New Highway Code Rules Coming

[smash]

I know there are lots of fans of cars on this forum so would like know if you are familiar with the new rules coming into force.

The main thing is the principle of "Hierarchy of users". This is basically where a pedestrian holds the least responsibility, a cyclist next, then a motorcycle etc. and is based on the idea of capacity to do most harm.

I would put up a link but I hate that "We see you're using an adblocker" thing, Sure you can get the main points in your way.

What do people think, more of the War On The (oh, so persecuted) Motorist?

[Riedquat]

Just a point - the Highway Code doesn't make rules. It's fundamentally a guide to good practice. That requires often referring to the laws (roughly any time it says you must / must not do something, as opposed to should or should not), but it doesn't define them. Failure to follow it might be regarded as evidence of careless driving though.

Of course the proposal is drivel though.

[smash]

7 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Just a point - the Highway Code doesn't make rules. It's fundamentally a guide to good practice. That requires often referring to the laws (roughly any time it says you must / must not do something, as opposed to should or should not), but it doesn't define them. Failure to follow it might be regarded as evidence of careless driving though.

Of course the proposal is drivel though.

guidance and "you should" yes but like you say in the event of an accident penalties might result for not following the guidance. From what i've been able to make out this is going to be adopted so not really just a proposal, people would be advised to familiarise themselves.

[Riedquat]

On 28/09/2021 at 18:15, smash said:

guidance and "you should" yes but like you say in the event of an accident penalties might result for not following the guidance. From what i've been able to make out this is going to be adopted so not really just a proposal, people would be advised to familiarise themselves.

Familiarise themselves with what? That responsibility will be determined by who is more likely to come off worse in an accident irrespective of whose behaviour actually caused it? There's not a lot you can do about that anyway, other than pray you don't end up getting in trouble because some cretin with their eyes glued to their phone stepped out in front of your car.

[Bruce Banner]

Covid vaccination certificate needed to start the engine?

[smash]

6 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Familiarise themselves with what? That responsibility will be determined by who is more likely to come off worse in an accident irrespective of whose behaviour actually caused it? There's not a lot you can do about that anyway, other than pray you don't end up getting in trouble because some cretin with their eyes glued to their phone stepped out in front of your car.

No it wont work that way. If you hit a cretin ped. clued to a phone it will be your responsibility. Sure you can say "oh but the credit ped is either dead or on a life support system so they came off worse" but the law will hold you to greater account in that circumstance. You praying isn't going to help, praying never does.

[Riedquat]

8 minutes ago, smash said:

No it wont work that way. If you hit a cretin ped. clued to a phone it will be your responsibility. Sure you can say "oh but the credit ped is either dead or on a life support system so they came off worse" but the law will hold you to greater account in that circumstance. You praying isn't going to help, praying never does.

Of course praying doesn't help but against such a biased system, one that is less and less interested in actual responsibility, it's about all you've got.

[smash]

1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

Of course praying doesn't help but against such a biased system, one that is less and less interested in actual responsibility, it's about all you've got.

The principle of capacity to do most harm is one that fosters responsibility on the very basis of how it describes itself. I really dont understand the objection.

[Riedquat]

11 hours ago, smash said:

The principle of capacity to do most harm is one that fosters responsibility on the very basis of how it describes itself. I really dont understand the objection.

So you don't understand the objection to the idea that if the shortcomings of someone's actions being irrelevant when determining responsibility, just the level of vulnerability? So the most vulnerable can wander around with their heads in the clouds (or glued to their phones) secure in the knowledge that nothing they do can be their fault, it's always up to someone else to (somehow) avoid them?

If a pedestrian steps out in to the road without looking and gets hit by a car that had no chance to avoid them then the pedestrian is entirely responsible. That they're the one who'll come off worse is irrelevant. That's a simple extreme case, as you move away from that the responsibility starts to shift, but vulnerability still has nothing to do with it. And "it's always the job of someone bigger to avoid me, I shouldn't have to give a damn about them" isn't an attitude that should be encouraged either.

[smash]

On 01/10/2021 at 11:24, Riedquat said:

So you don't understand the objection to the idea that if the shortcomings of someone's actions being irrelevant when determining responsibility, just the level of vulnerability? So the most vulnerable can wander around with their heads in the clouds (or glued to their phones) secure in the knowledge that nothing they do can be their fault, it's always up to someone else to (somehow) avoid them?

If a pedestrian steps out in to the road without looking and gets hit by a car that had no chance to avoid them then the pedestrian is entirely responsible. That they're the one who'll come off worse is irrelevant. That's a simple extreme case, as you move away from that the responsibility starts to shift, but vulnerability still has nothing to do with it. And "it's always the job of someone bigger to avoid me, I shouldn't have to give a damn about them" isn't an attitude that should be encouraged either.

Wow, one would think that we live in a society where to be a pedestrian a person needs to be licensed and insured reading that.

People aren't going to wandering dangerously into the road because of these changes to the liability aspect of the highway code. Granted, there are phone zombie pedestrians but on the occasions that my liability might be violated by such foolishness I simply regulate my speed, make eye contact etc. you know the stuff any reasonable person would do.

If you want to strut around talking about responsibility like an internet John Paul Satre maybe you should embrace the opportunity to have yourself held to account for your actions.

[Riedquat]

11 hours ago, smash said:

Wow, one would think that we live in a society where to be a pedestrian a person needs to be licensed and insured reading that.

Whatever twists and turns you've gone through to get from what I said to that I can't work out.

Quote

People aren't going to wandering dangerously into the road because of these changes to the liability aspect of the highway code. Granted, there are phone zombie pedestrians but on the occasions that my liability might be violated by such foolishness I simply regulate my speed, make eye contact etc. you know the stuff any reasonable person would do.

Better never drive above walking pace then. Can't make eye contact with someone busy staring at a phone.

I'm not saying they're going to change (although don't underestimate the danger of changing behaviour when "it's someone else's job to avoid me if I act stupidly, not mine"), but you're trying to defend a line that'll say it's automatically your responsibility as a driver no matter the actual circumstances of an accident. I shouldn't even have to point out how absurd that is.

Quote

If you want to strut around talking about responsibility like an internet John Paul Satre maybe you should embrace the opportunity to have yourself held to account for your actions.

I am 100% for people being held to account for their own actions, including myself. Any nonsense like a predefined hierarchy of responsibility is the complete opposite of that.

So far you've not actually addressed the most important criticism of this idea, namely that responsibility can be predetermined, and that some people should be held responsible for the actions of others. Whilst we've all got to account for the possibility of stupid behaviour in others we're also responsible for ourselves.

[smash]

On 04/10/2021 at 10:06, Riedquat said:

Whatever twists and turns you've gone through to get from what I said to that I can't work out.

Better never drive above walking pace then. Can't make eye contact with someone busy staring at a phone.

I'm not saying they're going to change (although don't underestimate the danger of changing behaviour when "it's someone else's job to avoid me if I act stupidly, not mine"), but you're trying to defend a line that'll say it's automatically your responsibility as a driver no matter the actual circumstances of an accident. I shouldn't even have to point out how absurd that is.

I am 100% for people being held to account for their own actions, including myself. Any nonsense like a predefined hierarchy of responsibility is the complete opposite of that.

So far you've not actually addressed the most important criticism of this idea, namely that responsibility can be predetermined, and that some people should be held responsible for the actions of others. Whilst we've all got to account for the possibility of stupid behaviour in others we're also responsible for ourselves.

Well, we often hear the trite phrase "with rights comes responsibility" and I think that the right to possess a drivers license should come with responsibility attached to it. The existential philosophical tradition takes it a step further and will will often link as indivisible responsibility with freedom. So when you say "predetermined" then yes, if you are a free man then Sartre and others would approve of this statement.

[Riedquat]

14 hours ago, smash said:

Well, we often hear the trite phrase "with rights comes responsibility" and I think that the right to possess a drivers license should come with responsibility attached to it. The existential philosophical tradition takes it a step further and will will often link as indivisible responsibility with freedom. So when you say "predetermined" then yes, if you are a free man then Sartre and others would approve of this statement.

Of course drivers of powered vehicles have responsibility for their actions. Still don't see the relevance of your philosophical side-track though.

Take for example someone wandering down the middle of the road, paying little attention to their surroundings, and they get hit by a car. Should the car driver have seen them and avoiding hitting them? Yes. Should they have been wandering down the middle of the road? No. Who is responsible? It makes no sense to say that the car driver was 100% or 0% responsible. When walking along a road, particularly one with no pavement, it is my responsibility to be aware of any traffic and react accordingly, and its the cars' responsibility to look out for people like me, to give me time to move, and to give reasonable space where it's not possible for me to do so.

[smash]

9 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Of course drivers of powered vehicles have responsibility for their actions. Still don't see the relevance of your philosophical side-track though.

Take for example someone wandering down the middle of the road, paying little attention to their surroundings, and they get hit by a car. Should the car driver have seen them and avoiding hitting them? Yes. Should they have been wandering down the middle of the road? No. Who is responsible? It makes no sense to say that the car driver was 100% or 0% responsible. When walking along a road, particularly one with no pavement, it is my responsibility to be aware of any traffic and react accordingly, and its the cars' responsibility to look out for people like me, to give me time to move, and to give reasonable space where it's not possible for me to do so.

I think that these new rules are guidance aren't they, huh? If you need it explaining to you its about how you should operate a motor vehicle isn't it? If you or I slam into a person wandering around in a road the legal process steps in and determines which parties are at fault, it wont be some idealised version of interpretation of events, a binary.

There are explanations for why a person might be wandering around in the road that a driver might find themselves in a situation with. A road wanderer might be intoxicated, a domestic abuse victim who has run out of the house in a distressed state, someone recently released from a psychiatric ward and suicidal etc. In fact when I learned to drive I had to practice emergency stops and when I took my test the examiner said something like "when I tap the dashboard perform an emergency stop, imagine a child has run out on the road". But of course you and I know that the status quo (prior to these changes) is that as the motor vehicle can create the greatest damage then a supposed "natural law" applies in the mindscape of many drivers, which is why its possible to see menacing car drivers sounding their horn rather then stopping for an elderly person with a walking frame crossing the road. These new changes address, in part, people with these social engagement attitudes.

Obviously this is part of a cultural shift that will take time to have an impact and improvement on our living environment but its a start. Something I approve of as an activist for reduction in motor vehicle usage.

What do you campaign for?

[Riedquat]

If someone is staggering around drunk then they're responsible for being in that state. As a driver yes, you've got to take some responsibility for avoiding them (can't just plough them down for being there), but they are also responsible for being in that position. After all I'm sure you'd view their actions as very different and entirely on their shoulders if instead of staggering around in the road they got in to their car.

As you point out the legal process will determine who is at fault, and depending on exactly what happened it won't necessarily say "the more vulnerable person isn't".

No-one's defending drivers honking their horns at old people slowly crossing, not sure what your point is there.

Everyone has a responsibility towards all other road users, no matter what form of transport they are using, from walking to driving an HGV, and all need to show due considerations to all the others. There's no rational hierarchy based on vulnerability, so. e.g. a car driver on a country lane should accommodate pedestrians in the road by not just expecting them to dive out of the way, and pedestrians should step out of the way if possible.

What do you mean what do I campaign for? I don't campaign for anything, I just argue against daft black and white arbitrariness and "it's someone else's problem to look after me."