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

[libraryguy]

It's riders like that, who give the rest a bad name....

Not that I'd do it myself, mind. But if you're intending riding through a red light, then treat it the same as a 'give way'. I.e. slow down and check nothing's coming before continuing across. Of course it's illegal and p****s-off motorists. But by ensuring there's nothing likely to hit you, is a far safer method than bowling straight through and hoping for the best!

IT'S ILLEGAL TO PASS A RED LIGHT END OF" You really are such a w-anchor

[MICK/GILLY]

BUT, as pointed out, by another poster, all that extra training leads to even driving instructors ignoring the "junction" rule when teaching the next generation how to drive correctly.

BTW, earlier in this thread, I asked why I believed that the junction rule was brought in to "protect the Government's back". Well, I'm pretty sure it must have been introduced because of the amount of pedestrians injured at junctions. Clearly, the Government had to be seen to be doing something about the situation. Unfortunately, they have made matters worse. Why? Well, drivers are clearly ignoring the rule but, of course, there will be a huge amount of pedestrians out there who knowing that they have the right of way at junctions, and assuming approaching cars will give way ( like at a Zebra crossing) step out into the road. And, as I keep warning drivers, injuring pedestrians at a junction will probably be treated like injuring a pedestrian on zebra crossing. If I was a driver, I wouldn't take a chance that A) pedestrians won't step out into the road (because pedestrians could easily -and quite rightly - assume drivers will obey both the hierarchy rule and the giving way to pedestrians rule) and B) if a driver hits a pedestrians, that the motorist won't be in very, very big trouble.

P.S. Come to think of it, surely drivers should now treat pedestrians at junctions, like they would treat pedestrians crossing or about to cross a zebra crossing. That would be the wise thing to do.

Well PNP You should look at that video that I posted here about instructors and examiners and the interpretation of these new nonesense rules remembering the key words are “ if it’s safe to do so” both agree the rules can be interpreted in the vein of safety, are not fit for purpose and even an examiner will overlook them, and you only get some sort of tiny little mark against you that means nothing in a test if you mess it up all together ( if you look at the instructor vid I posted ) it goes to show what I and others say that drivers are trained to be safe and recent to be safe, have a lot more to lose so their safer and here’s the news … Nobody cares .

[Tunesmith]

Well PNP You should look at that video that I posted here about instructors and examiners and the interpretation of these new nonesense rules remembering the key words are “ if it’s safe to do so” both agree the rules can be interpreted in the vein of safety, are not fit for purpose and even an examiner will overlook them, and you only get some sort of tiny little mark against you that means nothing in a test if you mess it up all together ( if you look at the instructor vid I posted ) it goes to show what I and others say that drivers are trained to be safe and recent to be safe, have a lot more to lose so their safer and here’s the news … Nobody cares .

Again, in the real world, when turning at a junction, if a driver injures a pedestrian, there would be no "ifs or buts". It would be deemed the driver's fault. For starters, the driver would be guilty of driving without due care and attention. Why? Well, again, 1) Under the hierarchy rule it's the drivers responsibility to watch out for pedestrians ( as they are considered the most vulnerable road users ) and 2) Clearly, when turning at a junction they should have, at the forefront of their mind, the possibility that a pedestrian might be about to cross or actually crossing the road that the drivers is entering.
It would be very interesting to find some cases where pedestrians have been injured by drivers in the above scenario, and what the legal outcome was.

P.S I have just done a bit of research to is if I could find a case of a driver hitting a pedestrian at a junction, and I came across a legal firm that deals with "where there's a blame, there's a claim" cases, and this is what they said about the topic at hand.
"Vehicle drivers have a responsibility to be aware of pedestrians. This is so important because of how vulnerable to potential injuries pedestrians are compared to other kinds of road users. If a car driver hits a pedestrian at a junction or elsewhere, they could be judged to have acted negligently"
Now, I bet that in a case of a collision involving a pedestrian at a junction there would be no question of culpability ( it would be automatically deemed the driver's fault ) and the "could be judged" would apply in the "elsewhere" situation mentioned above. For example, it a pedestrian was knocked down while simply crossing the road ( not at a junction) the driver involved would have to prove that he/she was driving with due care and attention.

BTW, if a driver did hit a pedestrian at a junction, what do you think his/her best line of defence would be?

[MICK/GILLY]

You'd have to be clairvoyant, to pass first time with some of them......Like when they tell you to turn left at the next junction, which you duly do. Only to find half a mile down the road, just past a minor junction on the left, a kerbed built-out 6'6" width-restriction blocking our way! In my case when they did that to me, I slowed to a gradual halt and totally puzzled why he'd deliberately sent me down a road with a width-restriction, I spoke to the examiner.

What did he say? Believe it or not (hi Mick!) he said I should have turned off the road we were on, at the minor road we'd just passed on the left. But on a test, you don't turn off and go down a different road unless, the examiner tells you to - or so I thought. No matter how perfect a driver, or comprehensive your knowledge, it's hard to see how anyone wouldn't fall for a trick like that first time around.

So you didn’t spot the signs on the road then and it still hadn’t occurred to you that there were any.
It was probably better to blame the examiner. I mean it couldn’t be perfect you with your comprehensive knowledge of everything motorist after all that you have taught us lot on here .

[The PNP]

Again, in the real world, when turning at a junction, if a driver injures a pedestrian, there would be no "ifs or buts". It would be deemed the driver's fault. For starters, the driver would be guilty of driving without due care and attention. Why? Well, again, 1) Under the hierarchy rule it's the drivers responsibility to watch out for pedestrians ( as they are considered the most vulnerable road users ) and 2) Clearly, when turning at a junction they should have, at the forefront of their mind, the possibility that a pedestrian might be about to cross or actually crossing the road that the drivers is entering.
It would be very interesting to find some cases where pedestrians have been injured by drivers in the above scenario, and what the legal outcome was.

Quite so.....Motorists in the main, appear to suffer from virtual tunnelvision. Only concerning themselves with the road ahead, whilst completely ignoring movement of peds on adjacent pavements.

[MICK/GILLY]

Again, in the real world, when turning at a junction, if a driver injures a pedestrian, there would be no "ifs or buts". It would be deemed the driver's fault. For starters, the driver would be guilty of driving without due care and attention. Why? Well, again, 1) Under the hierarchy rule it's the drivers responsibility to watch out for pedestrians ( as they are considered the most vulnerable road users ) and 2) Clearly, when turning at a junction they should have, at the forefront of their mind, the possibility that a pedestrian might be about to cross or actually crossing the road that the drivers is entering.
It would be very interesting to find some cases where pedestrians have been injured by drivers in the above scenario, and what the legal outcome was.

Well I imagine PNP the outcome was not so good if you don’t look while you are crossing the road, and that’s why drivers have dash cams.
Again this legislation has many holes in it, is not fit for purpose according to instructors and examiners that will interpret them to suit and not as you think ( see that vid ) and drivers are careful and polite more than cyclists that will ride between people and across junctions where pedestrians that look where they are going have more common sense than you give them credit for.
I wonder how many pedestrians have got run over and how many cyclists have got knocked off. Not that it matters ..or anyone but you cares.
And who has gone to prison so far… no one is it??

[The PNP]

IT'S ILLEGAL TO PASS A RED LIGHT END OF" You really are such a w-anchor

Duh - that's what I just said: 'it's illegal and p****s-off motorists'!

[MICK/GILLY]

Quite so.....Motorists in the main, appear to suffer from virtual tunnelvision. Only concerning themselves with the road ahead, whilst completely ignoring movement of peds on adjacent pavements.

Stop talking to yourself on your many accounts no one is buying it .

[The PNP]

Well I imagine PNP the outcome was not so good if you don’t look while you are crossing the road, and that’s why drivers have dash cams.
Again this legislation has many holes in it, is not fit for purpose according to instructors and examiners that will interpret them to suit and not as you think ( see that vid ) and drivers are careful and polite more than cyclists that will ride between people and across junctions where pedestrians that look where they are going have more common sense than you give them credit for.
I wonder how many pedestrians have got run over and how many cyclists have got knocked off. Not that it matters ..or anyone but you cares.
And who has gone to prison so far… no one is it??

It ain't your 'instructors and examiners' who will judge whether a motorist is guilty or not, but a qualified judge in a court of law. And that judge will make his/her decision based on the rules laid out in the current version of the HC, when making his/her judgement.

Fyi, cyclists are subject to the very same HC rules of hierarchy as everyone else and need to give way to peds crossing at junctions. If they should injure a ped in those circumstances, they'll be subject to the same penalties that a motorist would.

[The PNP]

Stop talking to yourself on your many accounts no one is buying it .

Lol...'not buying'?

It's Sale of the Century mate, and they're flying out the door!

[MICK/GILLY]

Duh - you're as bad as Mick, when it comes to disbelieving what you don't want to accept!

Kirkby was somewhere I had hardly ever been to and was unfamiliar with the roads around there. So is it any surprise I was fooled into that situation? I sometimes wonder, how many hundreds of other hopefuls, were caught out by that same underhanded routine. Imagine being the examiner, knowing full well what's coming up - sitting there laughing up your sleeve, wondering what your candidate is going to do!

I think we all want to accept things and don’t just come on here to argue but the things you say, the lies you tell and ALL the FALSE accounts you use to try to make people believe there are others that agree with you just puts people off.
You see it’s not just me it’s mostly EVERYONE that says this and you are told this all the time but still refuse to allow yourself to accept it.
The game has long been up for making up scenarios, threats of prison if no one cares what you say ( which they don’t ) the mask has long slipped and broken so you can’t put it back on again.
And the worst thing is your lies and nonesense is childlike easy to see because you are not very good at it always tripping yourself up .

So yea it’s not just me is it .

[MICK/GILLY]

Lol...'not buying'?

It's Sale of the Century mate, and they're flying out the door!

Most your bicycle threads now end up with no one believing you because they know you, it’s your credibility that has long flown out of the door .

[The PNP]

Most your bicycle threads now end up with no one believing you because they know you, it’s your credibility that has long flown out of the door .

Whatever you say, Mick. Though you'd be laugh of the year, if all those multiple-username assertions of yours, turned out to be complete BS....Never mind, I'm sure someone would help scrape all that egg off your face!

[said]

It ain't your 'instructors and examiners' who will judge whether a motorist is guilty or not, but a qualified judge in a court of law. And that judge will make his/her decision based on the rules laid out in the current version of the HC, when making his/her judgement.

Fyi, cyclists are subject to the very same HC rules of hierarchy as everyone else and need to give way to peds crossing at junctions. If they should injure a ped in those circumstances, they'll be subject to the same penalties that a motorist would.

Sometimes the punishment does not get that far. I was up driving through the lake district yesterday, fairly narrow roads. Came to a steep hill, that I knew had a sharp bend over the other side. Group of motor cyclists over took me on the hill - like stupid, since they were on the wrong side of the road and could not see over the brow of the hill. I came down the hill and turned the corner and had to give a wide berth to the crashed motorcycle and rider on the ground. Yes - he was being attended to.

[MICK/GILLY]

Whatever you say, Mick. Though you'd be laugh of the year, if all those multiple-username assertions of yours, turned out to be complete BS....Never mind, I'm sure someone would help scrape all that egg off your face!

Nothing is BS it’s long sussed and old now. You are simply not clever enough to get away with it, you keep giving yourself away not just by saying things and then tripping yourself up, then lying, then posting doctored photocopies when you could have just posted the original but you have the sad impression you are fooling everyone when on close inspection of these accounts and posts only supporting you posting on average 29 times in 20 yrs oooh it’s blatant and only a fool would think he is getting away with it.
And you think you are getting away with it .
It’s not just me that’s saying it and has sussed you is it tho, this hierarchy is just a meaningless word for a low level road user in fact all it means is you are first in the queue at A/E if you are foolish enough to ride as you think you can and the big difference as always is that you are not accountable for causing accidents with the everyday tricks that WE ALL see cyclists do . And at least we don’t smell like egg sandwiches when we arrive at our destination fresh as a daisy and not sweaty arsed.