

I'm just attempting to protect myself from the modern scourge of opportunism at my expense...