Dealing with pedestrians (and a cyclist) after the updates 

Well said

Yep. It's the only way.

Now I know why 2 cars on 2 different didn't drive on a green light in Andover the 1st car was just sitting there on a green when walking home from college and the 2nd car was just slowly driving on a green waiting for me to pass when walking to college literally, the 1st car was a mini and I thought she was on her phone or they were just trying to be very nice to me and my mate for us to have are early death at 18 and I was like not today When 2 cars passed her I had to point at the green light to show it green and then they starting to drive. But the funny thing is that her daughter just stared at me when they went passed 🤣

I get this dilemma in cyclist on cyclist 'conflict'. In your example I may come to that light planning to turn left but position a little central so as to discourage a close overtake from a driver immediately after the lights change on the junction and to give space for another cyclist who also wants to turn left. Say one joins but isn't communicating with me (rare but may be headphones/non-English speaking) as to where they plan to go I'll solve the problem by trying assertiveness.

The new rules only mention giving priority to cyclists stationary alongside or in motion. As he was stopped behind you, then there was no need to give him priority and this hesitancy could cause confusion. Although I agree when in doubt, the best action is to err on the side of caution, I felt this was a bit over cautious.

Nothing in the new rules to stop you. It's clarifying what has always been the case that if you do decide to continue walking then the traffic has to give way to you. The new rules just emphasise that drivers must be prepared for that and that too has always been the case.

Ofcourse, abso-fucking-lutely! Just like when you're driving a car and get a green light you should always watch out for red light jumpers. Enforcement and road design has to help in reducing both though.

Yep perfect way to get bonnetted assuming the car has stopped for you. Always pass behind the car waiting to emerge imo

agree, walking in front of cars is awkward lol would much rather wait

Car drivers have been acting like knobheads long enough. This was always bound to happen

Unfortunatly the examiner in the clip failed that thinking. I would have done the same as the pedestrian, I'm safely crossing and the driver gets to continue.

@TheKnightsShield - I used to do this too, but think about what happens when you walk behind that car and another vehicle comes from the otherway and fails to spot you emerging from bheind the lead vehicle. It's better for everyone that you walk in front of the lead car so you are easilly visible for other road users, not just the one you're walking in front of.

@@dalmo001 Hasn't happened to me yet in 20+ years (I'm in my late 30s) and with today's drivers, it could still happen, but I've managed to make it this far without any issues. Any time another car comes from the other direction, they've stopped to let me pass and there was never any problems. Part of the reason why I go behind the lead vehicle, is because some people are too impatient to wait or might be distracted and start moving forward while I'm still passing in front of them, both of which could lead to a nasty outcome. As I said before, I do it as a curtesy to the drivers and it also makes the whole process a lot easier for everyone involved.

Have you considered that will make you harder to see for vehicles going in the opposite direction because there's now a car between you & them? Also, you'll have lost the presumption of right of way if something happened that led to a dispute over liability.

@@clairelane3024 Close call, coming to a complete stop would have tipped it in the driver's favour I reckon. The pedestrian probably clocked the L sign & thought they were doing a favour.

This. Well put.

You've perfectly described what I was thinking myself.

Even if both lanes are clear, I always prefer walking *behind* a car rather than in front. Now cars stop to let me cross and it's actually more awkward for both of us because I still insist on walking behind the car. Because of this what I usually do now when I see a car approaching a junction is look away and pretend I'm not going to cross, then as soon as the car goes past I cross.

I agree with this. Even before this legislation, no one driver can think for other drivers and has to assume that other people don't know what they're doing. Of course people do know what they're doing but there's always going to be one on the road who thinks they can do what they like and not what should be done. Like in the situation when I got knocked off my bike because the driver on my left was on their phone and realised they were in the wrong lane. I got forced into the other lane and into a car in front. They didn't stop either. People are always going to do what they like on the roads. Pedestrians and drivers should always pay attention but there's always one. I've seen incidents when drivers signal to a pedestrian to cross without thinking of danger. Then something bad happens when said pedestrian crosses. Drivers have also signalled me as a pedestrian to cross and I never do until I know it's clear. If it's not I wait and have often got confused looks from the drivers that signalled me. Giving priority to pedestrians has always been a thing in cases where the pedestrian approaches a kerb and doesn't seem to be paying attention and just crosses without looking. Things like that would come up in the old driver theory test videos where you have to flag potential hazards. In that kind of situation common sense dictates that you slow down and stop if you have to. Now it's those virtually augmented video's with placed situations and really crap animations. Might be situations that come up in real life but really you can see them coming a mile off as the faked situations really stand out. Don't have to pay attention in those new video's, just look for the sore thumb sticking out or so to speak. They aren't nearly as hard or realistic as the old videos. The driver is the one in control of the vehicle and should pay attention because they have a huge advantage but stopping for every single pedestrian just waiting could definitely cause a lot of trouble. Say a driver is turning down into a T-juction and has to stop for a pedestrian that get's to the kerb during the turn, perfect opportunity to get T-boned or rear ended and It'd be the driver in front at fault. This is because there's always going to be those who will do what they want on the roads and not pay attention.

the remedy is to wait well back from the kerb until you see an opening you like. and if a car does stop and you don't want to cross, yet, simply wave them on.

To be fair, there's a lot of ambiguity & subjectivity already. I failed a test I should've passed (my first) and passed a test I should've failed (my second). Everyone knows someone who's got one of these stories :-) ... so, yeah. Just another thing to add to the list.

Yeah costs people alot of money aswell. I had my examiner slam the breaks when turning right even though the traffic had stopped to let me pass.

@@defragsbin I failed my first motorcycle test due to the fact that a 4 (approx) year old was stood by a set of lights which had just turned green in my favour with no oncoming traffic, waiting to cross. I let the child cross and was told I should have proceeded regardless. My reply was basically that whilst the child shouldn’t have been out alone, what would have happened if I’d gone, she’d ran out and I’d hit her as being so young she probably had no idea of road sense. I also stated that if it happened again my actions would be the same. I’d already been a car driver for over 30 years at that point.

@@Rodders1 yup, totally agree! That's life I guess -- sometimes you just don't get the luck on the day. I also failed my first test for doing something that I would do again and again (undue hesitation in a situation with poor visibility)

Correct assumption. The ambiguity level has now been turned up to 10. We will see an increase in casualties and more insurance claims I have no doubt. Get a dash cam front and rear to avoid collision for cash claims from dodgy pedestrians and cyclists.

Was always taught to cross a junction behind cars leaving room incase they roll back, their observations are usually fixated elsewhere and you could be obscured by the pillars! Unless they make eye contact and allow me to cross I'll still be walking behind

SMART MOVE THESE NEW TYRANICAL RULES ARE LIKELY TO INCREASE PEDESTRIANS GETTING RAN OVER I AINT GIVING WAY TO JACK SH@T !!!

It's moronic and people will be injured and killed. There isn't a snowflake in hell's chance of me teaching my children to walk out in front of any vehicle at a junction unless at a controlled crossing.

There's far more idiots on the pavement than there are on the roads! These new rules are ridiculous!

@@vizuk CORRECT , THE GOVERNMENT HAS LOST TOUCH WITH REALITY AND JUST MAKING UP NAZI LAWS FOR FUN , EVEN A MONKEY IN CHARGE WOULD KNOW THAT THIS NEW CHANGE IS A BAD IDEA , AND IS NOT LOGICAL TO GIVE PEDESTRIANS FALSE CONFIDENCE WHEN ENTERING A ROAD WITH 2 TONS OF RAW STEEL N AND IRON MACHINES GOING 40MPH , ONLY STUPID PEOPLE GET RUN OVER , IN THE 90S CARS USED HIT 70MPH IN SIDES STREETS WERE I PLAYED , BUT I WAS OK WITH THAT AS MY MUM TAUGHT ME COMMON SENSE , IT WAS SIMPLE ONLY ENTER THE ROAD WHEN EMPTY !!!!

Yup, utter moronic rule that is actually more dangerous for everyone

It makes far more sense to potentially cause a pile up on a roundabout than to suggest a pedestrian walks down the road a little further to a safer crossing point... Oh, wait. No its the opposite of what I just said.

@@alexg1778 It seems everyone who actually uses the road as a motorist and pedestrian (and thats most people) can see this, but our legislators can't. We are governed by complete idiots! It achieves the very opposite of what it claims to do (make things safer for pedestrians). DOH! 😣

@@helensente990 Thats a plausible theory except for the fact that driving in this country has been an expensive, stressful chore for many years already. VERY few people who drive, especially in towns and cities, do so for any other reason than pure necessity. All this rule change does is add further stress, confusion, dysfunctio and unnecessary risk to the system.

If you don't ensure the vehicles are following the rules before you step out, you're an idiot. It's that simple. The rule is well conceived and when drivers learn they will be ticketed for violating, pedestrians will be safer. Drivers do not slow down to look for pedestrains crossing, they treat it as if they have no onus.

Do you still have Low Speed Zones (or a similar name?) I was there 30 years ago and thought it was a good idea - a driver needs to adjust their speed to avoid all collisions or the book gets thrown - unless they can show that they had no alternative.

@@tiberiancostal1358 Yes we do! I think you are talking about limited speed zones.

Priority is not right of way, but there are too many people who think that way particularly when it favours themselves.

Almost killed gent (well gent is too kind) on his phone, just walked out and crossed! I was driving a fully loaded recovery truck. Some people are just idiots and self centred

@@b4ndogor479 Ah, thanks - if they work the way I recall, they are a great idea around places like schools

👏👏😂😂👌. Yup that’s London!

There's a solution to that: avoid driving in London 😅

Oh god yes! Pedestrians in London have always had a death wish and just step into a road wherever they are. And being cut up by mopeds who decide to weave in and out at a whim? Don’t get me started!!! 😡

@@jethrogauld7437 Believe me mate, I try and avoid it!

Was there today. It is crazy.

Not always true. Keep in mind the following story is in America, could be different elsewhere. I have 2 very unlucky friends. One was hit by a car when crossing the road illegally, and one has hit a person that was crossing the road illegally. In both cases, the drivers in each instance were found not at fault. Just because pedestrians have the right of way in legal crossings, does not mean they are free to cross wherever/ whenever they please. In both cases, the pedestrians tried to sue for their medical bills, and both lost the case.

Ahh that's why so many Brits don't even look both ways before crossing a road

@@puffdaddy4537 When driving, you should be thinking that pedestrians always have the right of way. As a pedestrian (or cyclist) you should be thinking that every driver is an idiot who isn't paying attention until it is demonstrated otherwise. Signaling your intent really is quite important. As a pedestrian, making eye contact with a driver you think might be giving way is really helpful.

@@puffdaddy4537 America has jaywalking laws etc. I wouldn't trust them when it comes to working out what to do with pedestrians

@@puffdaddy4537 Thats surprising because I used to live in San Diego in a a little beach town called "Ocean beach" people just walk across the road regardless of whats coming and they take their time to cross, it's not seen as rude, it's completely normal, the next beach along (pacific beach) the road is a dual carriage way with lots of lights, on this road for the most part everyone just uses the lights unless theres a gap. Passing my driving test there was hilarious, I pulled out in front of someone causing them to slow right out of the test centre, I then went right on a red (which you should do when it's clear) and I missed that a truck was doing a uturn at the same time, we both stopped in the middle of the road, eventually he moved on. I kept going over the the stop lines to get a good look at whats coming, the instructor said to me "you know about the stoping behind the line law right?' I said "yes" (I actually didn't really, its so normal to go past the line to see and everyone does it) she said "well, you better start doing it, you're on your test" haha anyway I passed

Totally agree. Look right and left. Wait until its safe to cross. Don't get yourself ran over. I wouldn't want small kids being taught that they can just walk out in front of traffic at a junction. Because it will happen now. People presume the pedestrian always has right of way everywhere now as proven by the video clips here. So not only is the new rule clearly dangerous, it is also miscommunicated to motorists and pedestrians alike.

Exactly, it’s an absolute joke

Pushed by a member of the Green Party I believe.

the law does not state that pedestrians should walk out in front of cars. it states that it is the driver's duty to care for the safety of more vulnerable road users.

This sort of zen shhht works on tests and sat next to an instructor, but the very same people driving around in normal life, going to work, running late to pick their kids up, then needing to be in Scunthorpe in 45 minutes for some crpp meeting in a shhh paid job before commuting back to London in time for supper, are really NOT going to drive ANYTHING like this, get real, it's easy to say how we SHOULD drive on a sunny Sunday afternoon cruise with our sweetheart, but noone is going to stop early at EVERY junction on a miserable wet Monday night in the hope somebody may want to cross and give them a quick glance of appreciation, if that!

I'm still not comfortable with anything that effectively causes me to give way to someone who is behind me, like the cyclist here. I'm always going to be careful and make sure I don't suddenly cut in front of them, but I think it's best for everyone if we continue to proceed, in order, in whichever way we are all going. If someone cuts past me or looks like they're going to then sure, react accordingly.

@@DNRTannen The problem with the cyclist passing on the left in Ashley's video is rule 74, which is in the guidance for cyclists section. It states "...Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left..." In other words, the cyclist should not have passed Ashley because he was indicating to turn left (74), even though Ashley believes he "should" give way to the cyclist (H3). Note that having turned left Ashley now has to overtake the cyclist again, an unnecesary risk in my opinion.

@@stuartking Exactly the new rules aren't even consistent in this respect. Also it is dangerous to pass on the left unless you are really sure that the car in front has seen you. Vehicles have blind spots and cyclists are easily missed especially at night.

@@stuartking I read those rules as cooperating to prevent left turn collisions (but not right turn collisions). Rule 74 tells the cyclist not to undertake when someone's turning left. However, H3 says that if they do this anyway, or it looks like they're going to, then the other road users have to keep their path clear. Doesn't seem to be any equivalent to rule 74 for overtaking Road users waiting to turn right though.

I'm sorry but the example you give at 0.30 is wrong and misleading. The new rules state that drivers should give way to pedestrians crossing or WAITING TO CROSS. This person was doing neither, he was simply walking on the pavement (and at least 3 or 4 metres from the kerb when the driver decided to stop). Of course drivers need to be careful and observant, but they should not give way based on guesswork as to whether someone might (just might) intend to cross at some stage in the future.

I agree I always look and I avoid using zebra crossing for the same reason

Well said Philly, couldn't agree with you more 👍.

i was taught never to wave peds into the road, you can't cpntrol the other lanes, i don't mind if a driver tries to let me cross a single lane, but i'm getting glared at and waved at all over the place, and i won't leave the pavement so drivers get pissed

I don't think it helps that the slight tint of the windscreen coupled with the increased brightness outside the car actually makes it very hard to determine what a driver is signalling

absolutely, even if one car gives way, you cant guarantee that the cars going the other way will

That's because you have a Brain.

The rules are good, they are telling drivers that _they_ are responsible for safety on the road, because _they_ are dangerous to everything around them. I am always happy to see a driver remember the most important lesson: _Always_ look out for unprotected road users and let them through safely.

Unfortunately 99.9% of drivers are only concerned about their own safety .. they couldnt care a flying fig about yours, hence the need for legislation. If motorists wont protect pedestrians out of choice .. then they will be legislated to do it!!! And now they've been legislated they are moaning and looking for "get out" clauses!!!!

@@helenleary1327 You're spot on, and as usual - as always - it's a shame there are so many drivers here having a moan about it for themselves. Now, if I had my way, they'd be legally obliged to stop at any pedestrian crossing if there happened to be a pedestrian there waiting to cross, but the old saying comes to mind, 'they don't like it up 'em!'

@@danielkarmy4893 The problem isn’t the idea behind the legislation. It’s just how it’s written is confusing af and makes pedestrians think they can do stupid shit. So more pedestrians put themselves in dangerous situations even when there isn’t a crossing. This means drivers have to drive more dangerously to avoid these accidents and then it’s a mess. So because of how the legislation is poorly written, that’s what makes it more dangerous. Because pedestrians will think they are gods of the road and cause massive amounts of accidents

That's seems to be your Stockholm syndrome talking. You've given way and had to wait for cars for years even though you're the weaker road user (and saving the environment, way more efficient "transport") that it now feels weird to get the priority you deserve. There is a Notjustbikes video in which the presenter mentions how great the bicycle sensors for traffic lights are in NL. They see you coming and either make it green a bit longer or turn to green just in time FOR YOU. It's a great feeling.

@@woutervanr notjustbikes is such a great channel

@@daleksecsy It really is. Just watching Ashley's videos might give people the impression that the only thing you can change to make traffic safer is your driving, which just isn't the case.

@@woutervanr will all the extra start-stopping from giving way really help the environment though?

@@MrSapps Start-stopping in it self won't, but that's not the whole picture ofcourse. More people will walk/cycles because of this. Even if only 1 extra person walks/cycles a journey becasue of these "new" rules instead of driving it, the extra environmental damage from start-stopping for that one person is VASTLY outweighed by the environmental savings of them not driving. Kinda obvious isn't it. Ideally you won't have the start-stopping though. Not because of the minute increase in the massive amount of emisions for cars, but because humans can't be trusted to completely follow the rules 100% all the time. Be it on purpose or becasue they're tired or whatever. There should be segrageted cycle lanes and way more car free zones/LTNs. When transport alternative become more attractive (finacially, time wise, etc) the average person will change their mode of transport. This is a fact traffic planners have know for decades. The only unkown is exactly how much people will change their behaviour.

Good thing it isn't law and you can't be penalised for not giving way to pedestrians at ridiculous crossing places. Only if you hit them can you get in trouble 🙂

Some sense at a last. Insane rule. Someone was bored and made a stupid rule up which will cause accidents.

I quite agree. It was fine as it was and drivers were already aware to look out for hapless pedestrians who might put themselves in harms way but now we have indecision everywhere and the risk is that a car that stops on the apex of a corner gets hit from behind by a driver who cannot see or predict the reason for the stop.

I agree. It will actually take longer for the pedestrian to cross. By the time you've stopped for them, let them cross, they realise you're letting them cross, then they make sure no cars are coming from the other way, then they cross, you could have just drove past and then they can cross.

@@travellingtom6091 I think It's based on the 70's film "Death Race 2000" If you not heard of it check it out

The bike was coming from behind the car. And they tend to cycle inside the car so Ashley not allowing the cyclist to make his move could knock the cyclist over.

@@lynnenicholson6968 i think they were talking about the pedestrian clip not the bike clip

So you would advocated running them over? You should ALWAYS give way to pedestrians in ALL circumstances.

Lights, yes, roundabouts, no. Roundabouts are meant to slow cars down and reduce deadly side on collisions. If designed properly (so not in the UK, especially the painted mini ones) they're the PERFECT place to give way to cyclists and pedestrians. Does this mean that roundabouts, especially in denser areas, will slow car traffic down more? Yes. Is this a desired effect? Also yes. Will this result in a modal shift? Yes again. Because while you might be a car driver, most people (70-80%) just want to go from A to B as convenient as possible. Be it by car/train/bus/bicycle/foot.

@@simonavarne9635 so if cars have a green traffic light and the pedestrians have a red light cars have stop and give way?! How ridiculous and a recipe for disaster

I also feel that It put Motorcyclists at an even further disadvantage, Motorcycling requires predictability & the ability to confidently assume that other road users are going to do as they are expected to do. harsh braking at slow speeds and while turning is difficult and dangerous for motorcyclists, these changes were poorly communicated.

pedestrians may be unpredictable but they are generally very slow. if they look unpredictable and fast, it is you going too fast for the situation.

@@jpross68 As an "alive" life long rider I always confidently assume that other road users might do something unpredictable !

100% agree, sometimes it takes longer for the driver to stop and wave you across than it would if they just drove passed and you cross behind them

Completely agree with you. I like to make my own judgements and have been quite aggressively hooted/shouted at when I don't cross in front of a vehicle, both before and after the rules changed; I usually walk away and cross elsewhere. If there is no traffic behind the car that's stopped I try to thank them and wave them on as stopping seems pointless. If it's a busy junction with a queue of trafgic waiting to get out I'll usually take the offer and cross. I also want to teach my 3 year old to make his own judgements and cross when the road is clear, rather than relying on people in cars to chose for him, and this really doesn't help with that!

Yea I've done this for ages. Thought I was the only one, haha. Since cars must give peds the right of way, it literally removes all caution in decision-making process for the driver and they can just go right ahead. No ambiguity.

In fact, that is the recommendation when going to the drivers side to get in a vehicle parked on the road too.

I generally just wave the car to go on once they get to the intersection (in the US most roads either have a light or a stop sign so they have to stop no matter what in most cases...only a very few intersections have neither which indicated the car doesn't have to stop, well in my city at least...may be different in other US cities tbh) at intersections without lights and will only go through if they wave me through/flash their blinkers and are at a complete stop as that would indicate they acknowledge they're aware of me (so unless they're aiming to run me over i should be fine from them lol), granted i make sure no other car is coming from any of the other 3 directions of the intersection as well (no point on heading through if another car winds up hitting me after all). As for intersections with lights i still give a few seconds before crossing to make sure i don't get hit by any last minute red light jumpers and if there's only 1 or 2 vehicles trying to make a turn onto/from the street I'll be crossing I generally wave them through as well to make sure until the turning lane is empty just to be extra safe...from then it's only worrying about someone trying to turn on the far away side of the street, granted that's mainly an issue for the 4+ lane intersections that take a bit longer to cross. Biggest issue i can see for this law in this country (not even sure which one this video's focused on...know it's not the US as we drive on the right hand lane of the street and the video is on the left lane...don't aske me why it's like this well before i was born) will be for if pedestrians try to use this rule to cross shit like large highways and other heavy traffic areas when there's oncoming traffic. Ya the US also has a pedestrian first focus as well but generally that doesn't apply to highways/similar heavy traffic areas unless at a stop light so if exceptions like this aren't in this new law for this country it will be causing a lot of accidents in places like that where pedestrians decide to be idiots thinking they have the right of way in a 60mph+ (or whatever the equivalent speed is in for said country...probably uses kilometers per hour or some other non American measurement for distance rather than miles right?) stretch of road and think the vehicles will be able to stop in time (which if they paid attention to science class they would know mass can't be halted that easily at that speed or higher).

Its been done for control reasons, i.e youll do what we tell you to do and if you dont, youll be punished. Motorists are an easy target for this treatment. Driving = Freedom which they dont like us having and its also very easy to vilify motorists. The safety of it is irrelevant to them, thats our problem. Its an incredibly stupid change and quite scary how few people can see why it was done.

Its like all politics its always backwards and fucked up and now its even spread into the driving world.. politics is literaly a disease nowadays 🤦‍♂️

Yh true. And if they think im sitting in traffic on a motorcycle waiting for the prick on the phone to squish me ect law or no law i will put myself in a suitable position.

@@trapdoorspider9211 Phones, and potholes, are the reason I won't ride a 2-wheeled vehicle now.

@@onepalproductions I don't know how tf I've pull my front wheel back down so many times on these awful Norfolk potholes

I agree. The rule only applies to moving cyclists proceeding ahead. If they've stopped behind you, then just continue your manoeuvre. You can't cause them to stop or swerve if they are already stationary! Rule H3: 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.

You were taught as I was Some people don't realise that a chunk of metal can't just stop dead and that the said chunk of metal is harder than the human body ,and now think they have the right to walk out in front of said metal chunk, These people share the same traits as whoever made the new Highway code revision rules up and that is "IMBECILES"

Yes, it might have served us well for 50 years. But Carrie Johnson knows better...

Yes, that's the way I do it, it's better for everyone than crossing in front.

Let's be real the rule was designed for the ever increasing number of individuals who walk around wear earbuds and have their heads in their phones as they just obliviously walk into traffic. It's the same reason for warning labels and everything else, the rules are designed for the lowest link, It is simply cheaper to enact this rule then properly educate people.

Exactly right. As someone who has somehow survived 35 years of urban cycling, this is a well-known scenario. As you approach an intersection you see a car in front of you signalling to turn left. Whichever way you want to go, it’s best to wait behind the car, and tuck right into his lane if necessary. If you’re directly behind the car it removes the ambiguity. The car will know you can’t dart past and they’re free turn left, right, or even proceed straight ahead. If they don’t turn left, despite signalling it, there’s no drama. Mild cursing, but no drama.

Yes and well said. Cyclists have two hands and when faced with a difficult situation they keep both hands on the 'bars, the closest position to the brakes.

Had that, I'm certain the bloke deliberately walked close behind me to create the situation since I had very carefully checked before moving. The angry bloke came to my window to vocalise, so I kindly explained to him that he had a far better view of his surroundings than I had of mine and demonstrating a bit of good judgement was still in his gift. I might not have convinced him but I damned well confused him.

Things that didn't happen No. 17.

I don't drive but totally get you, just because you have 'Right Of Way' why would you risk getting hurt? These people are the same people you still see going around wearing mask outside I'd wager! Absolute morons!

@@jamespeters3430 it literally did, fool. Take the tinfoil hat off, not everything is conspiracy.

@@mintywebb, his over the top histrionics, like he was auditioning for the local Am dram club. I have no issue giving way to pedestrians, at all, but you missed my point ENTIRELY bcos you wanted to start a strawman argument.

I agree that it hasn't been thought through. The issue I see is turning from a main road into a side road, many drivers do not concentrate and don't "read" the road. I think it is asking for an increase in rear end shunts.

@@suejames3208 The trick is to treat turning into a side road the same as turning into a private drive by crossing the pavement. You would naturally give way to any pedestrians walking along the pavement. With side roads you are giving way to pedestrians who are walk along the pavement and crossing side roads as they walk along.

You seriously entered the crossing without having clear way through? That in itself was most certainly a violation.

Don’t give way to them then. Common sense prevails in this situation

@@uplightuk8924 common sense suggests that the rule is wrong. Stop look and listen worked fine previously. Now we're having to second guess our pedestrian counterparts.

@@forric23 That’s because the rule is wrong and stupid and sooner or later a pedestrian is going to step out in front of a HGV lorry and only then will the government realise they need to change it

@@uplightuk8924 nope, the HGV driver with full licence, and clear vehicle registration is entirely traceable, end of story, easy money, screw safety

@@pauliosantos6379 Agreed. this seems like a way of further monetising minor traffic rule infringements at he expense of overall safety.

Well done for staying awake! If nothing else, these changes make the cpc at least a little more relevant than some topics 😊

We'll just have to wait and see for some actual data. A jump in accidents shortly after this change can definitely be easily explained you'd think. As you said, some locations just don't allow for observations to be made well and soon enough. Some infrastructure has to be chnaged to make this work as intended.

I agree the problem will be in city traffic if everyone starts to leave the correct breaking distance roads will be even more chaotic I used to work in schools and public parks grass cutting when the kids were out I would be required to drive at walking pace for my own sanity in schools to allow for children even going into and out off it was a max of 7 mph well it is going to be fun if we all get forced to drive a 7 mph because people are going to think they allowed to walk into the road. I have found any speed above that will make stopping in time down to luck 😜

@@mintywebb I wish people would! I've been driving professionally for over 30 years with zero incidents, yet see avoidable collisions every single day.

We stopped for a girl to cross at a junction yesterday when pulling out (from a minor road into a major one), and the driver behind me sounded his horn in anger.

it was a bit harsh, but looking at it from the instructor side. could it be that even though the pedestrian stopped and changed direction, that they had already stepped into the road and so the driver should have stopped. to then reasses the situation, and move on when safe to do so?

Meh, I disagree with your "definitely". Maybe it was a bit too harsh, but not definitely.

For the learner clip I think it would depend a little more on how the pupil reacted in the car. If they showed that they knew the pedestrian had priority but had chosen not to take it then it would be fine. If they didn’t make that clear then it’s more of a concern.

@@woutervanr What's The Story? Have the DfT and DVLA got some Master plan? I Don't Believe The Truth until i recieve my letter from them. It should Be Here Now.

I think it may have been because whilst the learner was driving slow enough the pedestrian could have crossed there didnt appear to be any change of speed the drive just continued crawling along instead of stopping. It was this inaction that gave the pedestrian hesitancy and opted to go brhind instead. Thats most likely why it was marked as a fail.

100% any roundabout when it's busy; if someone stops on an exit, it potentially blocks every exit if everyone wants to go a specific route. Plus, as you said, no one expects the sudden stop, and you're likely to cause someone to crash into you. It doesn't even make it safer for the pedestrians; you haven't got a clue whether someone will give you priority; the whole thing is stupid and unnecessary.

Nope, need to revert back to old rules.

No. New rules need to be killed stone dead. Before more pedestrians are.

It's quite clear. When you turn off a roundabout you have to give way to pedestrians. But then that has always been the case. It has never been OK to run them over. If another vehicle hits you then they are clearly at fault. It's never been OK to hit other vehicles and as before they should leave sufficient space in front of them to stop in time. That too has always been in the Highway Code.

@@simonavarne9635 It isn't clear, in fact rule 187 was not updated and still only says to "watch out" for pedestrians at roundabouts, not to give way to them.

@@ado543 I totally agree that it's unclear, rules talk about bikes at junctions and roundabouts but only talks about junctions in regard to pedestrians. So are they classing a roundabout as a junction or not. Clear as mud and open to interpretation.

@@simonavarne9635 Yes if the pedestrian has already started to cross, unclear in the (new) highway code if the pedestrian is waiting to cross

@@two-countiesdashcam And how do you know whether they will start to cross just as you get to them? Do you just hit them? You should always drive defensively and give way to pedestrians. Rule H2 "At a junction you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning." seems pretty clear to me.

Not to mention a vehicle can’t actually stop as quickly as me or accelerate to 15mph as fast as I can run

"But I had right of way" - not my last words

@@picaso023 Yeah don't over think it, just run them over lol. This rule change is absurd. Pedestrians don't have indicators. How do you know for sure that the pedestrian is 100% going to cross the junction and not just stop for some reason?

exactly, you said exactly what I was thinking.....the roads are for cars and the pavements are for pedestrians, they have things put in place to help them cross the road like different crossings and an in built thing called common sense, will I be given the same consideration when a pedestrian does not give way to me when im driving down a pavement.

@Advanced Driving I fear this will create more people getting rear ended, mainly mild ones, but still... Who hasn't seen an impatient driver on the roads, lights change to green, the car behind moves but you don't due to the cyclists, bump! Yes its his fault, but how many times a year do you want your car in the garage? They will soon run out of courtesy cars. I live in London, and the amount of pedestrians and cyclists, here is huge. If I follow the changes to the letter, then I'd never be able to turn off a road during lunch time. Even harder, if its a one way road I need to enter, so unable to approach it from any other direction. Ashley's comment 'its easy just drive on', from a different post about blind people, it isn't, in built up areas, but it will be easy to get a fine for it. Take the learner driver who failed his test, the pedestrian wasn't visible till close to the junction, now change the pedestrian to a police officer with tickets to spare. There goes £200. The white van man, who pulls up short in the left lane at a junction to allow a lady with a buggy to cross, but the impatient Audi driver turning right, doesn't notice them till they pass the van, oops hood ornament!

I noticed that. I think the pick-up-the-pace thing is a long-standing consequence of pedestrians being the serfs and car drivers being the lords of our roads. It's no wonder there's been such a backlash, and it'll take a long time to change habits. In the meantime, people are probably going to get hurt, or at least seriously frightened.

@@PedroConejo1939oh you poor little victim. Have you ever considered you might be milking it ever so slightly?

The new rules are not forcing pedestrians to do anything. They are just emphasising what has always been the case that drivers must give way to pedestrians and not hit them. That must surely make roads safer.

@@mrDUDANATOR Whatever ¯ \_(ツ)_/¯

I don't understand your point. They'd have had to pull right out past the cyclist regardless.

@Anony Mouse yeah since we pay to be there and cyclists don't. It's hard enough these days with people who don't know the rules to introduce more retarded rules imposed by some clueless liberal who probably walks to work.

@@sw1000xg yet every cyclist I know...and I know a lot of cyclists..own at least one taxable vehicle.....the only cyclists I know who don't pay any road tax cos they don't drive are children

@@tonyb5884 bicycles are none taxed. If you have ten cars and vans you have to tax all of them to use them on the road.

@@sw1000xg No you don't. Contrary to popular terminology, there's no such thing as "road tax" i.e. a tax on using the road. It's called Vehicle Excise Duty and is charged on how much pollution your vehicle causes. An important distinction to realise..

Bonus to being medically blind I can’t see them waving Sean. I step back from the kerb, if they don’t take the hint I turn away from the road. I’m only going to cross when I feel it is safe. I can’t see if a car has stopped for me, oncoming traffic, is dropping off or picking up a passenger, so I will continue doing what I’ve done for the last 5.5 years since losing most of my sight and only cross when I feel comfortable.

The same has happened to me! Can't presume the driver stopping has checked it's safe for you to cross - often drivers don't understand this and try to insist (with good intentions!), in which case I step back from the curb or walk away.

Exactly This is one reason I think the new rules are wrong. You used to be advised against doing this for the reason you stated now their telling drivers to do it.

Cyclists have only two ways ways of showing other road users their intentions - left and right arm signals - and the new rules make it worse for us all. And cyclists using the centre of the road? No. Why? Crazy.

@@Flufficat The alternative is cyclists being missed, misread and eventually killed.

@@sharp14x Drivers are used to driving slowly behind cyclists, especially those that insist in riding in pairs side by side. The new rules make it far more difficult for drivers. As for giving way to pedestrians at junctions, I have seen two recent encounters where people tried to cross anywhere along the road, not at a junction, and expect drivers to stop to let them cross, and other times when pedestrians weren't sure whether to cross or not when a drivers see someone standing at a junction and have to assume they want to cross. This happened to me, and I waited until the woman noticed me, waver on, and she crossly waved me on and stayed put!

@@sharp14x wow I've just heard about the walkers Aving right of way. I don't even know the bike rule u are talking about. How is that safe. N to top it of I saw a guy waiting to cross at the road side whilst 20ty cars drove by..... Do u get it most ppl don't know about this and are continuing like before. That's crazy

Yeah, rear ended and end up mowing down the ped you stopped to let across. Great job, government 👍

@@peterwhittle522 doesn't seem to happen here in the Netherlands where this rule exists. Plenty of roundabout exit and entry stopping, and the pedestrians and cyclists don't even slow down on approach, the drivers just know to check back over their shoulder as they approach and slow appropriately.

@@jamesbuckle6077 you have fewer roundabouts. And the ones you have are marked out and have appropriate lighting to make them safer as pedestrian crossings. Not every roundabout in the UK is safe to just stop and let someone across. Also UK roundabout exits have no give way line, so as it stands, I don't see why traffic should give way to anything when exiting a roundabout. Are they going to modify all our roundabouts to make them safer? Probably not. If our stupid government wants us to become more like you the Netherlands, they should start by legalising pot, and having window girls in every town centre. Not this.

@@peterwhittle522 I'm from the UK, I just reside in the NL currently. I assure you there are not fewer roundabouts and the lighting at them is no better. My morning commute sees me go through 11 roundabouts here in 9km, in the UK it was 1 in 14km. Many cases the crossing cycle paths are unlit and behind low hedges, it's also common for the bikes to have no lights, no bright clothing and no helmets. I'll grab you some dashcam footage. It's just normal for drivers to slow right down and be prepared to stop, and not stop in a panic, just cruise to a gentle stop if a bike pops out.

@@jamesbuckle6077 still not convinced we should adopt NL traffic regulations. I think they're dangerous, pedestrians should just wait until traffic clears to cross. And I'm glad to see that so far I haven't seen anyone actually following them. Do not comply with stupid rules.

I’m interested to know whether give way lines still indicate the locations that motorists should give way, the new rules just changing it from giving way to pedestrians already crossing, to add giving way to pedestrians waiting to cross. In which case at e.g traffic island exits with no give way line, there is no give way. Confused, we all are!

I thought you only had to give way to pedestrians when turning into side roads from main roads? Not the other way round & imagine encouraging people to walk in front of cars, completely bonkers

@@mikeyyoyo6464 why do you think there are two give way lines at the point a side road meets a main road? One for give way to vehicles on the main road, one for give way to pedestrians, it's why there is only one give way line at the entry into side roads, give way to pedestrians, but only one line as there is no give way to vehicles.

@@aardwolf21 I’m 58, been driving since I was 17, passed car, motorcycle & R-tic tests, drove trucks for 25 years & this is the first time anyone has explained this to me, you definitely learn a new thing every day 🤷🏻‍♂️

@@aardwolf21 I've written a long comment on exactly this point at the main level

If the cyclist had followed the rules correctly then the driver would have known that he was about to turn left and not go straight ahead (as indicated by not signaling). Therefore he allowed him to pass so that he could continue ahead before making his left turn. Nothing to do with where he positioned himself behind the driver.

@@Jmixup Suppose the cyclist did want to go straight ahead: Would it be sensible for him to overtake the car ahead of him on the inside of the car's indicated turn?

Pedestrians are road users too

@@broadsword6650 yeah true that I suppose. Still surprises me sometimes how badly people use them

It was a convoy of pedestrians. The thing to do is to stop and let them all cross.....Patience!

Knew this would happen. In my opinion pedestrians should only have priority at crossings

It's hard but you have to let these things go - otherwise it will play on your mind and colour the rest of your day, which is a waste of your own precious time. Remember he's not a pedestrian exactly. He's just a prick and he could have appeared anywhere.

This has been happening for years, as a Hgv driver I've had it happen to me many times, always teenagers, mainly boys but girls also, just hoping for a confrontation.

@@garethjones8047 the other thing that annoys me is schoolkids walking out at crossings when the lights are green for drivers . adults too

Maybe you should give up driving altogether?

Lmao

And don't forget the mobile phone zombies

Not really sure why it's so hard. As you approach, just give people a bit more time to move. If they don't, drive on. I'm sure there's some super busy junctions that have pedestrians coming from all angles, but they're going to be about 0.5% of junctions.

@@jamesbuckle6077 roundabouts.

@@illeatthat not seeing a problem with roundabouts

@@jamesbuckle6077 youre not supposed to stop on a roundabout. yet now if theres a person waiting to cross on an exit you have to stop on the roundabout..... you cant see the problem with that? most roundabouts that point a car would be made to stop on would be the on section to the left for other cars. you youre going to have a lot more people joining roundabouts expecting the flow of traffic to keep going, but now people are going to be stopping to let pedestrians cross, so now everyone has to constantly look right when coming on a roundabout to check the speeds of other cars and also being extra careful because cars in front/left are now going to be stopping far more often.

@@ge2719 I don't believe there's any such rule. Its quite common to stop on roundabouts when the exit traffic is stopped for some reason. You can't stop for no reason, of course.

What do you do at zebra crossings?

@@PedroConejo1939 Really, Thats the best you could come up with. Grow up dude.

@@robindowse4473 I suppose the capital letters should have been a sign that you don't do discourse. Hasta nunca, baby.

Another example of someone commenting before actually reading the new highway code. No one is telling pedestrians to do anything the don't want to do and the Green Cross Cross code remains unchanged in Rule 7. All that has happened is drivers are being advised to be considerate to pedestrians and to let them cross if they want to.

@@simonavarne9635 another example of someone ranting at another comment without bothering to read and understand what was being said so I will spell it out to you. I am fully aware no-one is telling pedestrians what to do. The instruction is for car drivers to stop and allow pedestrians to cross. What I am saying is I don't give a rats arse if a car stops for me, I AM NOT CROSSING in front of a car. I have no idea what the driver is going to do. I don't know if they have stopped for me or something else. These rules DO NOT make it safer for pedestrians.

Yes I was reading a comment from a blind person who pointed that out. Plus he fears his dog will desensitise from it's training should he deviate from what they're trained for. I'd love to know who they consulted for this ridiculous change. I'm all for being courteous but, putting it into law it's already causing many issues. I'm with you - I'll wait until I think it's safe to cross, I won't be stepping out in front of traffic hoping they know about the new rules and hope for the best.

@@a20axf It’s ridiculous that they actually hold the owner of a guide dog responsible for its actions on the new rules. Guess they never heard that you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. As for who they consulted, it was two groups that came up with these rules, a cycling and pedestrian committee, funnily enough no driving committee was involved, so I’m guessing a good percentage of them probably don’t even have a driving licence. One rule I always disagreed with before all this was how cyclists are allowed to undertake vehicles that are turning left. I’ve been on the roads on a bicycle and wouldn’t even contemplate undertaking a vehicle that’s indicating and slowing to turn. Road lessons for cyclists would be a better option but guess they figured to force the responsibility of their own safety on drivers instead.

@@Raz-iw6fj Actually there was a public consultation which was open to everyone, including you, to give their views. There were 21,000 responses with the overwhelming majority in favour. The DoT then commissioned a further consultation across 4 types of road user to ensure balance: Pedestrians, Cyclists, Drivers and Horse Riders. There is no need to teach guide dog any new tricks as the rules for crossing (Rule 7 The Green Cross Code) remains unchanged.

The guide-dog point is a good one. I've previously found that in order to show a guide dog that you are giving way to them you need to physically turn off your engine. Though saying that, with start stop these days they might be trained differently?

@@simonavarne9635A guide dog won't cross the road whilst a car is about to turn in even if it's stopped. And 21,000 people? That's not even 0.01% of the population.

This is a GREAT idea! GB :)

@@graemebrumfitt6668 - It had an amazing effect on the general standard of driving here, also it means that kids from wealthier households don't have an employment advantage cos they have a driving licence earlier than poor kids.

I’ve been driving since very very young and if made mandatory would help a lot

I was only thinking this the other day but we don't evan have cycle training in most schools.

I’ve seen this lots of times too. How can you just walk out onto the road like that (even if a car is slowing down) and not even look is beyond me

the moment a pedestrian sets foot in the road they immediately have right of way over any vehicle, something to do with being a bag of flesh vs a 2 tonne piece of metal..............you may not like it, it may be wreckless, but they still have right of way

@@MrMoralHighground BTW it's 'reckless', a wreck is like a ship wreck! In any case, it's not about who's right of way it is, it's about safely following the rules and if we're not all on the same page re the new rules, then we have a problem! Just the other day I witnessed a young mother pushing her toddler in a pram out into a busy junction, which the traffic was flowing through on a green light, she obviously thought her right of way was above the traffic! Now if pedestrians are willing to take those kind of risks and don't understand the highway code or traffic rules then we have a safety issue. Sure if a pedestrian runs out in the road, a car should stop but it's not always possible to pull up so quickly!

And I now see I was wrong! Rule 170: give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way.

@@johnmckay1423 Yes, but this is why I think Ashley is wrong at 4:20. The rule 170 is: "remain behind cyclists...if they are waiting to turn and are positioned close to the kerb" But Ashley (in the video) is in front of the cyclist.

@@barryfoster453 That's a fair point, but as the cyclist has already displayed poor judgement (they should either be in front where they control the road and the driver can see them or behind making it obvious that they'll follow the traffic), I'd be very cautious as they're obviously not trustworthy and I wouldn't want to run them over, whoever could be blamed for it.

@@johnmckay1423 Turning into or turning out of a road- Yes. Already driving along a straight road - No

And honestly, I don't feel like people are just walking out without looking any more than they used to. People inattentively wandering out 30 yards from a perfectly good crossing has been a common occurrence in my hometown since I can remember. 😅

These things take a long time (years) to filter through. It's only been a few days.

Except that there are rules and even some laws that pedestrians have to abide by.

The Highway Code was introduced in 1931 when there were a lot fewer cars, 2.3 million compared to 32.6 million today. Other events that happened in 1931: The Dust Bowl in the US, with massive ecological damage, is done to the Midwestern and Southern Plains areas of the country. Japanese invasion of Manchuria British Great Depression 2500 banks in the US fail Stalinism Rise of the Nazi's Portuguese government declares martial law in Madeira and in the Azores Anti-Chinese rioting occurred in Pyongyang Idrisid Emirate Rebellion Flour Revolt Uranian peasant uprising Cyprus Revolt Jafar Sultan revolt Norte Grande insurrection Chilean naval mutiny And on to 1932..... Najran conflict Ahmed Barzani revolt Kumul Rebellion Uukwambi uprising Annexation of Jimma Lesko uprising Constitutionalist Revolution Brazil Ecuadorian Civil War Chechen uprising The list goes on, until the big show of WW2 8 years later. Common sense definitely did not prevail around 1931, it was the exact opposite of common sense. If you think you live in a world that's crazy you have never read a history book. Consider yourself lucky that complaining about road rules is about as bad as it is for you.

@@squareinsquare2078 Of all the events you mentioned only one occurred in Britain, and that was the result of the Wall street crash in America. I was commenting on the British highway code and how the new rules lack common sense compared to the old rules. If there were fewer cars on the road today perhaps the new rules would be workable, it is the very fact that our British roads are so busy that make the new rules regarding pedestrians so dangerous. I assume you took umbrage at my use of the word ‘wokeness’. If wokness was alive and well in the 1930s as it is now, we both would have a lot more to worry about than these ridiculous road rules.

@@kossfan My issue is that people always hark back to the past when they want to moan about the present. The past was a lot worse. Around a decade before, and under a decade after the introduction of the highway code the UK was involved in two world wars. The world was on fire, as it has been until the end of the century. We are now living in the most peaceful time in human history, but people think they live in some mythical hell that was way worse than anything that came before. And even beyond that, people were intolerant of vast swathes of people. So you have very little to complain about.

@@squareinsquare2078 The global changes that I think you are referring to and which we are all benefiting from are mainly due to improvements in technology, communication and transport, resulting in better healthcare, nutrition and housing. The aforementioned have little to do with improved decision making. My point was regarding changes that have occurred in THIS country (not necessarily worldwide) which I believe are due to confused and faulty thinking. For instance, the introduction of smart motorways. Someone in their wisdom in an office or committee room thought it was a good idea to remove the hard shoulder from long stretches of motorways. Now I think this was a bad idea. I don’t believe it would have been given any credence 30 or so years ago. It has however been implemented and has resulted in over 60 fatalities and caused near misses to increase by 20 fold. Another example, not connected to roads, was the decision to relax the limits on mortgage lending, if, as in the past lending was limited to one salary and the also capped at a lending ratio of three times that salary we wouldn’t be having the housing crisis that we are now. With rising interest rates and increased living costs this can only get worse. Gas prices are rising and the situation is worsened because someone thought it would be an improvement if we did away with our 80 days storage capacity. I could go on, but needless to say all these changes were conscious decisions and sanctioned by people whom I believe are short on common sense. My issue is that perfectly sensible rules and regulations formulated in the past have been changed relatively recently so that they are now perfectly nonsensical and in some cases downright dangerous and to conflate this modest assertion with historic worldwide events is incongruous and a bit silly, however it does illustrate my point beautifully that in this crazy new world of wokeness, common sense is sadly lacking.

​@@kossfan The statistics don't agree with your argument. In 1950 there were 5,012 road deaths, 49,000 serious injuries, and 148,000 slight injuries. In 2019 there were 1,752 deaths, 25,484 serious injuries, and 125,262 slight injuries. Clearly, changes to laws and policies have resulted in less death and injury with a vast increase in road users. The new changes are designed to bring this down further. These decisions are made on the back of a box of cornflakes, they are researched and tested with experts consulted and data analysed. These decisions are not made in a vacuum. If anything, far more effort has gone into decision making, taking into account much more than the experience of the motorist on the road. Increased road usage by cyclists and pedestrians decreases traffic jams, lowers emissions, and increases a population's health, which in turn lowers the cost of the health service. It is multifaceted. Nostalgia doesn't overrule facts, though many like to think it does. I think it's you who's lacking in common sense. Maybe instead of referring to everything as "woke", you yourself should wake up.

I've always wondered how many people appeal their driving test result. With the test being recorded I would have thought the pupil could present a reasonable case.

As far as I was TOLD. Anything related to the new rules would be marked as a minor, unless considered extremely dangerous. I agree, a fail for that is insane... It makes the conspiracy theorists have more grounds for "DVLA pass quotas".

@@averyboringusername I looked it up. Sadly the only way to appeal is if the examiner broke the law in specific ways. Also, the best you can hope for is a rerun of the test. So not a lot of use!

Unfortunately this wouldn’t have happened with the old rules, you’d have gone, the other driver would’ve gone, then the pedestrians. I saw a crash this week when a car went to turn left I to a junction and slowed a lot to let the pedestrians cross as they turned in, the car to their rear didn’t react quick enough and hit him, good job the car that turned in had his foot firmly on the breaks otherwise he would’ve been pushed into the pedestrians, this new rule is dangerous imo after seeing that

Yes I came here to say the exact same thing. Think the DVSA have dropped the ball with this one, be courteous of course but pedestrians still need to take some responsibility.

@@MrTuts4life as Ash says, until everyone is onboard with the new rules and drivers _expect_ the car in front to stop it's completely bonkers.

@@MrTuts4life The speed of the following car caused the danger as well as the accident. There are no new rules either, it's just more emphasis on what the legislation has been ever since they painted the white lines on junctions.

@@ethelmini If there was no intention of new rules then adding in H1-H3 is pointless. The fact that this conversation and debate is happening clearly demonstrates that there are new rules in force.

Unfortunately many cyclists don't that is the main issue making cyclists follow the rules

As a daily cyclist in London where many other cyclists do mad stuff like filtering on the right and undertaking dangerously - I don't as I lived more than 10 years in Netherlands - in such a situation where I want to make it clear I don't want to go ahead of that car, I'd have pulled over into the middle of the lane behind him so he'd know I was waiting behind him.

@@simonh6371 Moving to the middle would definitely have made his intentions clear. Otherwise I do follow the rules of the road that we've all agreed with other drivers and road users! Sticking to the left etc... I've never cycled in London, and it's been so long since I visited I can't remember how the cyclists are riding now. I do visit Glasgow and it's getting worse with the delivery cyclist and what are effectively mopeds being driven on pedestrianised areas and narrow pavements instead of the roads. It used to be the odd very fit young person doing the deliveries but their e-bikes have allowed some fairly unfit people to race past pedestrians, and they stick to the pavements!

I always do the same and wait a few cars back so that I'm not undertaking cars right at a junction. That way you're perfectly visible to even the least aware driver. I live in Stockport to the south of Manchester but prefer to head out to Cheshire when i cycle (can't cycle to work, drive a van) but there's an absolutely atrocious shared space system with 2 roundabouts in Poynton, just waiting to get knocked off at the dual roundabouts. For that reason i take massive detours to avoid that area. Serves no purpose whatsoever, dangerous for cyclists and causes massive congestion for cars. What frightens me the most about these new rules are that if I give way to a pedestrian like I now have to, what's going to happen to me if the car behind doesn't recognise what I'm doing and drives into the back of me? Broken collarbone at best i suspect.

@@johnt9379 It's the not-undertaking that I think is the most important bit when getting up to a junction. Driver is focused upon what's ahead assuming that other drivers will remain behind him - he's the first to go. Cyclists undertaking defeats that. As you do, being sure that you're seen by those overtaking you to get through the junction is key until it is your turn. Undertaking is effectively you not waiting your turn. I was in Glasgow yesterday where they've got effectively shared spaces off Sauchiehall Street to confuse both motorists and pedestrians. It's an absolute disaster of an area now, especially as one of their goals was to create a cafe culture with bars and restaurants having seating on the pavements too. If you imagine that you had a pedestrian area, cycling area, wasted area to be tree-lined (that is you can't walk or cycle down this part), and the a road. With the pavement cafes taking over the pedestrian area, pushing pedestrians in to the cycling area where we now have fast food delivery people on what are effectively mopes with their e-bikes racing up and down. Other parts of the pavement were being dug up with a similar effect, pedestrians being forced in to danger and not cordoned off either. It used to be a busy street before they did this project with shops and people being dropped off either by car, taxi or bus. Yesterday there as hardly any cars or people being dropped off. Just a lot of people walking the length of it, as they always do to get to the centre of Glasgow. There's a lot of empty units now, and not just retail but food and bars. The council have successfully killed off a lot of business with their "Avenues" project they're inflicting upon the whole of Glasgow.

@@johnt9379 If turning left not a problem, if you keep to the left, I don't do this whole ''occupy the lane to avoid narrow passes'' thing nor do I do filtering. I lived over 10 years in the Netherlands and there when on bike lanes mopeds pass you either overtaking or oncoming with about 10cm clearance between the handlebars and if you're competent it's no problem, so I transfer this to the UK and will even squeeze in under a metre clearance between an oncoming car and myself, every day on my way to work on a street where there are cars parked on both sides. I think the car drivers see I have no problem doing this although of course they may slow down a bit initially. However if turning to the right I agree that's a risk. Honestly I don't even do that like most cyclists in the UK i.e. act like a car, and ride into the middle of the road to turn right when there is no oncoming traffic from the opposite direction. Instead I'll literally pull in on the left and wait until there is no traffic in either direction before turning right. I've been riding in London for 3 years every day now and had zero close calls. However I believe many UK cyclists would see my everyday experience as ''close calls'', but many I see on the roads are lacking in confidence and competence, or they are overconfident and too aggressive, which irritates car drivers. A shame we don't have a proper cycling infrastructure here like in NL.