4 ms·

The Daily Mail, in the UK, in particular has some weird anti-cyclist obsession. The recent changes to the Highway Code are just explicit statements about what

The Daily Mail, in the UK, in particular has some weird anti-cyclist obsession. The recent changes to the Highway Code are just explicit statements about what cyclists and pedestrians can do (edit - actually what cars should do with respect to pedestrians), whereas before it was implicit - if a pedestrian steps out into the road, would you continue to drive and run them over? Of course not. That's now explicitly stated that the pedestrian has right of way. Similarly with cyclists moving to the middle of a lane for safety, it's now explicit in the highway code. Yet, the Daily Mail have made it out like it's a war and the end of civilization as we know it. It's both sad and hilarious reading their faux-rage about lanes being taken out in London for cyclists which are full of far more people cycling at 9am and 5pm than the number of people sat in stationary cars in the adjacent lane (Victoria Embankment). And then taking a picture of the cycle lane on a Sunday, publishing it, and claiming 'it's barely used'.

maffydub 5y ago
I understood the changes to the Highway Code differently (although could be wrong). My understanding was that previously there were various situations where pedestrians did not have right of way and so, if there were cars coming, should not step into the road. That's not to say that if they did, cars could just run them down. Now, the pedestrian has right if way, and so is right to step into the road. Have I misunderstood?
- globular-toast 5y ago
  Priority, not right of way. There's a big difference. Everyone has right of way to on the public highway at all times. In England and Wales the public has right of way on byways, bridleways and footpaths too (although there are restrictions on what type of vehicle is allowed, if any). In Scotland the public has right of way everywhere by non-motorised means. Your right of way never trumps someone else's right of way, nor does it trump someone else's right to live. Priority is a completely different concept. When you give way, you are not losing your right of way. You are simply waiting for your turn. Priority is a simple rule to make sure everyone can exercise their right of way fairly and safely. I really wish people would think about what they are saying. As a walker in England/Wales, you don't take right of way for granted.
  - maffydub 5y ago
    Thanks for the correction! I think I meant priority then - previously when turning into a side street, motor vehicles had priority over pedestrians waiting to cross, but now pedestrians waiting to cross have priority over motor vehicles turning in - is that right?
    - ndsipa_pomu 5y ago
      Correct
  - beerandt 5y ago
    "Right of way" is the term for priority in the US, which is slightly different than "right of way" in a land use/ permissive/ access meaning that's roughly equivalent to a public servitude. Both of which are separate from the obligation to attempt to avoid collisions/ accidents regardless of who has the legal right to go first. Giving pedestrians "priority" by default sounds good in theory, but is less safe due to how it changes pedestrian behavior and encourages people to cross in unsafe places vs walking to an intersection or location with sufficient visibility/ line of sight. Which isn't to say that it should be illegal to cross at unsafe places, but that the pedestrian should assume drivers can't see them and cross as-if they don't have priority, whether they do or not.
    - globular-toast 5y ago
      We were talking about the UK. Lot's of people say right of way in the UK too, but it's wrong. The key thing is priority is something to be given, not taken. Nobody should be taking priority in any situation even when they know it should be theirs. Rather, you give priority when necessary and proceed when it has been given to you. This simple shift in mindset would improve a lot of road behaviour.
      - beerandt 5y ago
        >priority is something to be given No this is a bad way to think of it (regardless of its the legal reasoning in the UK), and is what leads to unpredictable driving behavior, which leads to accidents. You want the rules to be a deterministic as possible, from all perspectives. The idea that it's something to be given away is what causes drivers to "wave in" people out of turn, or have standoffs at stop signs because they won't go when it's their turn. Having "priority" should not be conflated with having license to delegate that priority to others. Which isn't to say you shouldn't do whatever is necessary to avoid accidents. But decisive and deterministic behaivior is what removes the ambiguity that often leads to those situations in the first place.
- DrBazza 5y ago
  The rules for pedestrians haven't changed - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedes... The "rules" for cars (and cycles) have been clarified, not that most car drivers even know the highway code. Turning into a side road where a pedestrian is stepping out into the road is where a car must now give way. But then they always had to - the paint on the ground is the same that delineates lanes on a dual carriageway or motorway (single-dashed), and you don't have the right to just move into another lane when there's traffic already there.
  - maffydub 5y ago
    > The rules for pedestrians haven't changed https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/updates https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/updates suggests they have - specifically... > Updated rule 8 to clarify other traffic should give way when pedestrians are waiting to cross at a junction. As I understand it, the change is that if a pedestrian is waiting to cross at a junction, the motor vehicle should give way, where previously the pedestrian should wait for a gap in the traffic?
    - DrBazza 5y ago
      Yes, you're correct.
    - DrBazza 5y ago
      Also, that single dashed line at a t-junction turning from a major into a minor road has the same meaning as on a dual carriage way or motorway where it delineates lanes - if there's something next to you, you have to give way/priority to whatever is the other side of that line, else you'll hit it, i.e. another vehicle. In this case, that's a pedestrian.
- scarygliders 5y ago
  Ashley Neal is a driving instructor who posts very useful videos. He has a whole series on the Highway Code changes : https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKmQyBNt99LSx7s2Q0p_JbFWYhON8uFLo https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKmQyBNt99LSx7s2Q0p_J...
globular-toast 5y ago
Daily Mail readers are addicted to rage. I've realised this with my parents recently. They don't read the Daily Mail but they watch a lot of conspiracy videos and it's got to the point that I can't speak to them without the conversation degenerating into whatever is currently making them angry. Do we know why people get addicted to rage? I don't understand what the payoff is as it just seems to make them angry.
- dboreham 5y ago
  Something to do with transferring the blame for negative feelings about themselves onto others.
- unglaublich 5y ago
  Many people are unhappy and they try to put the blame on external factors because that is easier than changing yourself.
- pja 5y ago
  Psychological stimulation is addictive? DailyMail type press / alt-righty YouTube channels / etc etc are all very good at telling their audience that someone is out to get them - that their way of life is being judged by powers beyond their control & that they should be angry about it. Keeping their audience in a permanant state of fight or flight due to vaguely defined external threats has been very profitable for them.
  - DrBazza 5y ago
    To be honest, that's the UK media in a nutshell - Daily Mail hates the EU. Daily Mirror hates Johnson. Guardian hates the Tories, and the NHS has been at risk since, well, ever. There's a lot of hate and hysteria from all sides.
- bmn__ 5y ago
  > I don't understand what the payoff is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

maffydub 5y ago

I understood the changes to the Highway Code differently (although could be wrong). My understanding was that previously there were various situations where pedestrians did not have right of way and so, if there were cars coming, should not step into the road. That's not to say that if they did, cars could just run them down. Now, the pedestrian has right if way, and so is right to step into the road. Have I misunderstood?

globular-toast 5y ago
Priority, not right of way. There's a big difference. Everyone has right of way to on the public highway at all times. In England and Wales the public has right of way on byways, bridleways and footpaths too (although there are restrictions on what type of vehicle is allowed, if any). In Scotland the public has right of way everywhere by non-motorised means. Your right of way never trumps someone else's right of way, nor does it trump someone else's right to live. Priority is a completely different concept. When you give way, you are not losing your right of way. You are simply waiting for your turn. Priority is a simple rule to make sure everyone can exercise their right of way fairly and safely. I really wish people would think about what they are saying. As a walker in England/Wales, you don't take right of way for granted.
- maffydub 5y ago
  Thanks for the correction! I think I meant priority then - previously when turning into a side street, motor vehicles had priority over pedestrians waiting to cross, but now pedestrians waiting to cross have priority over motor vehicles turning in - is that right?
  - ndsipa_pomu 5y ago
    Correct
- beerandt 5y ago
  "Right of way" is the term for priority in the US, which is slightly different than "right of way" in a land use/ permissive/ access meaning that's roughly equivalent to a public servitude. Both of which are separate from the obligation to attempt to avoid collisions/ accidents regardless of who has the legal right to go first. Giving pedestrians "priority" by default sounds good in theory, but is less safe due to how it changes pedestrian behavior and encourages people to cross in unsafe places vs walking to an intersection or location with sufficient visibility/ line of sight. Which isn't to say that it should be illegal to cross at unsafe places, but that the pedestrian should assume drivers can't see them and cross as-if they don't have priority, whether they do or not.
  - globular-toast 5y ago
    We were talking about the UK. Lot's of people say right of way in the UK too, but it's wrong. The key thing is priority is something to be given, not taken. Nobody should be taking priority in any situation even when they know it should be theirs. Rather, you give priority when necessary and proceed when it has been given to you. This simple shift in mindset would improve a lot of road behaviour.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      >priority is something to be given No this is a bad way to think of it (regardless of its the legal reasoning in the UK), and is what leads to unpredictable driving behavior, which leads to accidents. You want the rules to be a deterministic as possible, from all perspectives. The idea that it's something to be given away is what causes drivers to "wave in" people out of turn, or have standoffs at stop signs because they won't go when it's their turn. Having "priority" should not be conflated with having license to delegate that priority to others. Which isn't to say you shouldn't do whatever is necessary to avoid accidents. But decisive and deterministic behaivior is what removes the ambiguity that often leads to those situations in the first place.
DrBazza 5y ago
The rules for pedestrians haven't changed - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedes... The "rules" for cars (and cycles) have been clarified, not that most car drivers even know the highway code. Turning into a side road where a pedestrian is stepping out into the road is where a car must now give way. But then they always had to - the paint on the ground is the same that delineates lanes on a dual carriageway or motorway (single-dashed), and you don't have the right to just move into another lane when there's traffic already there.
- maffydub 5y ago
  > The rules for pedestrians haven't changed https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/updates https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/updates suggests they have - specifically... > Updated rule 8 to clarify other traffic should give way when pedestrians are waiting to cross at a junction. As I understand it, the change is that if a pedestrian is waiting to cross at a junction, the motor vehicle should give way, where previously the pedestrian should wait for a gap in the traffic?
  - DrBazza 5y ago
    Yes, you're correct.
  - DrBazza 5y ago
    Also, that single dashed line at a t-junction turning from a major into a minor road has the same meaning as on a dual carriage way or motorway where it delineates lanes - if there's something next to you, you have to give way/priority to whatever is the other side of that line, else you'll hit it, i.e. another vehicle. In this case, that's a pedestrian.
scarygliders 5y ago
Ashley Neal is a driving instructor who posts very useful videos. He has a whole series on the Highway Code changes : https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKmQyBNt99LSx7s2Q0p_JbFWYhON8uFLo https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKmQyBNt99LSx7s2Q0p_J...

globular-toast 5y ago

Daily Mail readers are addicted to rage. I've realised this with my parents recently. They don't read the Daily Mail but they watch a lot of conspiracy videos and it's got to the point that I can't speak to them without the conversation degenerating into whatever is currently making them angry. Do we know why people get addicted to rage? I don't understand what the payoff is as it just seems to make them angry.

dboreham 5y ago
Something to do with transferring the blame for negative feelings about themselves onto others.
unglaublich 5y ago
Many people are unhappy and they try to put the blame on external factors because that is easier than changing yourself.
pja 5y ago
Psychological stimulation is addictive? DailyMail type press / alt-righty YouTube channels / etc etc are all very good at telling their audience that someone is out to get them - that their way of life is being judged by powers beyond their control & that they should be angry about it. Keeping their audience in a permanant state of fight or flight due to vaguely defined external threats has been very profitable for them.
- DrBazza 5y ago
  To be honest, that's the UK media in a nutshell - Daily Mail hates the EU. Daily Mirror hates Johnson. Guardian hates the Tories, and the NHS has been at risk since, well, ever. There's a lot of hate and hysteria from all sides.
bmn__ 5y ago
> I don't understand what the payoff is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc