Tony Lockhart
Avoiding Stress, at Every Opportunity
Always, not just for turning into a side road.
Highway Code Changes
- Thread starter farfromthesun
- Start date
Always, not just for turning into a side road.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I do think the interpretation given is wrong, yes. There's a 'should' in the wording, rather than a 'must', but the diagram and the Grauniad text implies quite strongly that it's a 'must'.
'Should' in these terms means 'where possible or appropriate you should' (IMV). So if you've got a car tailgating you, it might be inappropriate to come to a stop if you consider the likelihood of being rear-ended is significant, so in that case 'should' means 'I thought about it, and decided against it'.
Tony Lockhart
Avoiding Stress, at Every Opportunity
Whenever someone tailgates me, if I’m going to take a side road I usually begin slowing a long way back, much earlier than usual. By the time I turn into the side road, if they’re still right up me jacksie, I’ll have slowed to a walking pace.
I don't get tailgated much because I only own a van with windowless back doors. If someone gets too close for comfort I slow down and put my hazard lights on. Always wondered what the law says about using hazard lights while in motion.
Tony Lockhart
Avoiding Stress, at Every Opportunity
The rozzers would, in that situation, be more interested in the moron tailgater.
awkwardbydesign
Officially Awesome
IIRC, illegal except on a motorway, such as approaching a tailback. And they should be turned off when the vehicle behind has slowed, They should then use their hazards until the next car has slowed.
Tony Lockhart
Avoiding Stress, at Every Opportunity
But enforcement is unlikely when a brainless twonk is five feet from your bumper at the time.
awkwardbydesign
Officially Awesome
The question was about the legality.
Tony Lockhart
Avoiding Stress, at Every Opportunity
Well that is clear for all to see on the net. The ruling has been around for decades, after all.
And if I get tailgated then it is usually on a motorway. As I said, with a solid rear, it's rare. Driving a (borrowed) car for the first time in several years was a bit of an eye opener- I'm not captain slow but the morons in a hurry all seemed to have been let out for the day and following me. It's also interesting how people in smart cars give you a wide berth when you're driving a dirty white van......
Regarding the highway code changes, I heard about them several months ago and thought implementation was with immediate effect. I have been stepping off the pavement in the expectation that cars will stop for me since the summer in blithe ignorance of the actuality. As for taking the lane on my bike, it's always been that way.
I sometimes get tailgated on the bike in 30/40 mph speed limits. Presumably because they want to go faster? It's not nice having a car so close to your rear wheel
Yet when the national speed limit sign appears it turns out they didn't want to overtake after all
Couple of years ago I was taking my RoSPA advanced driving exam when the situation of me turning left into a minor road where a pedestrian was about to cross the minor road arose. I saw the pedestrian, they hadn't seen me, so I stopped and let them cross the minor road. Then I made my left turn into the minor road.
I know the circumstances of my particular situation won't apply to every left turn, but the underlying view of the examiner is still relevant. Here's what he told me I should have done:
a) waiting on a major road put me at risk, following drivers aren't expecting to encounter a stopped car in the middle of the carriageway.
b) thus I should have been looking for a solution to this risk.
c) I could see far down the length of the minor and road and it was obvious that no oncoming car was present or could emerge during the course of the proposed manoeuvre. In addition the pedestrians rate of crossing would not put me on a collision path with the pedestrian. He said I should have entered the minor road on the oncoming traffic side. In effect i would go around the crossing pedestrian.
What I see as relevant here is the examiners view that waiting on a major road for a pedestrian to cross the minor road constitutes a risk of me being rear ended. The examiner is a retired Police driving instructor, he went on to teach various Police instructors and military personnel on driving after he retired. I rate him as highly experienced and competent.
I know the circumstances of my particular situation won't apply to every left turn, but the underlying view of the examiner is still relevant. Here's what he told me I should have done:
a) waiting on a major road put me at risk, following drivers aren't expecting to encounter a stopped car in the middle of the carriageway.
b) thus I should have been looking for a solution to this risk.
c) I could see far down the length of the minor and road and it was obvious that no oncoming car was present or could emerge during the course of the proposed manoeuvre. In addition the pedestrians rate of crossing would not put me on a collision path with the pedestrian. He said I should have entered the minor road on the oncoming traffic side. In effect i would go around the crossing pedestrian.
What I see as relevant here is the examiners view that waiting on a major road for a pedestrian to cross the minor road constitutes a risk of me being rear ended. The examiner is a retired Police driving instructor, he went on to teach various Police instructors and military personnel on driving after he retired. I rate him as highly experienced and competent.
Use of the horn would have been a good idea. My advanced riding instructor said if you haven't got eye contact with whoever you deem as a potential risk (pedestrian, driver etc) than a quick sound of the horn usually sorts it.
NB this is not a 20 second blast but a quick pip!
NB this is not a 20 second blast but a quick pip!
awkwardbydesign
Officially Awesome
Frankly, I find that ridiculous. Presumably you were indicating? So why would a following driver be surprised that you had stopped?
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I find it a bit odd, too. Surprising that the examiner would advocate joining another road on the wrong side of the carriageway, even if the sight lines were all clear.
The examiners reasoning was, and guided by your questions above:
a) just because you are indicating does not make you impervious to the risk rear end collisions. Real world drivers are creatures of habit who don't look at the road as well as they should, think about how many rear end collisions occur for example. Unexpected actions catch many drivers out, stopping for a left turn would be unexpected. Therefore you should drive in a way that reduces your chances of being involved in an accident (and off course extending that rationale to all other road users and pedestrians). Better to not have the collision than state afterwards "your fault, you weren't looking plus I had my indicators flashing".
b) since I could have entered the minor road without compromising the safety of anyone, especially the pedestrian, there was no safety downside to doing so, only the upside described above.
I like the idea Guinnless put forward, a horn toot. That would have been entirely appropriate. Can't remember if that was advised to me at the time.
I was surprised by what the examiner told. But taking stock of the exact road conditions, line of site etc at that time I think in retrospect he was very pragmatic.
a) just because you are indicating does not make you impervious to the risk rear end collisions. Real world drivers are creatures of habit who don't look at the road as well as they should, think about how many rear end collisions occur for example. Unexpected actions catch many drivers out, stopping for a left turn would be unexpected. Therefore you should drive in a way that reduces your chances of being involved in an accident (and off course extending that rationale to all other road users and pedestrians). Better to not have the collision than state afterwards "your fault, you weren't looking plus I had my indicators flashing".
b) since I could have entered the minor road without compromising the safety of anyone, especially the pedestrian, there was no safety downside to doing so, only the upside described above.
I like the idea Guinnless put forward, a horn toot. That would have been entirely appropriate. Can't remember if that was advised to me at the time.
I was surprised by what the examiner told. But taking stock of the exact road conditions, line of site etc at that time I think in retrospect he was very pragmatic.
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/me...n driving in a built,road user poses a danger.
This is to alert, where necessary, another road user not as a rebuke. e.g. typically at a junction to gain eye contact.
Car horns are not very subtle, sometimes drivers toot when overtaking me on a bike, I really don't like it, nearly always an aggressive act followed by a close pass.