The vast majority of motorists totally ignore many Highway Code directives!

[local]

Anyone who relies on their "rights" to protect them whilst crossing a road needs help.

You have people who can't park, reverse or operate their car properly, some with all sorts of health issues and your thinking of relying on them for your safety, you would have to be mad.

You only need once and your dead or seriously injured.

[Tunesmith]

Anyone who relies on their "rights" to protect them whilst crossing a road needs help.

You have people who can't park, reverse or operate their car properly, some with all sorts of health issues and your thinking of relying on them for your safety, you would have to be mad.

You only need once and your dead or seriously injured.

Of course, the rule hasn't worked for the reasons you have stated. Rather than making the rule a "must" rule ( which SHOULD get the police involved), the Government has made it a "should", and "should" rules are not even monitored to see if they are effective.
So, the real villain in the matter is the Government. As stated above, the "junction" rules in the Highway Code is almost totally ignored and so why create such a rule? Well, it must be to protect the Government's back. For example, if a pedestrian gets injured/killed at a junction the government will simply point at the rule in the Highway Code and proceed to heap all responsibility for the "accident" on the driver involved. Drivers beware...you have been warned.

[MICK/GILLY]

Anyone who relies on their "rights" to protect them whilst crossing a road needs help.

You have people who can't park, reverse or operate their car properly, some with all sorts of health issues and your thinking of relying on them for your safety, you would have to be mad.

You only need once and your dead or seriously injured.

Never mind what the PNP says above in his many motorist hating guises just stay safe kids .
https://youtu.be/PiKQO6BVzyA?si=cy8uEMlveoWRKv1P

Yea you are a long time dead and it was cold in the ground this morning, there are no pockets for a Highway Code book in a shroud and the new rules are controversial at best and somewhat debatable even between points of differing authority. Basically the new rules are not good or clear enough and leave plenty of room for uncertainty/unsafe happenings and can cause all sorts of danger to the pedestrians they are designed to protect like forcing them into the path of an oncoming car or taxi or bus in its lane by letting them cross in front of you blind to the danger of the bus taxi lane from the Scarisbrick hotel to Eastbank st side of Lord st lights or when stopping for an oncoming car from Lord st turning into Bold st or Seabank rd where mostly pedestrians have the sense to LOOK and wait but as soon as you stop to let an oncoming car go on towards Lord st they all jump out at once in front of 2 cars.
So it’s a fine balance between courtesy, politeness and the safety of the Highway Code but in this respect it is badly re written and here’s the main point folk have overlooked … nobody cares .

And not forgetting the most important thing, good manners are important on the road but the confusion caused by them can get you killed, obviously if it’s safe to be polite especially if you are dry and warm while an old lady fights the storm to get across a road but it’s a fine line.

https://youtu.be/X4-PoCp8GPE?si=Em00a9GZQCjmU1ID

But if folk want to just cross the road without looking or because they think they can or undertake left turning cars or Lorrie’s then good luck with that .

[Tunesmith]

Never mind what the PNP says above in his many motorist hating guises just stay safe kids .
https://youtu.be/PiKQO6BVzyA?si=cy8uEMlveoWRKv1P

Yea you are a long time dead and it was cold in the ground this morning, there are no pockets for a Highway Code book in a shroud and the new rules are controversial at best and somewhat debatable even between points of differing authority. Basically the new rules are not good or clear enough and leave plenty of room for uncertainty/unsafe happenings and can cause all sorts of danger to the pedestrians they are designed to protect like forcing them into the path of an oncoming car or taxi or bus in its lane by letting them cross in front of you blind to the danger of the bus taxi lane from the Scarisbrick hotel to Eastbank st side of Lord st lights or when stopping for an oncoming car from Lord st turning into Bold st or Seabank rd where mostly pedestrians have the sense to LOOK and wait but as soon as you stop to let an oncoming car go on towards Lord st they all jump out at once in front of 2 cars.
So it’s a fine balance between courtesy, politeness and the safety of the Highway Code but in this respect it is badly re written and here’s the main point folk have overlooked … nobody cares .

And not forgetting the most important thing, good manners are important on the road but the confusion caused by them can get you killed, obviously if it’s safe to be polite especially if you are dry and warm while an old lady fights the storm to get across a road but it’s a fine line.

https://youtu.be/X4-PoCp8GPE?si=Em00a9GZQCjmU1ID

But if folk want to just cross the road without looking or because they think they can or undertake left turning cars or Lorrie’s then good luck with that .

Again, you're missing my point. Forget " good luck with that" as far as pedestrians are concerned, if a driver should injure/kill a pedestrian at a junction the driver's luck will have totally run out. Prosecuted, and if a death is involved undoubtedly prison and financial ruin, and all for ignoring a rule in the Highway Code.

[The PNP]

Anyone who relies on their "rights" to protect them whilst crossing a road needs help.

You have people who can't park, reverse or operate their car properly, some with all sorts of health issues and your thinking of relying on them for your safety, you would have to be mad.

You only need once and your dead or seriously injured.

Indeed....Any vulnerable person who needs to cross/use a roadway, whether on foot or bike, finds themselves in the realm of the motor vehicle. And just as you state, motor vehicles are operated by shall we say, a rather motley crew. Which is of course, precisely why we have rules to protect the vulnerable and (hopefully) pavements and bike-lanes, to keep these folk out of harms way.

[justbecause]

Indeed....Any vulnerable person who needs to cross/use a roadway, whether on foot or bike, finds themselves in the realm of the motor vehicle. And just as you state, motor vehicles are operated by shall we say, a rather motley crew. Which is of course, precisely why we have rules to protect the vulnerable and (hopefully) pavements and bike-lanes, to keep these folk out of harms way.

I take it you’re including yourself in that wide sweeping statement.

[MICK/GILLY]

Thank you for using both of your accounts so close together in time to reply to me twice PNP BUT THE FACTS ARE it’s debatable, controversial, not fit for purpose and somewhat largely ignored even by driving test examiners ( if you saw that video, but you didn’t cos you don’t want to be wrong and stay set in your silly me ways ) and despite what you think it’s the responsibility of the cyclist or pedestrian to look where they are going and act responsibly as much as the motorist that takes weeks of training before passing an ever increasing difficult test .
Staying safe on the road is a joint action and so far motorists have kept cyclists and pedestrians safe more than the other way around often saving them and people like you with your daft ideas from themselves .
You seem to be the redundant one man motorist hating resistance leader that no one takes notice of in a motorist occupied land, like a wolfie smith comedy character .
And no one is going to prison for a pedestrian that doesn't look properly and runs out in front of a motorist so don’t be so ridiculous.
The majority of motorists are not all pedestrian hating ( only cycle hating and they don’t really hate them they just laugh at them and the daft mentality of a 10 yr old like you show here ).
When it is safe to do so most motorists will happily let an old lady cross the road in the rain in front of them rather than let her get soaked but only if it is safe to do so .
You let your imagination run away with you in these kinds of threads and fantasies in others like the fantasy you have that we don’t all know most of the users on this thread is YOU TALKING TO YOURSELF AGAIN HA HA FOOL.

[Tunesmith]

Thank you for using both of your accounts so close together in time to reply to me twice PNP BUT THE FACTS ARE it’s debatable, controversial, not fit for purpose and somewhat largely ignored even by driving test examiners ( if you saw that video, but you didn’t cos you don’t want to be wrong and stay set in your silly me ways ) and despite what you think it’s the responsibility of the cyclist or pedestrian to look where they are going and act responsibly as much as the motorist that takes weeks of training before passing an ever increasing difficult test .
Staying safe on the road is a joint action and so far motorists have kept cyclists and pedestrians safe more than the other way around often saving them and people like you with your daft ideas from themselves .
You seem to be the redundant one man motorist hating resistance leader that no one takes notice of in a motorist occupied land, like a wolfie smith comedy character .
And no one is going to prison for a pedestrian that doesn't look properly and runs out in front of a motorist so don’t be so ridiculous.
The majority of motorists are not all pedestrian hating ( only cycle hating and they don’t really hate them they just laugh at them and the daft mentality of a 10 yr old like you show here ).
When it is safe to do so most motorists will happily let an old lady cross the road in the rain in front of them rather than let her get soaked but only if it is safe to do so .
You let your imagination run away with you in these kinds of threads and fantasies in others like the fantasy you have that we don’t all know most of the users on this thread is YOU TALKING TO YOURSELF AGAIN HA HA FOOL.

Oh dear. This is the problem. We have a very clear rule in the Highway Code but that rule is being almost totally ignored, and there are a pile of people who think that's fine. Then we have the air heads who talk absolute nonsense. Again, the onus is on the driver to always be aware of pedestrians. And, of course, when turning at a junction, drivers must be extra conscious about the possibility of a pedestrian crossing or about to cross the roads . And, again, I can't think of a workable defence for hitting a pedestrian at a junction.

[silver fox]

Oh dear. This is the problem. We have a very clear rule in the Highway Code but that rule is being almost totally ignored, and there are a pile of people who think that's fine. Then we have the air heads who talk absolute nonsense. Again, the onus is on the driver to always be aware of pedestrians. And, of course, when turning at a junction, drivers must be extra conscious about the possibility of a pedestrian crossing or about to cross the roads . And, again, I can't think of a workable defence for hitting a pedestrian at a junction.

As far as I can and have ever seen, motorists do take care with whatever is going on on the roads and are probably much more aware than either pedestrians or cyclists, many of whom seem totally oblivious.

Just for balance the only road users I have ever witnessed to pass over pedestrian crossing while pedestrians are on the crossing have been cyclists, that I have seen a good number of times, three occasions when traffic has stopped but along comes bird brain on a bike and just rides through, others where cyclist doesn’t see any need to stop and just rides round people.

[The PNP]

As far as I can and have ever seen, motorists do take care with whatever is going on on the roads and are probably much more aware than either pedestrians or cyclists, many of whom seem totally oblivious.

Just for balance the only road users I have ever witnessed to pass over pedestrian crossing while pedestrians are on the crossing have been cyclists, that I have seen a good number of times, three occasions when traffic has stopped but along comes bird brain on a bike and just rides through, others where cyclist doesn’t see any need to stop and just rides round people.

Yes, Some motorists do take care turning into/emerging from side roads. Others can be a very different animal. Swinging way too fast into side roads, without even indicating. Not to mention shooting out of them, without a care in the world. Forcing the traffic they've cut-into, to brake. These are the true villains of the peace, that peds and riders really need to watch out for!

[local]

Of course, the rule hasn't worked for the reasons you have stated. Rather than making the rule a "must" rule ( which SHOULD get the police involved), the Government has made it a "should", and "should" rules are not even monitored to see if they are effective.
So, the real villain in the matter is the Government. As stated above, the "junction" rules in the Highway Code is almost totally ignored and so why create such a rule? Well, it must be to protect the Government's back. For example, if a pedestrian gets injured/killed at a junction the government will simply point at the rule in the Highway Code and proceed to heap all responsibility for the "accident" on the driver involved. Drivers beware...you have been warned.

Blimey thats a real tin foil post, just how is the "guvvernment" covering its back?

[Tunesmith]

Blimey thats a real tin foil post, just how is the "guvvernment" covering its back?

Well, first, ask yourself, "What could have been the Government's motivation for bringing in the rule?"

[justbecause]

Indeed....Any vulnerable person who needs to cross/use a roadway, whether on foot or bike, finds themselves in the realm of the motor vehicle. And just as you state, motor vehicles are operated by shall we say, a rather motley crew. Which is of course, precisely why we have rules to protect the vulnerable and (hopefully) pavements and bike-lanes, to keep these folk out of harms way.

I‘m still waiting for an answer to my #66 post.

[MICK/GILLY]

Blimey thats a real tin foil post, just how is the "guvvernment" covering its back?

It’s almost like the PNP wrote it under a different guise that’s posted 90 times in 21 yrs and 7 times this week since 2 other accounts were discovered only supporting him talking to himself ha ha.

Shouldn’t be allowed but it is what it is and been happening for years .

[The PNP]

I‘m still waiting for an answer to my #66 post.

When at the wheel, I would doubt anyone's more ped/bike friendly than I.