A driving licence is a strange thing, compared to other forms of licence.

It requires a significant amount of training, and the person is then in possession of a licence, which allows them to be in charge of a vehicle which could do a lot of damage if used incorrectly. There is also a significant amount of law around driving, with changes every so often.

Now in most areas like this, there is a requirement for Continuing Professional Development. A driving licence isn't so different from these, and yet it's just seen as such an everyday skill or right that there isn't the same requirement to keep up knowledge and understanding. Indeed, every so often I see clickbait to articles about how drivers are "only just realising" something that they really should know if they are on top of their game.

Perhaps there should be more of an effort to ensure drivers are up to date with changes, and are actively aware of things. It could be as simple as providing an annual update, requiring acknowledgment, or a simple theory re-test every X years. I don't think it would be popular, given that driving is often seen as a basic life skill and right (there would be more than a few "I've been doing it for 30 years and not had a crash" comments) but at the same time I'm very aware that a driver is able to wield a lot of damage if they don't know what they're doing, and really ought to be aware of what they should be doing! Perhaps it should be a condition of insurance, and paid for by the insurer, on the basis that CPD may reduce the total cost of payouts!

It happens in a small way - for example sending some on Speed Awareness courses. But that's more reactionary than 'normal' CPD!

Edit: I don't drive. Maybe this already happens and I just haven't noticed!

 
In France, where I have driven a car, "... when pedestrians express the wish to cross at a pedestrian crossing, they have priority, any vehicle must let them pass."

See https://www.onisr.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/en/node/497

In the UK, the full updated Highway Code is available online, at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code

 
Changing the Highway Code, regrettably, is unlikely to change behaviour on its own.

For most people the Highway Code is something people "mug up on" for the driving test, and never look at again. How many people have a copy of the new Highway Code? When did people last look at the Highway Code? A possible Graham poll?

 
When I made a trip to Australia,I recall how motorists gave way to the pedestrians on all road junctions.

 
Almost four years later, I still have my doubts about motorists deferring to pedestrians WAITING  to cross a road at a junction. Yesterday I was driving behind another motorist who suddenly stopped on a mini-roundabout to allow someone to cross the road. I ws driving slowly and had left a good gap between my car and his, so was able to stop in time, but ...

(A few miles later, I stopped in a village to buy a newspaper, parking  beyond the shop and walking back, then, some hours later, driving back past the shop. On all three occasions there were pedestrians crossing the road obliquely, to the extent they couldn't see traffic approaching them. Reminded me of decades ago when I used to cycle along Marlborough High Street, a very wide road with cars parked either side and in the middle; I could count on someone walking across at an angle.)

 
Perhaps the horse was drunk as well!

 
I do however wonder if the report is true, or an early urban myth.

Most scaffolding does not have ramps, but uses ladders and hoists.
Most scaffolding has a rather restricted area and often limited headroom also for work or access, not sufficient to allow easy passage for a horse.
I very much doubt that a horse would enter an unfamiliar structure of its own volition.

Also horses have good night vision and would probably not step of a sheer drop.

 
Poor horse.

 
There's a story that when Stroud's Subscription Rooms (a venue for concerts and similar) were being built in 1833-34, a certain local farmer was in the habit of finishing every market day with a pint or several at the Swan, which is still open in Swan Lane just round the corner from the Sub Rooms (unless Covid has forced it to close down). No matter if he could barely stand and it was dark, his horse knew the way home. One particular market day he had better than usual sales to celebrate, so drank accordingly. Unfortunately what his horse did not know and he was too drunk to notice was that Swan Lane was obstructed by scaffolding for the Sub Rooms then under construction. He and his horse trotted up the ramp to the height of the second storey... and straight off the other end. Horse and rider died.

 

Not too much, though. The one that had a go at my car (many years ago) was not responsible for its actions, according to the law, and neither was its rider.

I did all the right things, slowing right down and into first gear, and getting as far off this very narrow road as I could. It would not have helped if I'd stopped, as the two horses were passing me as fast as I was them. Just when the leading beast got alongside it executed a neat (though perhaps not medalworthy) pirouette and pushed its back end through the side window behind me, and then lashed out with its hooves. "Must have been frightened by a rabbit" was the story; and I suspect it always is. 

 
I've noticed that the horses and their handlers at Little Heath Stables on the edge of Tilehurst are usually treated with respect by motorists. It can't be much fun leading a string of horses along a narrowish lane between the stables and a field.

 
Horses have the merit of having a little commonsense of their own, a trick not yet learnt by cycles.
Horses have been known to find their own way home if the rider falls off, sleeps, or is drunk.
It is alleged that horses regularly used in urban areas can understand traffic lights.
A saddled but riderless horse is a cause for concern since the welfare and whereabouts of the rider are unknown.

 

As someone who cycled 250,000+ miles, I should be less prejudiced than some about cyclists, but I'm still cross about an incident last week when I was driving with care down a steep hill with a sharp bend at the bottom that I know to be tricky. As I went around the bend, I saw there was a dustcart stopped on my side with operatives collecting and emptying bins. I slowed down and squeezed through carefully, only to get an angry shout behind from a cyclist who had been speeding down the hill. I then had to pause at two road junctions, where he continued his tirade.

He didn't look the sort of person who would entertain these points:

1. He was going too fast to stop safely;
2. Under the imminent guidance, the bin operatives in the road had priority over him (and me);
3. Had there been an oncoming vehicle that entailed my stopping behind the dustcart (and even if I hadn't been there at all), his side of the road would be blocked and there would have been a head-on collision at an impact speed of 35+mph. (And he wasn't wearing a helmet, which is another issue, I know).

I can readily recall other idiocy incidents with motorists and pedestrians - but not with horses and their riders!

(Please forgive my self-indulgence in recounting this incident, but I'm still feeling raw about it.)

 

I'm really enjoying my breakfast! 

 

I have had it explained to me that horses are vegetarian, and so produce a cleaner and more natural solid waste product than dogs which are supposed to be carnivores but in practice eat a mixture of meat and veg.  I don't recall if that explanation came from a horse rider who may have had an interest in justifying their behaviour - "oy, matey, aren't you going to clean up your sh*t"  or from someone with a more scientific background.

 
I think there should be "Poop and scoop" for horses", not sure whether
would apply.

 

I don't doubt that SOME motorists believe they own the road, in the same way as some cyclists and some pedestrians (and some horse and cart drivers I'm sure) leave a lot to be desired in their behaviour, but by no means all in any category.

One of the difficulties with this debate and the issues around it (particularly when it comes to cyclists/motorists) is that it tends to take place with generalisations/absolutes as you've demonstrated, with each side having very little empathy for the other.

 
I doubt that the new wording will make that much difference, but even a small change in emphasis is still a step in the right direction. For far too long motorists have believed that they, and only they, have a right to use the roads.

BTW, a neighbour of mine regularly uses his horse drawn cart when a riding horse might be more suitable. The reason being that car drivers HAVE to allow space for a large cart, but drive too fast and too close to a horse being ridden.
The cart is also safer after dark as it is equipped with good lights.

 
Depends how it's implemented. I think the idea is that pedestrians won't "want" to cross the road, they'll simply walk. Like you, I don't think this will work in practice.

 

Can see it now: Advisory: Nearside rear horseshoe getting near legal limit 

 

Ever the pedant, I can see scope for more confusion - and most people won't bother to ponder what is meant. I've long had the vague idea that a pedestrian already crossing a road had priority and a stronger view that so had a cyclist going straight on.

But will "pedestrians wanting to cross the road" really have priority? If when I'm in a car I'm about to turn left into a side road and I see a pedestrian waiting on the pavement, do I brake to a halt to allow them to cross. I can't see that going down well with drivers behind me!

(A couple of months ago, I was walking along Oxford Road in Reading and paused to cross over the entrance to Waitrose. When driving into the supermarket, I twitch a little about cars close behind as one needs to slow right down to negotiate the 180-degree turn, and I was a little startled when a lady driver turning in to the car park stopped to allow me to cross - with the rear of her car sticking out into the main road.)

 
I agree that training should be considered before riding a horse on or near public roads, I would not favour making this a requirement.
Whatever next, annual MOT examinations for the horse !

 
Coming from a Congregational-style church background which strives for consensus rather than imposing top-down rules, I particularly enjoyed the bit that reads "The Highway Code will be updated to suggest that those new to horse riding, or those who have not ridden for a while, consider undertaking training".

More generally, this will all take a while to filter through but does look like a positive move.  Previous changes such as including hazard perception in the driving test have definitely made it through to real-life driving over time; I notice for instance many motorists actually slowing down ready to stop as I walk towards a zebra crossing, rather than me needing to wave a toe over the kerb before anyone would even notice me as used to be the case, and many (but not all) drivers now give cyclists a far wider berth than they used to.

 


My view is that powered scooters should be encouraged in view of the minimal energy use and little road space occupied. They are no worse than electrically assisted cycles and should be treated similarly.

Unlikely to happen though. What is much more likely is various rules and regulations to tax, license, restrict, and discourage them.

 
There's been a lot of misleading phrases used in connection with these announcements. One was that "vehicles going straight on would always have priority", implying radical and complicated changes to junction procedures. In fact it refers to the specific case of turning into. but not out of, a side road; the idea is to let pedestrians wanting to cross the road, as well as cyclists going straight on, do so with precedence over the vehicle turning into the side road.

These phrases have appeared in many different places, so it would seem the confusion arises with DfT not journalists. Perhaps it's time we stopped using the word "priority" in traffic situations and adopted more specific words.

 
Sloppy writing. I think it concerns a mooted introduction of some sort of presumed liability system, which is really for insurance purposes rather than a legal principle. The onus of responsibility will be on the operator of the "lower priority" vehicle to prove that the operator of a "higher priority" vehicle was at fault.

 

They do!

 

I guess the "Please let the bus pull out" stickers on the back of buses will have to be removed then, if they still exist! 

 
A very interesting angle from Forbes ...


I find myself concerned if this is truly a hierarchy of priority - it calls for cars to have priority over buses, for example. I can just imagine the effect on performance of a bus having to wait for a gap in a stream of car traffic to pull out. As a hierarchy of responsibility, it makes more sense.

Where do unpowered (and rental powered) scooters fit in?

 
I consider these changes to be a forward step, probably a rather small step, but every little helps.

 
For those who want the detail, DfT have obviously cleared out their backlog

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-to-improve-road-safety-for-cyclists-pedestrians-and-horse-riders
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sharing-our-roads-safely
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-city-ambition-programme-2013-to-2018-review
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/increasing-uptake-of-cycling-following-covid-19-travel-disruption
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/active-travel-schemes-supported-by-government-funding
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gear-change-one-year-on-review
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-attitudes-towards-traffic-and-road-use

plus what looks like a major update of TAG.

Probably best left to more warm nights when you can't sleep.

 

Highway engineers and people who want to retain the fields behind their houses?   http://melksh.am/bypass

 

I've already seen this creating the predictable rhetoric from both sides elsewhere.

I genuinely think it would be impossible to find two groups who empathise, or even attempt to empathise with each other less than motorists and cyclists.

 
Be interesting to see how much gets legislated for & how much is purely 'guidance' - which most currently is.

 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58021450