A Quick 5 Episode #2 

I totally agree. The new rule sucks. It's ok if you're the only road user about, but put other road users in the mix and it's asking for trouble as very few are aware of the new rules. Plus most road users are oblivious to their surroundings at the best of times

I’m always impressed at the lengths people go to defend poor driving.

@@Robert-yw5ms As if pedestrians don't cause danger...

@@shm5547 No, it's stopping pedestrians from being injured from poor drivers. You have two lanes that come to a junction. One car in one lane stops to allow a pedestrian to cross, then, as poor drivers do, they will blaze past in the other lane without realising what the car has stopped for, potentially hitting the pedestrian. As stated by @drumajo9598, a lack of awareness of their surroundings.

@@Robert-yw5ms And? You said pedestrians cause no danger. A car on the road increases the potential for danger, yes, but isn't danger in and of itself. Pedestrians can a do cause danger to road users too. A person who jumps out into the road without looking or thinking is a danger to a road user, or multiple, who just happen to be there at that moment. At junctions, vehicles should have priority. If you want to manage danger, have a dedicated crossing down from a junction where it is way safer for pedestrians to cross. In fact, have a zebra crossing down from there since pedestrians have priority at those crossings.

As a pedestrian I try to stick to the new rule so that it doesn't get forgotten about/ignored, but I agree, there's too much going on at that junction, I'd step back until everyone knew who was going next.

I see what you mean. That said the cyclist was more or less irrelevant except as a camera point; they weren't turning into the side road.

I agree

@@Paws4thot Sort of irrelevant except that they were letting the car turn, and the car was probably focused on taking advantage of that rather than anyone waiting to cross. As a pedestrian I now stay well away from the side of road at junctions until I can see it's clear to cross without anyone waiting for me, unless there is queueing traffic.

The lady only had to keep an eye on all these things because drivers and cyclists cannot be trusted to duly give way

A gravestone engraved with "Was my right of way"

@@eddyrourke5514 🤣🤣 common sense, good judgement and a bit of patience over what the rules say, imo.

I use the rule of "People (drivers/cyclists/pedestrians/etc.) are all idiots and are going to do the stupidest thing possible." When they do I'm not surprised. When they do the right or intelligent thing I'm pleasantly surprised.

@@johnsampson2544 This is a good rule

Respecting the rules of physics first and of the country second

I was surprised Ashley didn't mention that rule.

I always let buses pull out from a stop when I'm on my bike, even though I know I'm going to be breathing diesel fumes until the next stop!

I got the bus for the first time in years, yesterday, and really enjoyed just sitting back and watching the scenery (well, Sheffield lol) while the driver did all the hard work. Most people were considerate to the bus driver. But I noticed Teslas are really bad for just cutting in front, or rushing up the side of the bus without a care for their car getting pranged?

I live in a rural area, recently on a bus following two cyclists side by side for about a mile and a half before he could pass them, into the village, stop to pick up, cyclists come past, back to square one.

@@flipper2392 It was deliberate from the cyclists. They get a kick out of holding others up.

I beleive H3 and 211 apply here “You should not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them. Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist, horse rider or horse drawn vehicle going straight ahead to stop or swerve” As this is a “shared use path” it is technically a cycle track for the purpose of the rule The question is, did the lorry driver know this was shared use and should approached more carefully or was it unmarked and the driver see no pedestrians and continue? Either way, if you haven’t been seen don’t continue into danger 👍

@@smilerbob I don't think they do as those relate to other situations. There is no path/cycle lane marked *across* the road. It looks like it's simply a junction where pedestrians and cyclists need to cross the road.

Highway code is irrelevant if you haven't been seen. That's why I would always give way to something bigger than me priority or not. If I am walking along a pavement and a car wants to come out of a driveway, I let them. If I want to cross the road at a roundabout exit/side street/busy dual carriageway when I am hopping over the central reservation I wait. Everything has priority over me. (Different matter if I am on the carrigway itself, but not when on the pavement.) Everything bigger than ones self has priority UNLESS the driver has STOPPED and clearly ceded priority to me.

"Approach with caution" innit. I would have let the HGV through regardless of the highway code rules.

@@igotes I hate it when HGVs stop for me. See the previous clip with the bus for why. It's so difficult to see someone who may be quite legitimately driving past the wagon (though even cyclists really ought not be passing vehicles in zigzags, even if it is legal).

Yes. Not just for truck drivers, car drivers too

Driver also doesn't use their indicators, to be fair

The truck driver may have used it slightly earlier to only look at the tactile paving crossing area?

Let's be real, nobody can be looking in two directions at once. If the truck driver is approaching the junction they will most likely be checking the right side first. Then they should look left and continue to check both directions. So, to expect them to be looking out for you personally as soon as you become aware of them is just main character syndrome at work. Put yourself in their place and think about what they are actually doing, not what YOU want them to do. Planning to proceed across a junction without slowing is just a prat move too.

Or ride the bike on the road. Just a crazy thought on a sunny Saturday evening.

Well, only the cyclist knows the answer, but my best guess is that they weren't 100% confident that the RR driver wouldn't decide to go just as the cyclist crossed their path. Perhaps the RR driver might not be sure whether the cyclist has decided to give way to them. Perhaps the RR driver gets impatient about the cyclist not getting going quickly enough. Perhaps the RR driver is just selfish/incompetent. In some situations, if there's enough doubt, it's better just to get them on their way and remove the risk, even though you're supposed to have priority over them. I guess it's the same reason the pedestrians decided not to cross, even though the RR should have given them priority.

The lorry is emerging from the side road onto the main road, the give way markings are just worn out.

You were right in continuing. The rule states you should give way if they are waiting to cross - if it's clear they are just waiting, not paying attention, or even waiting for vehicles to turn instead of waiting to cross, then you can proceed. The main point, is just don't run them over.

Safety and design regs

Except they're not blocking the road, they'd be giving way to other road users. Blocking the road would be, if they got out their car, locked up and went shopping.

​@@olircAre you saying the Range Rover driver should have turned across the path of the cammer, stopped for the pedestrians to cross while preventing the cammer from proceeding or are you saying the Range Rover Driver should have stayed where they were, let the cammer go, let the pedestrians cross and hold up any traffic behind them or the Range rover driver should have turned and carried on and not waited for the pedestrians?

@@radishpea6615 I would have blocked the cammer if they had waved me across like that. I would have turned in, stopped and allowed the pedestrians to cross.

I'd say treat the shared path as another lane of traffic, so if the cyclist continued at the same pace and if neither slowed down there would be a collision, give way. No way would I cycle in front of the HGV though.

That's how I see it. At 2:27 you can see the driver has already reached the crossing point before the cyclist has. I see the placement of the crossing point as very deliberate. With the exit of the side road being a wide curve the crossing being where it is ensures that anyone wanting to cross can clearly be seen. Trying to start crossing where the cyclist wants to the view is partially blocked by the fencing meaning they are on the road before the driver would be able to tell.

I agree...far better for the pedestrians to remain where they are, for THEIR safety, and others.

@@thomaselliot2257 Definitely, we don't need to march into the mêlée without armour.

Cacophony is a great word

The vehicles are the cause of the mess though and should still give way to the pedestrians

@@thomaselliot2257And for the drivers and cyclists to do the same so the pedestrians can safely cross

Obviously that's false. If you want to make a point that speeding gains little to no time, say so. But don't try to imply that speed is irrelevant as it patently isn't.

@@goodyeoman4534 No. I am correct. It takes me as near as makes no difference the same amount of time to get to and from work each day NO MATTER HOW FAST I drive on the motorway and other roads. I set off at 6.40 and arrive at 7.05 +/- a couple of minutes and 3.31 and home by 4.08 [+/-acom] (which have no bearing on how quickly I went on the motorway). The length of journey is completely dictated by the traffic lights/conjestion on my route.

@@goodyeoman4534I drive 6 miles on the motorway. It takes me either 6 minutes (+/- upto 45 seconds) depending on my maximum average speed. BUT I can LOOSE 5 minutes stuck at traffic lights or in traffic queues. Don 't believe me try it yourrself. Time your work journey each day for two weeks and you'll see plain as day.

It really depends on how far you're travelling and the type of road. I used to drive a 35 mile route to work every day on A/B roads with quite a variable travel time. On a good run (very early in the morning) it'd take 45 minutes, but in the afternoon it would be at least an hour, more likely 80 minutes. It makes a lot less difference on highway type roads where there are fewer corners and no buses or tractors.

@@chrisl1797 Nope, you're wrong. And you've now moved the goal posts by changing it to your own journey. A GCSE student could work out that driving at 60 mph will get you to work faster than at 45 mph, even with lights, congestion and traffic. I'm surprised you're trying to dig your hole deeper.

That's also where the dropped kerb is. The corner kerbs have been compressed, probably from trucks catching them, but it's not an actual dropped kerb for crossing.

Yep, it takes a fraction of a second for a motor vehicle to pass, whereas a ped can take 10 seconds or so. I'm not a fan of the new highway code rules, and I don't own a car.

So true. That new rule is absolute rubbish.

I'd take the same approach l, especially with the cyclist giving way against the priorities. More confusion = more chance of a mistake.

@@davetkd666 he has done the same as the pedestrians, given way to something bigger, driven by some one likely to disobey the rules.....

@chrisl1797 I can see what he's done, but I see daily scenarios where the risk of accidents increases. Case in point , as ashley touched on, by signalling the Chelsea Tractor to progress he's increased the risk to the pedestrians by interfering with their priority. It was rightfully waiting for the cyclist and that would have allowed the pedestrians space to cross safely. It's like idiots on a two lane road who flash out cars from a side street they're turning into on the right, oblivious to the traffic on their left that will be brought into conflict. Or those at crossroads who give way against priority when there's traffic waiting to turn/ emerge and then no one knows who they were giving priority to. Just do your damn job and clear, and let everyone sort themselves out

You are aware that you MUST drive (and cycle) with reasonable consideration for others?

@@QiuEnnan If everyone did that the dashcam channels would have nothing to show..... :-(

Yep. Typical "Because I can" type: budgie-smuggler, lockdown supporter, Green voter etc.

​​​@@goodyeoman4534No one thinks you look smart or clever bringing up politics and random nonsense about COVID. I think the cyclist comes across poorly in that clip, but I don't make up random things in my head about him and his political views. Look up "false consensus effect", cause your comment is definitely a shining example of it.

@@JonnyUnforeseen Nothing wrong with bringing up COVID. Obviously it's a sore point for you. Lockdown supporter? Did you lose your job? Did you catch it? Regret the three jabs? Something is obviously eating away at you about it.

@Dani-El Could you not have just said 'cars' or 'motor vehicles' instead of using a cyclists antagonistic term towards other road users?

Wow! Steel Monsters hardly antagonistic, playful really.

Work on it more

Thanks for the advice! Were you the guy in the Merc?

@@igotes Spend less time on making rubbish jokes, and more time working on your patience.

A318, right? But you're right, you'd have to have local knowledge of the road or be extremely observant to know it's a shared path coming from one of the side streets.

You should treat all give ways as if there's a cycle track. You would have to give way to a jogger / pedestrian, or a child on a scooter, so just be prepared to do so.

The actual crossing with the tactile paving is further to the right though where the view of it may not have been as restricted.

​@@v52gc I get what you're saying, but I still think that the lorry driver has no intention of stopping there.

In the current path design guidance most crossings would be set up to have priority to the path, and that would be made clear by white lining, coloured surfacing, or continuous footway construction. The old style with giveway lines on the path would not be used for most 30mph roads now but of course still linger on for the next few decades, creating a mixed picture junctions with almost random mixtures of intent and physical markings. And then you get ones like in the video, with no markings and even more open to interpretation. Cyclists and Pedestrians treating every minor crossing as though they have to give way is one option of course, but that goes against the intent of the guidance too. Ask your local roads authority how much of their network meets LTN 1/20 specs if you want some fun 😞

yes, those give way lines do override rule H3. They are a bit pointless though, because a driver is unlikely to notice the cycle lane has a give way marking. Also, those markings don't apply to pedestrians, so a jogger wouldn't _have_ to give way - they would technically have priority. The other point is these give way lines only apply to the road you are crossing. If traffic is on the main road and yet to enter the side road, if you emerge onto the side road before the other vehicle turns in, then you have priority. It's all a bit of a mess really.

2:20 shared path sign on telegraph pole next to black wheely bin, helps if you know it's the A318 past Brooklands race track and can look on street view of course.

@@andyalder7910 Thanks, so cyclist OK to use it, but lorry driver has no clues at the junction. Poorly signed/marked.

I had the same thought about 4:10 under the 1.5m rule that was almost certainly an illegal pass, if any of the cyclists had a camera and wanted to make an issue (although this group seemed accommodating to all traffic) you could be facing a fine, which goes to show how daft the rule is on most rural roads where it is physically impossible to give the required 1.5m or 2m for a walker.

He deserves it :)

Haha, your comment worked... subbed

Almost half the road users down here in NZ that I encounter on roundabouts don't know the rules for them. I've even seen police cars indicate incorrectly! You have to be prepared for every car to fail to indicate or fail to give way.

It doesn't apply to non-motorised traffic, whether you overtake them or they overtake you.

@@AshleyNeal-JustCycling Thanks for the info 👍

​@AshleyNeal-JustCycling All the issues around cyclists would vanish if they were treated like another vehicle (most likely a moped). No special rules and required to obey the Highway code in full.

@illegalopinions4082 I get where you're coming from, but to treat bicycles the same as motorised vehicles would kill them overnight in Britain. The increased cost to the DVLA and DVSA would be extreme, which wouldn't be covered by excise duty as most people would just abandon ownership rather than pay, and manufacturers wouldn't be able to afford to make the required homologation costs to get the 'vehicle' on the road. Now if you mean they should just follow the same road rules (as mopeds), without any of the licensing, certification or insurance requirements, then you're already treating them differently, but ignoring that it means cycle lanes and shared use paths can no longer be a thing (probably would make some happy tbf, but would mean cycles would always be on the carriageway with cars and other motorised vehicles). I don't think you'd be even allowed to push your 'vehicle' over a pavement, and certainly not be able to walk it through a pedestrian area. Personally I'd prefer to see VED scrapped (I thought that's where we were going with the introduction of EVs but doesn'tlook like it now) and replace it with a much reduced 'motorised vehicle registration', which only costs what it needs to cover the cost of running the registration scheme, rather than the extra being funnelled into general taxation, as I believe it's this which makes vehicle drivers say they pay a 'road tax' which bicycle riders don't and gives a sense of unfairness and a 'them and us' feeling. For safety, there are places non-motorised vehicles can't go, and for the same reasons, places they can go that motorised vehicles can't, and to change that would increase risk and danger for these road users. All that said, I think it would be useful for Ashley to do a series on what the different road rules are for cyclists compared to motorised vehicles (and maybe some that are the same that people maybe don't realise 😅) and the thinking behind each of them, as I think it would be quite informative to both groups, especially those that often flip between them both.

Yes, you are missing something - it's called Rule H3 (and similarly Rule H2 for pedestrians). You should now treat all junctions with a give way as if they have two give way lines. One that is giving way to the main road and an unmarked give way for the footway/cycle track. Whenever I approach a give way line, I plan to stop a few metres before it, check for any potential crossing pedestrians or cyclists, before then moving up to the marked give way line for the main carriageway.

I'm always impressed at the lengths people go to to defend poor cycling