Safe Speed Forums

We've been doing the 'favourite'... but what your least favourite? The worst rule in the Highway Code?

The online Highway Code is here: http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk

This is my least favourite rule:

198: Buses, coaches and trams. Give priority to these vehicles when you can do so safely, especially when they signal to pull away from stops.

This isn't road safety - this is transport ideology pretending to be road safety. It damages road safety because it causes friction between road user groups. It creates an imbalance and people - including me - go out of their way to redress the balance. Thanks to that rule I will NEVER give priority to a bus unless it is dangerous or potentially dangerous not to.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Must admit to being with you there, mate. Who wants a filthy great soot-spewing (usually empty) behemoth, whose 0 to 30 time is measured on a calendar, filling your cockpit with wasted fuel resources. Anyhow, the arrogant Eastern Europeans that seem to be the only public transport drivers in my area just lumber out in front of you regardless...

The HC is a pretty good guideline generally (I'm helping No.1 Son with his theory test at the moment). The thing that sticks in my craw is the upsurge in bus and cycle lanes around the place - how about a few more bloody car lanes!

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...

I'll generally let a bus out, or at least I used to generally let busses out. Back when I first started driving in 1999, things felt more co-operative and the busses were usually full of people who wanted to get to work on time.

Then the council's attention turned to one of the major routes through town, a two-lane urban dual carriageway that was nearing capacity but still flowed fairly well with 25-30mph still acheiveable even in rush hour...

... and turned one lane into a bus lane, creating major congestion.

So then I figured that busses obvioiusly don't need my help any more since they had a bus lane, and a lot of the other drivers in the area formed similar opinions.

And this leads to the arrogant bus drivers pulling out in front of people since no-one will let them out, which leads to Jeremy Clarkson calling them little Hitlers and murderers and basically the whole spirit of co-operation has been destroyed.


Anyway, my least favourite, without bothering to read the whole thing again, would be "give way to people already on the roundabout"

not because I have any problem with giving way to people already on the roundabout, but because it fails to define what "the roundabout" consists of in the case of double roundabouts and double mini roundabouts.

So is it ok to barrel through a certain triple roundabout, expecting that as you exit roundabout #2 to join #3, that the person already on #3 who joined the system after you to stop when you pull in front of them? Certainly a lot of drivers around here seem to think so. (and from roundabout #3 you have no hope of even seeing what is going on on #1)

So the rule needs to be clarified to state that each roundabout is a separate entity for the purposes of this rule, and perhaps it could also define a standard for signalling at double minis too?

I never argue with a bus... und usually on loo out for people around them. But ja - see what you mean und ja - would agree that the wording regarding the roundabout need a little more precision.

They did try with some cycling ones und the existing ones would be the worst rules as far as some are concerned - assuming they have read them anyway

But .. tja... which would be the one I would fasten on

Ach! 177.

NOT the bit about reversing from side street into main road. That STAYS! That bit ist sense.

But the rest ist superfluous.



I think it depend on type of driveway und type of road und conditions. For example - if your driveway has very, very perpendicular gradient (und some do) - und narrow gate posts - und some do - then driver could end up holding up a lot of traffic on main road trying to manoeuvre his way into this. Und then he still has to contend with the passer-by who will not stop for a bit of courtesy (or bit of free entertainment dependent on point of view ) und there are also the pavement cyclists of course..

To me - irrrelevant und surely best to person to decide which suit him or her best.

Should really read - when entering any main or side road when setting off from your driveway - blinking well take a darned good look around you und take care to see other road users - und manoeuvre with care.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

I disagree, I think that advice should stay. It does say "if you can", which allows for special circumstances if your driveway is a bit odd so that's ok.

Generally speaking, you should reverse park, one end of the car can be moved around more than the other, and that end should be placed in the area that has the most free space. When you park forwards, you restrict your manouvreablility and give yourself less options.

It always makes me cringe watching someone attempting to reverse from a driveway onto a main road. They have no hope of getting out and no-one will stop to let them because it's obvious they will take ages.

I'm with SS - I used to give way to buses, but since the LA has created these build-outs especially at bus stops, buses have now (to me) become just a slow rolling road-block, so I don't give way anymore. Plus, as previously stated, they have their own lanes now, so don't need any preferential treatment from me!

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

'Anyway, my least favourite, without bothering to read the whole thing again, would be "give way to people already on the roundabout".

If only they would make it clear,' ON the roundabout', and not half a mile up the road from the right, like some dopes think!

This raises an important issue, and I'm going to start a new thread. Please direct discussions of the issue to the new thread.

See: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8616

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Is it not? So is it such a great idea to have large, slow moving vehicles pulling out into gaps where there isn't enough room? To pre-empt the next question 'Well they shouldn't' - you must accept that they will, wether they should or not. Its quite nice to sail past a bus because your journey is more important, but what about the other 10 or 20 cars that think the same. Now image yourself on the bus, thats spending a long time at each bus stop becuse no-one will let it pull out.

I'll always let buses pull out providing it can be done safely. It's not the people on the bus that create this so called inequality, but they are the ones that your affecting. Give them, and the drivers, a break. Critisise policy by all means - I accept not everything is perfect regarding public transport - but don't target the people on the ground just because you have a grudge.

When a vehicle (any vehicle) wants to move into a stream of traffic, they have to wait for a gap. Having more seats does NOT give priority. The very idea is absurd!

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The very idea is to give additional help to vehicles that need it. Just like you should give way to heavy vehicles travelling uphill even if you have priority. Is that rule absurd too?

The rule is not you MUST give way to buses, or that it gives a bus the right to force you to make an abrupt stop. The rule is designed to give buses some assistance where you can. To help a bus keep to a timetable when in most cases you will overtake at the next stop and regain your orginal place.

Major difference - we give way to heavies on hills when no other priority rule applies.

The bus rule suggests a REVERSAL of a well defined priority.



I'm not for one second concerned about the time it costs me. I'm concerned about the distortion of basic road safety priorities on the basis of political ideology.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

There will always be a safe gap eventually... The bus will just have to wait. If the driver and his/her passengers aren't happy with the wait or the length of their journey, then they can either use a car or bike or complain to their local council about how their traffic congestion schemes are slowing buses down...

Using size is just bullying.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

I feel I should defend the original purpose of the bus rule: it is part of buses' function to stop frequently, and if they could not get back into the road afterwards it would seriously hinder the bus service and make it unworkable. So the rule originally made sense.

However, I agree that since bus stops have become build outs, this is a huge disincentive not to let them out in front of you anymore, lest you become tgrapped behind later on. So ironically, it's now totally understandable to no longer let them out.

I think the worst rule in the HC (that I can think of offhand) is the rule that you must go around painted mini roundabouts without touching the painted bit. Almost everyone wrongly believes you can go over them, even (it seems) the people who paint them. If I carefully went right round every one, it would be massively confusing to other drivers as no one would expect it. I think this rule should be brought into line with common practice: ie, use your judgement as to which is better.

My bold. Yes suggests - suggests it might be helpful to give someone else assistance once in awhile! Are the people on the bus responible for public transport policy thats at the real root issue for you?



I think your blowing this way out of propotion. It's a simple act of slowing down a little to let a bus out. Given the fact the bus is trying to keep to a timetable and will pull out in a gap thats possibly not suitable(yes they shouldn't but they do) it seems entirely sensible to let them out where you can do so safely.

And there was me thinking drivers wern't selfish!

But this is how I now feel about this - and I never used to...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

And I'm concerned about the enmity shown towards a small rule designed to aid the progress of a public service on the basis of spite.

The idea that one should let buses pull out is not a new one, its been around for years. I'm not aware of any compromises this makes towards overall road safety, and I'm not small minded enough to begrudge being asked/instructed/told to let them out.

Bus drivers have a timetable to keep to. If behind timetable, they will often take risks to try and get back to it (amber gambling, driving faster than is safe, etc). We can prevent this by helping them out of bus stops.

WHy are you so uptight about this anyway? 99% of the time letting a bus out will make next to no difference to your own journey. We're all just trying to get somewhere, and we'll all get there in the end. Chill out.

Regarding the bus build-outs, I believe they were built because of lack of observance of the above rule. Ah well.