New highway code rule.

The BlackBeltBarrister explains.

Edited By blowlamp on 05/02/2022 13:06:21

Edited By blowlamp on 05/02/2022 13:07:01

Guidance from the guide dogs association has now changed for people and dogs in that situation, to whit:- it you are happy crossing, then tell the dog and proceed. If you are not happy, then deliberately wave the car on. That's good as all three parties involved are clear about what's happening.

PS:- guide dog brood bitch Bailey is here in the front room as I write, having produced five out of an expected eight puppies. It's been a long night!

Utter rubbish!

I think if he read it, BBB would find Guide Dogs don't understand any of the Highway Code!

In any road situation were drivers encounter an unusual situation, like a dog waiting for him while he waits for the dog, it's always has been the drivers responsibility to sort it out. Usually done by moving slowly and taking care of what others are doing until the problem is resolved. A driver might choose to get out of the way by manoeuvring around the pedestrian; he might wind down the window and talk to them; or he could put the hazard flashers on, get out, and escort the blind person safely over the junction. It's a short confusion on the road with low risk of contact, not a legal minefield, bureaucratic blunder, or carnage unleashed.

Second, BBB assumes the Highway Code has to cover all situations, which it can't and doesn't. For example, the action guide dogs should take at railway level crossings. If the dog can see or hear a train coming it's unlikely to get run over. But there's an obvious loophole where the line appears quiet after a train has passed, but another is approaching at high-speed. As the dog is trained to wait for cars, not locomotives it might get it wrong! Likewise, a pooch might walk it's blind owner across a quiet motorway, which the dog doesn't know is illegal, or that a car a mile away travelling at 100mph will be here in 36 seconds.

Whist there are a multitude of situations that can and do go bad on the roads, it's not total mayhem out there. About 350 billion road miles per year in 2019 resulted in 1870 deaths in a total of 157,630 injuries of all severities. COVID is far more likely to kill you! I don't think this particular change to the Highway Code will make much difference - Wikipedia says there are only 4800 Guide Dogs in the UK, and most motorists avoid colliding with them.

Unfortunately people prefer bunk to boring reality. Even going so far as to pay good money for it!

Dave

In another niggle 'causing following drivers to rear-end them if they are stopped' The law has been quite clear on that since adam rode his bike...

I'll remind him he should stick to what he knows about.

Martin.

What is "happy crossing?"

So on a sombre note to all this. My mate thought he would try out these new rules. He walked in front of a steam roller.

Anyone who knows him can visit him in the local hospital. He can be found in wards 8- 9 & 10.

Steve.

Sorry coat & hat on.

Somebody commented on the liability of autonomous vehicles which reminded me of something that has puzzled me for a while.

Does a driverless car have to be 100% safe (whatever that means)? Or should we be happy if it is just 10% (or better) safer than the average road user?

Is there any chance of us being rational about this?

A prerequisite has to be that it's better than a human driver but the trolley problem means there is no 100%
Trolley problem

Ethical dilemmas abound: does the car crash into a bus queue or hit a stone wall and kill it’s fewer occupants - even if one is a baby?

Asimov's three laws of robotics avoided such dilemmas

pgk

The trolley problem isn't the only thing limiting the safety of autonomous vehicles; there is also the reduced capacity of autonomous vehicles to read the intentions of and take cues from human road users [something human road users do a lot more than they're probably aware of] as well as the pronounced inability of autonomous vehicles to make what to us are very easy distinctions, but to them almost impossibly difficult.

An example of this is the autonomous car that was following a truck transporting directional road signs and visibly obeyed the road signs in the back of the truck when all other road users were safely and logically ignoring them.

Autonomous vehicles will only be viable en masse, I think, when they are allowed to share the roads with nothing other than fellow autonomous vehicles, i.e. when human drivers have been removed from parts of the road system only autonomous vehicles are allowed to use.

This will almost certainly be piloted first in China, where the legislation required to close off a city or part of one to human-driven vehicles can be obtained and enforced literally overnight without the need for niceties like parliamentary debate or public consultation.

The question for us is whether local authorities in the UK, in their haste not to be left behind by the Chinese, will end up forcing human drivers off the roads with the same sort of draconian measures that have been foisted upon us over the last few years to create so-called Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.

The original simple concept was to interpret still images by presenting so-called AI with multiple copies of such and it learning their meaning. That is where such issues as bicycles strapped to backs of cars or road signs loaded on lorries immediately cause confusion. Even with multiple copies there are all the variants - signs partially obscured by hedges, faded signs, trick paper signs made by locals and signs that have a legend signifying their hours of operation. A lot of that can be resolved by a much wider range of copies presented to the AI and adding text interpretation and finally using multiple stacked images related to surroundings to know if a sign is stationary or moving. However, apart from the issue of data collection is the need for way faster and larger on-board computers to handle the approach with the weight and power needs. There are moves in all those directions but when finally figured out it still needs redundant cameras and cleaning systems and systems to cope with low sun, mud splatter etc.
But cameras do have some advantages. I had a close call recently at night on a single track country lane on a long downhill section where I thought I could see something like a plastic bag in the road way ahead. As I got closer it became obvious it was a dirty sheep fast asleep in the middle - hit the brakes but with loose dried debris on the surface I just slid despite traction control and ABS but did manage to swerve enough to make a compromise between sheep,verge and hedge and just brushed sheep's wool with the front wing - no damage to it or car. Looking back on the dashcam footage did demonstrate how much better a camera switched to low light conditions can 'see' compared to a human - even if the car didn't react with AEB.

pgk

Its just typical nanny state rubbish.

To start with if the girl in the picture on the link had used her other hand and been turning round to look over her shoulder as they advocate she would definitely have missed the cyclist coming towards her from the front! Maybe they think people approach from the back more than the front! 😂😂😂

When we no longer have to drive cars ourselves the signage on roads could be dispensed with as it could all be in the database for the navigation system. I sometimes wonder why every junction is different from all others, every aspect of a junction could be fairly rigidly defined and standardised. I know terrain is a factor but we do have the technology to move that around, obviously the roads in more ancient settlements are a difficult area as the modern vehicle requirements are rather different from the pedestrian and horse traffic that defined the original layout. It will be fascinating to see how things develop but unfortunately most of us will probably have checked out from this world before all the problems are sorted out and fusion power comes on line.

Mike

They do Peter, they do. When a car parks on the street the driver's door opens out into traffic overtaking from behind. Unfortunately most vehicles have a blind spot near the rear driver-side wheel and a poor view of what's behind through three separate small mirrors. When a car, lorry or bus hits the door, only the driver is likely to be hurt, probably not seriously. Cyclists and motor-cyclists are likely to be badly hurt.

As the parked driver has always been responsible in the UK for any accident resulting from him opening the door, Road Traffic Act confirmed by Case Law here, it makes sense to apply any trick that avoids the hassle caused by having an accident. Dutch door opening forces drivers to make a quick 120° scan covering front, side, and back. I think it's a neat trick, not the Nanny State trying to crush my spirit.

Dave

Cyclists should also remember to leave 1m when passing a parked car.

I wonder where the law stands on one-armed drivers and the Dutch Reach.

Martin.

PKG's Trolley Problem, Do nothing, record it all on your mobile phone, put it on the net straight away seems to be the modern trend!

Dave, what is the "Code" when you park on the "Wrong" side of the road ? And when your passengers get out onto the LHS of the car - They open the door looking backwards and side swipe a cyclist who is passing the parked car.

Bob

The cyclist should already be 1m away from the vehicle - it says so in the Highway Code.

Martin.

The instinctive answer to the trolley problem is to save the most people but what if the single person was the one who was going to rid the world of cancer or dementia? The more you know of the future value of the decision you make could alter the decision but it is like you only know the quantity of people you could save.

Mike

Local electrician's wife is convinced the car would decide on the ethnicity of potential victims - nothing like a ridiculous conspiracy theory to warp people’s attitude to new tech.

pgk

Regardless of whether you can physically do the Dutch reach [I can't do it when sitting on the left side of a car, and can't not do it when sitting on the right] you won't be prosecuted for not doing it.

You may, however, be prosecuted [as you may be already] if you "open a car door, or cause or permit it to be opened, so as to cause injury".

So, legally speaking, not a lot has changed really.

Yes, though an added complication is that sometimes a sign in the back of a moving vehicle [e.g. a police car] is intended to be heeded by motorists.