Highway Code

[Rave]

The highway code is NOT law. The road traffic act is law. Hence highway 'CODE' not, highway 'LAW'!

The code explains what the various laws governing use of the roads mean. From the first page of the highway code site:

"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your license or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words MUST / MUST NOT. In addition the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. "

Then it says:

"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, it itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under Traffic Acts to establish liability."

So although the rule I referred to does not say that the driver MUST give way, she's liable for any accident if she doesn't.

I drive a car and I'm also a pedestrian. If I want to turn into a side road when I'm driving and I have to wait for a pedestrian, then I just wait, it doesn't bother me in the slightest because I know those are the rules.

Rich :¬)

[Big RICHARD]

The code explains what the various laws governing use of the roads mean. From the first page of the highway code site:

"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your license or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words MUST / MUST NOT. In addition the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. "

Then it says:

"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, it itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under Traffic Acts to establish liability."

So although the rule I referred to does not say that the driver MUST give way, she's liable for any accident if she doesn't.

I drive a car and I'm also a pedestrian. If I want to turn into a side road when I'm driving and I have to wait for a pedestrian, then I just wait, it doesn't bother me in the slightest because I know those are the rules.

Rich :¬)

Thankyou for your excellent reply. You are correct, the Highway code itself is not the law, it is a summary of some laws and some common practices (which are not law). Your last paragraph is fair, but I think the 'rule' should be changed in the name of safety. If people think that they have no right of way as pedestrians on the road, they will be much more careful when it comes to crossing the road, including WHERE they choose to cross. Fair enough, a speeding driver should be penalised EVERY time if they run someone over.

[Rave]

If people think that they have no right of way as pedestrians on the road, they will be much more careful when it comes to crossing the road, including WHERE they choose to cross. Fair enough, a speeding driver should be penalised EVERY time if they run someone over.

Maybe, but then the flipside of that is that if car drivers thought they were always responsible if they ran anyone down, then maybe they'd drive more carefully. Since that would also be likely to cut the number of accidents not involving pedestrians, I think if the law is to be changed then it should go in that direction.

The woman who nearly ran me down wasn't speeding, she was probably doing 20mph or so. The point is she was going too fast to be safe, and she wasn't paying enough attention to the road.

Rich :¬)

[5lab]

laws are positioned in this way to protect pedestrians - if the law was the other way round (peds have to keep their eyes out) and someone did get hit then they would have to pay for the damage done to the car as a result of being run over - this isnt really a viable option as peds rarely have insurance for this kinda thing, and the damage could be well over £10000 if it were a nice car (hell i did 2k of damage to a bloody 8yr old polo on me bike!). on the other hand car owners should always have insurance, and as a result are much better covered to take financial responsibility if soemthing like this should happen

[Angus]

I think in general pedestrians are fairly sensible - looking both ways etc before crossing.

Limits are there purely as limits. You could be doing 29 in a 30 but it could be icy and outside a footy stadium at closing time - that would be dangerous (could get rid of a few footy supporters though ) and as such you could be done for dangerous driving; despite the fact that you were sticking to the limits.

If we didn't have numpties that like to speed everywhere we wouldn't need speed limits.