Revised Highway Code

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

The cyclist was riding downhill normally and safely, 'L.S.'. The tractor driver attempted an unwise overtake. His large trailer, perhaps due to under inflated tyres or over loading, was swaying like a pendulum, oscilating 18" to either side. An oncoming car caused the driver to pull back prematurely and his trailer struck the cyclist on the shoulder and threw him to the ground. Despite the best efforts of those who stopped to help, he died later that day in the hospital to which he had been airlifted. In the court proceedings that followed, his widow publicly forgave the tractor driver - very generous act on her part.

Neither all cyclists, nor all drivers are inconsiderate or reckless; it is the minority that are who get the majority that are not a bad name. I know emergency workers will see this sort of thing most every day, but this incident affected me deeply.

Regards, John.

Thanks John for elucidating on that. Sounds very like the trailer was overloaded as well which could be why the tractor driver tried to overtake instead of slowing down or waiting as it could easily have taken a long time to rebuild his speed.
That said overall it sounds like a very unfortunate accident, completely unforeseen by all involved, very similar to the black ice scenarios depicted in my post above.

[Tannaton]

My two thoughts having caught up on this thread...

- Feels slightly like the current drive in most of the civilised world to procedurise everything and replace common sense in the process for the benefit of those who have none

- Keep in mind in every accident there are two separate areas of liability - criminal and civil. It's not unheard of that these have different outcomes.

[Clan]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

According to news reports today, the Highway Code is due to be revised in order to afford greater precedence and protection to more vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians.

While I am not against this in principle, I wonder if it may result - at least initially - in an increase in low-speed, rear-end collisions. Consider: driver 'A' slows or stops to accord precedence to a pedestrian, waiting to cross the road at a junction, where there is no designated pedestrian crossing, and is rear-ended by driver 'B'.

Traditionally, driver 'B' would be considered to blame, but should not there also be a responsibility on the part of the pedestrian to ensure that it is safe for them to do so before starting to cross?

Thoughts?

Regards, John.

when you read it you will find nothing new that hasn't been in the highway code for decades .... humans ALWAYS have the right of way and always have for example ...

[ThomasG]

Few.. thoughts of my own.
By no means I'm saying THAT WAS THE CASE, but living where I do, I have to allow possibility. Simply from daily experience.
Why did tractor driver decide to overtake?
Again, I'm not saying that's what happened, but often I experience cyclist riding slow, flat or downhill. And the moment I start to overtake, they charge up, making it twice as difficult.

Recently, I found.. a radio station.
I don't think it will be of much interest to 99% of this forum users, after all it's a Polish station, and only news are being read in Polish, English, German and Ukrainian.
It is, though, radio station dedicated to drivers and roads.
Traffic updates? Yes, every 15minutes. Music? Yes, 60% Polish, remaining is worldwide mix. And not a single commercial.
But important thing is.. twice an hour they'll remind one or another rule from highway code, they frequently remind to switch lights from day running to road lights in bad weather (day lights don't light up the rear).
There are interviews with police, government officials, new laws can be discussed and listeners can add own opinion (right I'm using about 50 times a day by now) or literally send a question direct to official being interviewed (it does feel nice to send a question to chief of national police).

Few months ago, road law in Poland changed.
In between, drivers must stop before pedestrian crossing even if pedestrian is only approaching it. Sounds obvious, but.. number of deaths on crossings fell about 30%.
There's pressure placed on pedestrians, too. (Something I can't see in UK at all)
-no lingering by crossing, being clear about either intend to cross or not.
-no crossing outside of pedestrian crossing (£25 fine)
-no crossing holding mobile phone (£100 fine+points if owns a driving license)

Electric scooters are legal,with their own subset of rules, and with fines for breaking these.

There's also very old rule saying " if someone overtakes you, ease off to make it safer"


Most of it is just common sense, many an intelligent bod will say "don't bother me, it's obvious". But.. Those "less bothered" are being brought to attention, finger pointed , "you ain't getting away with it".

So there's rewrite of obvious rules in UK highway code.

GOOD.

[ThomasG]

Btw: this morning we were discussing car electronics, there will be new Android version dedicated to cars, "Android Automotiv", which is NOT Android Auto but independent of phone entertainment system.
Right now we're talking about downfall of diesel cars and causes of it.

(For Poles, check "Polskie Radio Kierowców')

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by ThomasG

Few months ago, road law in Poland changed.
In between, drivers must stop before pedestrian crossing even if pedestrian is only approaching it. Sounds obvious, but.. number of deaths on crossings fell about 30%.
There's pressure placed on pedestrians, too. (Something I can't see in UK at all)
-no lingering by crossing, being clear about either intend to cross or not.
-no crossing outside of pedestrian crossing (£25 fine)
-no crossing holding mobile phone (£100 fine+points if owns a driving license)

That's pretty intriguing. As you've commented, Polish pedestrians must now make their intentions to cross clear or intention not to cross clear.

All too often i've been approaching a pedestrian crossing and some person (often faffing about on a phone) has been near the crossing and i've usually stopped, expecting them to cross. Then they haven't and usually have given me a strange look for waiting for them to cross.

Also many people will walk along the pavement and to avoid others that are stood near the crossing but further back, obviously not intending to cross, these walkers will go towards the crossing as if they are going to cross but keep going, almost on the edge of the pavement. If they're not going to cross keep at least 2-3' away from the edge to at least give traffic a clue what's happening!

As for Android Zombies (staring at their phone while walking and not actually taking notice of where they're going) that should be a separate fine and offence, even if not connected with any sort of crossing.

The amount of times i've had to slam my anchors on because one of these idiots has wandered off the pavement into the middle of the road and don't even realise what they've done is unbelievable! The sound of the horn and car stopping quickly usually wakes them and i've had a look that basically says "Why are you driving on the pavement?" so i've just pointed at the road.

Cue sheepish look (most of the time) and a hop, skip and jump back to the pavement. The occasional one has had the temerity to tell me to watch where i'm going - the fact i stopped before hitting them disproves that argument.

Fair enough, mobile phones are now an integral part of society and anti-social media has played a big part in that. However, for their safety and that of others, if they're going to insist on doing some sort of update/comment/whatever on Faceberk, Instagorm, Tw@tter or whatever, get their sorry carcasses well away from the edge of the pavement and STOP while they're faffing with their mobile device.

Preferably with their back to a convenient wall - this would help prevent phone thefts as many opportunists on scooters and similar come from behind the victim and snatch the phone as they pass.
Someone with their back to the wall eliminates that possibility. Coming from the side or front is likely to be seen by most people except the completely dedicated Android Zombie perhaps even if only in their peripheral vision so they should be able to take action to void the theft of their prosthetic brain.

I have to say i applaud Polish authorities for taking a common sense stance on this and hopefully it will reap dividends in reducing accidents both on and off crossings. I'm not sure about crossing "just off" the crossing, i have personal reasons for this but that would open up a completely irrelevant debate and one that by its very nature would be extremely niche. However, for the most part, a good idea.

As for diesels, they should never have been put in cars the way they were, the UK govt and i'm fairly sure others were advised against it by many different sources. Diesel fumes are carcinogenic, even if they've been through cats and DPFs etc so should never have been used. Perhaps for big lorries/artics/juggernauts and similar but even then not great.

[Tannaton]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

As for diesels, they should never have been put in cars the way they were, the UK govt and i'm fairly sure others were advised against it by many different sources. Diesel fumes are carcinogenic, even if they've been through cats and DPFs etc so should never have been used. Perhaps for big lorries/artics/juggernauts and similar but even then not great.

Diesels are by far the most environmentally friendly internal combustion engine you can choose. Greenhouse gas emissions are much less than with petrol engines and always will be as diesels are more efficient.

The real problem with diesels is the density that we pack people into in large cities - the particulate emissions that you refer to are a very short term pollution issue and occur due to the concentration locally. They are not a global issue.

You could apply the same logic to just about any coal power station - should never have been used? Possibly not with hindsight but you need to factor in there was no other viable alternative.

[ThomasG]

Also, don't fall in trap thinking electric are "green"..
Can't quote radio, but it turns out that to make battery for let's say leaf, factory releases about same amount of pullutants as 8 year use of diesel.
Not mentioning how long that battery lasts..
And how easy it is to recycle.

[john.wigley]

Originally Posted by ThomasG

Few.. thoughts of my own.
By no means I'm saying THAT WAS THE CASE, but living where I do, I have to allow possibility. Simply from daily experience.
Why did tractor driver decide to overtake?
Again, I'm not saying that's what happened, but often I experience cyclist riding slow, flat or downhill. And the moment I start to overtake, they charge up, making it twice as difficult.

I don't know if you use a dash-cam, Thomas? I don't, but on that fateful Sunday, I badly wished that I had. I'm sure that the Police would have wanted to see the footage - it would have told the story much better than I can.

I will say again, the cyclist did nothing wrong; he was riding downhill safely at around 25 MPH. He was being followed by the tractor with it's aforementioned pendulum-like trailer.

We were immediately behind the trailer and were concerned regarding it's behaviour. At the foot of the hill, the road bore right and began to climb up the other side. From his elevated position, the tractor driver would have been able to see clearly the lie of the road beyond the bend.

The tractor had a speed advantage of 5 to 10 MPH over the cyclist and presumably the driver considered it safe enough to overtake the rider. A car coming in the opposite direction (which did not stop and, as far as I know, was never traced) caused the tractor to pull back prematurely, and the rear near side of his trailer to strike the cyclist on the shoulder and throw him to the ground.

Apart from staying at home that day, there was precious little *that the cyclist could have done to avoid the accident. It is easy for us to judge him, or, although he clearly did not set out to cause injury, the tractor driver for his ill-considered overtake, but, as I have said before, there are good and not so good on both sides. Mostly, people get away with minor errors of judgment; unfortunately, on this occasion, it cost an innocent cyclist his life.

Recently, I found.. a radio station.
I don't think it will be of much interest to 99% of this forum users, after all it's a Polish station, and only news are being read in Polish, English, German and Ukrainian.
It is, though, radio station dedicated to drivers and roads.
Traffic updates? Yes, every 15minutes. Music? Yes, 60% Polish, remaining is worldwide mix. And not a single commercial.
But important thing is.. twice an hour they'll remind one or another rule from highway code, they frequently remind to switch lights from day running to road lights in bad weather (day lights don't light up the rear).
There are interviews with police, government officials, new laws can be discussed and listeners can add own opinion (right I'm using about 50 times a day by now) or literally send a question direct to official being interviewed (it does feel nice to send a question to chief of national police).

That is very interesting and the sort of thing that we could usefully emulate. I share your concerns regarding driving / day-notice lights. It is interesting to note that when Volvo first introduced DRLs on the 240 in the mid-seventies, they incorporated the tail lamps as well, so - short of removing the fuse - you could not drive without any lights, either at the front OR rear.

Few months ago, road law in Poland changed.
In between, drivers must stop before pedestrian crossing even if pedestrian is only approaching it. Sounds obvious, but.. number of deaths on crossings fell about 30%.
There's pressure placed on pedestrians, too. (Something I can't see in UK at all)
-no lingering by crossing, being clear about either intend to cross or not.
-no crossing outside of pedestrian crossing (£25 fine)
-no crossing holding mobile phone (£100 fine+points if owns a driving license)

That's also interesting - it takes two to tango! Responsibility should rightfully be shared in the interests of all. It seems to me that in the UK we are all too ready to put the blame on the motorist for any accident involving a pedestrian or cyclist.

Electric scooters are legal,with their own subset of rules, and with fines for breaking these.

I'd be comfortable with that. I make a point when riding my (non-electric) kick-scooter of observing the same rules and regulations as when I am riding my bicycle.

There's also very old rule saying " if someone overtakes you, ease off to make it safer"


Most of it is just common sense, many an intelligent bod will say "don't bother me, it's obvious". But.. Those "less bothered" are being brought to attention, finger pointed , "you ain't getting away with it".

That's the problem though, isn't it, Thomas? Common sense would seem to be in very short supply in some quarters today - and not only when riding or driving.

So there's rewrite of obvious rules in UK highway code.

GOOD.

Regards, John.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Tannaton

Diesels are by far the most environmentally friendly internal combustion engine you can choose. Greenhouse gas emissions are much less than with petrol engines and always will be as diesels are more efficient.

The real problem with diesels is the density that we pack people into in large cities - the particulate emissions that you refer to are a very short term pollution issue and occur due to the concentration locally. They are not a global issue.

You could apply the same logic to just about any coal power station - should never have been used? Possibly not with hindsight but you need to factor in there was no other viable alternative.

Lean-burn petrols and LPG were (and still are) the viable alternative. NOx emissions are easier to deal with and won't cause cancer the way diseasel fumes do.

Diesels never were or will be environmentally friendly, as for those that use AdBlu to clean up their emissions

AdBlu is basically the contents of your toilet pan after relieving yourself in a liquid manner - urea and water. That's meant to clean the emissions up??? How dirty can they be if THAT cleans them up????? Wake up and smell the (already drunk) coffee!

There was a big propaganda campaign for diesels in the early-mid 80s, many text books disappeared from school library (and other) shelves as they contained proof diesel was carcinogenic.
Allegedly the reason these books were removed was they were no longer relevant to the syllabus but similar books containg almsot exactly the same but without references to diseasel were left. Need i say more?