Hierarchy on the road - rule H1
Discussion
I understand that new rules from the Autumn will create a new hierarchy on the roads were bus/truck drivers have most responsibility and the pedestrian little it goes pedestrians, cyclist, horse Riders, motorcycles, cars/vans, PCVs, HGVs.
I really don't understand what it means.
Surely this kind of already is the rule but shouldn't all road users bare responsibility for themselves.
If you step out out into the road then you need to make sure that it is safe, if you choose to road split it should be your responsibility to make sure it is safe, putting the onus on someone else because they are in a larger vehicle is just wrong and pure political correctness if that what the rule intends to do..
Can't a horse do major damage to a motor bike/car?
I really don't understand what it means.
Surely this kind of already is the rule but shouldn't all road users bare responsibility for themselves.
If you step out out into the road then you need to make sure that it is safe, if you choose to road split it should be your responsibility to make sure it is safe, putting the onus on someone else because they are in a larger vehicle is just wrong and pure political correctness if that what the rule intends to do..
Can't a horse do major damage to a motor bike/car?
The hierachy comes down to consequences to oneself and externalising of risk to others. Pedestrians bear all the risk and pose none to others. Motorists bear no risk from vulnerable road users but externalise risk and consequence onto others. I agree that personal responsibility comes into it in reality, and carelessness is bad whoever you are, but the reality is if a pedestrian is careless, they take the hit. If a motorist is careless, an innocent third party, especially a vulnerable road user can take the hit. It is the same in the workplace. If you are operating a dangerous machine, the primary responsibility is on you as the operator to avoid harming others. The personal risk should theoretically act to make vulnerable road users more careful in the interest of personal safety. That doesn't apply to motorists (or at least much less), who can overtake a cyclist dangerously with no direct harm to themself if they make a catastrophic error and the cyclist is hit, hence legal ramifications act as a substitute deterrant to personal safety.
al78 said:
The hierachy comes down to consequences to oneself and externalising of risk to others. Pedestrians bear all the risk and pose none to others. Motorists bear no risk from vulnerable road users but externalise risk and consequence onto others. I agree that personal responsibility comes into it in reality, and carelessness is bad whoever you are, but the reality is if a pedestrian is careless, they take the hit. If a motorist is careless, an innocent third party, especially a vulnerable road user can take the hit. It is the same in the workplace. If you are operating a dangerous machine, the primary responsibility is on you as the operator to avoid harming others. The personal risk should theoretically act to make vulnerable road users more careful in the interest of personal safety. That doesn't apply to motorists (or at least much less), who can overtake a cyclist dangerously with no direct harm to themself if they make a catastrophic error and the cyclist is hit, hence legal ramifications act as a substitute deterrant to personal safety.
OK, get that, is it not the case now though, if your careless and take out a cyclist you get blamed? What is the change?
Okay, here's an example; you're driving an LGV through central London and need to take a left turn off a street busy with motor vehicles/ bicycles/ pedestrians. You must give way to anyone crossing the mouth of the junction so you stop. Naturally you can no longer see if anyone else has approached on the left side of the truck and it's now their "right of way". Of course, some of us value self perseveration over "right of way" but there are those who are hell bent on being dead right! These new rules are a great way of giving them their wish 
I was visiting a local farm shop on Saturday with my mum, who was driving. We were going down the entrance road to the farm and the owner and another woman were riding two horses towards the farm. The moved over, one to each side, and the van ahead of us squeezed between. The woman who owns the place was clearly having trouble controlling her horse which was dancing around and stepping in front of us, so my mum stopped.
The rider got angry and shouted at us to come on. I queried if she preferred us to charge past at speed and she shouted that we were passing too slowly.
Despite all the rules and insistence on respect, some people always want to pick a fight and you can't do right by them.
The rider got angry and shouted at us to come on. I queried if she preferred us to charge past at speed and she shouted that we were passing too slowly.
Despite all the rules and insistence on respect, some people always want to pick a fight and you can't do right by them.
They have this type of rule (but a stricter version, I think) in Japan.
Cars tend to move slowly through urban areas, and grannies are free to wobble along on their bicycles at 5mph sometimes veering totally off-course.
It works well there, but it's a different urban environment and different culture there as well.
Cars tend to move slowly through urban areas, and grannies are free to wobble along on their bicycles at 5mph sometimes veering totally off-course.
It works well there, but it's a different urban environment and different culture there as well.
I think the OP has a fair point. The responsibility to others is not a one way street, everyone has responsibility towards themselves for their own safety and to others both up and down the hierarchy now laid down.
That's not to say that the level of responsibility is equal, it's not as you should be aware of and particularly careful of those more vulnerable. This has always been the case and frankly some of what is being said is only formalising what in reality is only common courtesy.
However to echo a point by the OP it seems to place pedestrians in a position where will some now think they can just step out as they're absolutely in the right. Or will bikes go up the inside of heavies at junctions just because. Yes there is a massive responsibility towards the vulnerable element, but it seems some think there is no element of responsibility towards the driver and the consequent trauma if something goes astray, or personal responsibility for putting self deliberately in a dangerous position.
Unfortunately these threads too often descend into the cyclist vs cars bile fest, there's enough of those already.
That's not to say that the level of responsibility is equal, it's not as you should be aware of and particularly careful of those more vulnerable. This has always been the case and frankly some of what is being said is only formalising what in reality is only common courtesy.
However to echo a point by the OP it seems to place pedestrians in a position where will some now think they can just step out as they're absolutely in the right. Or will bikes go up the inside of heavies at junctions just because. Yes there is a massive responsibility towards the vulnerable element, but it seems some think there is no element of responsibility towards the driver and the consequent trauma if something goes astray, or personal responsibility for putting self deliberately in a dangerous position.
Unfortunately these threads too often descend into the cyclist vs cars bile fest, there's enough of those already.
blueg33 said:
For me it was always implicit anyway, to the extent of being blindingly obvious common sense.
Now it’s explicit because it’s blindingly obvious that common sense isn’t common.
Exactly - it should be a 'non issue'. However, we know by the reaction that there's far too many idiots behind the wheel - and this simple change is causing them angst. Depressing....Now it’s explicit because it’s blindingly obvious that common sense isn’t common.
It also might help if more people actually read their Highway Code; but most haven't since learning...
FiF said:
That's not to say that the level of responsibility is equal, it's not as you should be aware of and particularly careful of those more vulnerable. This has always been the case and frankly some of what is being said is only formalising what in reality is only common courtesy.
My experience is that the reality as a cyclist or pedestrian is "might is right". As it stands, as a ped or cyclist you jump out of the way of absolutely everything or you get squashed. ArnageWRC said:
blueg33 said:
For me it was always implicit anyway, to the extent of being blindingly obvious common sense.
Now it’s explicit because it’s blindingly obvious that common sense isn’t common.
Exactly - it should be a 'non issue'. However, we know by the reaction that there's far too many idiots behind the wheel - and this simple change is causing them angst. Depressing....Now it’s explicit because it’s blindingly obvious that common sense isn’t common.
It also might help if more people actually read their Highway Code; but most haven't since learning...
Woman is walking on the footpath holding an open umbrella above her as it's raining.
Woman on horse approaching from the opposite direction. The horse is becoming agitated.
Woman on horse: "Your umbrella is frightening my horse."
Woman with umbrella: "Not as much as you and your bloody horse are frightening me!"
The new hierarchy suitably settles that one in favour of the umbrella.
Woman on horse approaching from the opposite direction. The horse is becoming agitated.
Woman on horse: "Your umbrella is frightening my horse."
Woman with umbrella: "Not as much as you and your bloody horse are frightening me!"
The new hierarchy suitably settles that one in favour of the umbrella.
Blakewater said:
I was visiting a local farm shop on Saturday with my mum, who was driving. We were going down the entrance road to the farm and the owner and another woman were riding two horses towards the farm. The moved over, one to each side, and the van ahead of us squeezed between. The woman who owns the place was clearly having trouble controlling her horse which was dancing around and stepping in front of us, so my mum stopped.
The rider got angry and shouted at us to come on. I queried if she preferred us to charge past at speed and she shouted that we were passing too slowly.
Despite all the rules and insistence on respect, some people always want to pick a fight and you can't do right by them.
The new rules say motor vehicles should slow down to 10mph when passing a horse.The rider got angry and shouted at us to come on. I queried if she preferred us to charge past at speed and she shouted that we were passing too slowly.
Despite all the rules and insistence on respect, some people always want to pick a fight and you can't do right by them.
I know horses are unpredictable but if they are such a problem that vehicles need to slow down so much, maybe horses should be banned from roads?
al78 said:
The hierachy comes down to consequences to oneself and externalising of risk to others. Pedestrians bear all the risk and pose none to others. .
But isn't that a good reason why pedestrians should give way to vehicles???at zebra crossings I always wait a couple of feet away from the curb for traffic to stop, might be my right of way but if I get run over by a 44 ton truck I will loose the argument.
No intention of taking advantage if the new rules; when walking,
ConwyC said:
But isn't that a good reason why pedestrians should give way to vehicles???
at zebra crossings I always wait a couple of feet away from the curb for traffic to stop, might be my right of way but if I get run over by a 44 ton truck I will loose the argument.
No intention of taking advantage if the new rules; when walking,
Pedestrians have always had priority when crossing side roads at junctions. The only difference with the new HC is that now they don't need to put themselves at risk by stepping into the road to claim it. at zebra crossings I always wait a couple of feet away from the curb for traffic to stop, might be my right of way but if I get run over by a 44 ton truck I will loose the argument.
No intention of taking advantage if the new rules; when walking,
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff