I'd say the biggest flaw with the HC is that most drivers read it when they are learners and once they've passed their test never look at it again! The next biggest flaw is that it's not updated enough and so often feels as though it is written to reflect the roads and vehicles, attitudes and language of the 1970s, not the 2020s.
its just had quite a big update, with the new 'pedestrians have priority crossing' rule - as most folk walk round with their eyes on a phone screen nowadays..
It was last updated September 2023. It’s been updated 22 times in the last 10 years (2015 on). You can sign up to get email alerts when the rules change.
my favourite is mini roundabouts in Dash cam videos, usually the cam car cuts the mini roundabout to complain at a driver that didnt give way and to get their clip, but its a should give way, its a Must go round the road markings, they dont even realise they have done something worse lol
I always think this is so back to front. The giving way is generally more crucial than wiggling around some paint. Mini roundabouts are crossroads with a priority scheme dictated by the give way priority. There are obviously times when this notion creates an error state and everyone looks to to righ5for someone to make the first move. The Highway Code may be an official document, but it's by no means perfect, even after all these years...
Here in South Africa mini roundabouts or mini traffic circles as they are called here are essentially 4 way stop streets. The law was changed a few years ago to stop the endless waiting in rush hour on suburban streets for a gap in the traffic on the more heavily trafficked street if " give way" to the right was still in force.
@@TheSynthnut on page 42 of a current version highway code, there is a line on general advice, give way if it will help avoid an incident. Too many drivers dont think they should give up their priority when someone makes a mistake or doesnt care and does not give way to them. But if you drive relaxed, and dont worry too much about other drivers, a high percent of mini roundabouts help flow. Its rare to get all drivers stopping at them and not knowing who goes first. Having just come back from holiday in Italy, over their roads are so busy in some places you just need to crawl out, inch by inch, until you make a gap, no one is bothered about the priority, they just want you to emerge and get going to clear the road to allow flow. Its over here in the UK that people get annoyed if someone didnt give way to them, even more funny when they cut a mini roundabout then jam the brakes on when had they just went round the markings they would need to slow a little but still would flow.
@@douglasreid699 yes! This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident. Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care [...] - try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well. - be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake. - do not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey. - slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them.
Give way is largely misunderstood. I learned from Ashley Nel that 'Priority is given not taken' and that I should always check to see if the other driver has seen me before assuming that I can proceed at normal speed for the circumstances. I would welcome regular retesting of all drivers, subject to the system being improved to remove delays with testing - we would all be better driver, fewer accidents and happier people. As I joked in an earlier post, how many people have the HC open on their lap whilst driving, plus the other recommended books in the door pocket?
More people should take advanced training and there should be more benefits offered to those who do. Cheaper insurance (significantly subsidised by government) for instance.
@@cliveadams7629 It took my Father to teach me how to handle a skid. He also taught me the difference that accelerating or decelerating around corners had on under and over steer. How to recognise I was on black ice, etc., etc,. etc. All things that are not mentioned by instructors but would instil in learners that driving is a dangerous pastime. Without that insight, it is natural that young learners will push boundaries on public roads, putting us all at unnecessary risk. "Practice in real life"? No! Practice for emergencies on a skid pan. Practice on motorways under supervision. There is a lot more to driving a vehicle than just operating a machine under normal conditions.
I was going to crash in with "what flaw in the Highway Code - what on earth are you saying is wrong with it?" !! But at 4:00 you are making it perfectly clear that it is the way people interpret the HC that is the problem - and I agree. There are also many people blissfully unaware of the preamble before the general rules 103-158 "The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident." So even if someone barges their way through a roundabout, say, when theoretically they should have given way to you but you get incensed and carry on towards them and cause a collision, you will be held equally liable due to this contributory negligence!
A lot of people get too hung up on this should/must thing, I guess so they can see what they think they can get away with. I take it as a sign of a poor driving standard.
I would argue its a flaw in the syntax of the Code. The adage 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile" comes to mind as soon as there's a whiff of ambiguity.
@@ChrisCaaa far to many people get hung up on the "I've got the right of way" and not enough on the "avoid an accident at all costs if possible" I've given way to traffic having to cross onto my side of the road simply because it's the decent thing to do as I know they've been waiting ages and more so when I can see that there's a queue of traffic building up on my side beyond their obstruction.... There is a staggered cross roads in our village and the amount of times it is blocked as traffic travelling up don't allow traffic coming down through despite being nowhere to go as the traffic in front can't turn right as the roads blocked so they block the road on their side and the bloody place grinds to a halt
@@petersmith7126 "far to many people get hung up on the "I've got the right of way"..." And yet the Highway Code clearly states *nobody has right of way.*
The problem is, as you put it...should and must! Although somethings Like undertaking on left, eating or drinking aren't illegal...they cross over into due care!!
Driving without due care and attention is a sub section of Careless Driving and is illegal. Undertaking along with overtaking are not illegal. So anybody who says that careless driving is not illegal, should start reading again and freshen up on the Highway Code.
@JohnLynch-r4c the new..inconsiderate driving...like not indicating your intentions at a roundabout! So many times in my hgv I'm waiting as I see a car approaching to my right! Then they just take the 1st exit, I could have gone if they just had the indicator on!!
@@terrystratford1235 yes, they should signal! However, even if they do, you'd still need to check they were really going that way before committing to going, in case they'd not cancelled a previous indication, or got confused about the exit (minor first exits aren't always obvious and I've seen lots of times when a driver has indicated left on approach and then taken the second left). "You should not assume, when waiting at a junction, that a vehicle coming from the right and signalling left will actually turn. Wait and make sure" It would at least give you an indication that they were likely to take the first exit so you could be prepared though.
@neilp1885 absolutely agree! I see so many bikers driving along with the indicator still going! Generally I can tell by the speed and road positioning what they intend to do!
This is a great learning topic for me as a pdi ( not yet on a pink ) I hadn't paid as much attention to the must / must not and should / should not rules in the HC as I should have. I've spent a few hours studying them, since watching your video. I actually thought overtaking on the left was "illegal" as it would cause you to fail your driving test. A great learning curve. Even though a rule isnt directly backed by a law, it doesn't mean that by ignoring it you cant be prosecuted, for careless or dangerous driving. Maybe a 10 yearly refresher theory test for drivers when they update their license wouldnt be a bad thing.
People like to cherry pick the rules for the most part i do follow the guidelines. If someone doesn't do something correct i simply let it go and dont get all upset if they dont follow the rules to the letter . As long as im safe thats the main thing and if not make it so im safe
The Roman politician Tacitus once suggested the level of corruption of a society is proportional to the number of laws. The highway code is the same problem: it is forever expanding as if making new rules makes anyone safer. The latest updates and additions were a fiasco where common sense was ignored. It's a bit like car manuals: in the 1950s they told you how to adjust the tappets, now they tell you not to drink the battery acid.
@user-xu5vl5th9n considering how complex the roads (and law) can be, I think the Highway Code is a remarkably slim volume, I think it's excellently well written. I thought the later additions were not before time, and those of us who try to drive well were doing them anyway. As I say, the HC is a remarkably slim volume, but it's just the starting point, there is endless reading material on good driving. However the majority will read the HC only, and then only to pass their tests, then they'll misquote it for the rest of their lives. 🙂
James, I've been arguing this exact point for about 20 years on forums but it's like banging your head on a brick wall. People just do not seem to get it no matter how many times I refer people to the exact wording of the Highway Code. I think that the Highway Code should be changed to something like "You must not overtake on the left, apart from in the prescribed circumstances, unless there is no other alternative available to you"
I'm pretty sure the reason why Ashley said "I'm not doing it" was because he was on a bike which makes him particularly vulnerable if someone doesn't check their mirror before moving to the left.
And people can ALSO move to the RIGHT without looking in mirrors, or doing a blind spot check ,where a perfectly acceptable method of passing is executed.
@@RogeyRD250DX They can, however people are less inclined to do so when moving left as they mistakenly believe nobody will ever be passing them on the left. The simple solution to this is to remove the "should not pass on the left" rule and then it will be just as safe (or unsafe) passing on the left as the right.
@@boostar155 But then everyone would do it without a thought,and just speed down the left . It SHOULDN'T be done,in opinion but ot can be done 95% safley. So where there's a 20% chance that NOT doing it would encourage other approaching drivers to take risks and tailgate or swing around me to my right and fly past the hogger on their left directly in front of me - then that might be the time to consider passing said lane hogger BEFOR this happens. In this kind of situation it's safer. That's why it's not illegal ,I say.( And should not be done as a rule but MAY be done.
It is fairly clear really, in the HC things that you MUST or MUST NOT do are offences, things that you should or not do are not, but you could be liable in other ways. For instance overtaking a stationary vehicle is only a should not (because there might be room enough), but if you hit something coming the other way on the wrong side of the road, then you will certainly be civilly liable and may have committed more general [and serious] offences such as careless or dangerous driving. There are plenty of things wrong, for instance stopping distances have not changed for over seventy years (I checked) when they were based on cars with sloppy rod operated drum brakes and cross ply tyres. Modern cars with ABS can pull nearly 1 g even in the wet and stop in about much shorter distances. Incidentally the rules about undertaking have changed from the [6p) HC I used when taking my test as have many others.
Indeed, although modern servo assisted hydraulic brakes acting on disks do act more quickly than tired cable / rod brakes acting on drums. If your car still has an old style handbrake try it one day and see what happens (not a lot).
It's flaw is that it's a CODE of suggested behaviour. As I understand it, in Germany it's the LAW. If there is an accident in Germany, it's because someone broke the LAW.
It's a combination of the law (you MUST/MUST NOT) and best practice (you SHOULD/SHOULD NOT). Where a law applies it is referenced below the rule in question. If you choose not to follow the best practice and an incident occurs, you will need to pursuade the court that your actions carried no higher risk than the advice given. This is likely to be difficult to achieve in practice.
@@keystonedriving8180 if fact, you'd not just need to show that your actions didn't carry a higher risk, you'd be likely to need to show that your actions were not below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver - and a careful and competent driver would usually be expected to follow the rules in the Highway Code.
I was aware of the must/should thing, but I didn't appreciate that there is so much "should" in the highway code in so many pivotal and risky situations. Imagine the chaos and risk if everyone chose to ignore the give-way-to-the-right rule at roundabouts! It's a good thing that when people are taught by instructors, they don't emphasise that "should" means 'you don't have to' else the roads would be even worse than they are. Especially with the new vulnerability hierarchy stuff, that there is still so much left up to the driver/rider to decide is insane. The new rules encourage vulnerable road users to do risky things because others _should_ be acting for your safety first, but even if most drivers were aware of the new rules they aren't law, so really you'd be crazy to trust your life to those rules.
As for the new rules encouraging vulnerable road users to do risky things, I think a lot of that comes down to some very poor and irresponsible reporting on the changes. Many reports just focused on saying that road users who can cause the greatest harm have to take care of more vulnerable road users and give way to them at junctions (which is correct), but they did so without covering the rules fully, which I think has given some pedestrians and cyclists the attitude you see more now where they are trusting their safety to others. The HC tells them not to do that! For example: The hierarchy does not remove the need for everyone to behave responsibly. None of this detracts from the responsibility of ALL road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, to have regard for their own and other road users’ safety. The Green Cross Code is still part of the HC (I've seen some people suggest that it isn't, I think they got that idea from the way the hierarchy introduction was covered, without actually reading the HC to check before saying it wasn't there now). (Cyclists) When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left. (Cyclists) If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise (see Rule H3). Check that you can proceed safely, particularly when approaching junctions on the left alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic. Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road. (All road users) The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident. So, that one is saying you don't just go, you make sure you are being allowed to go before doing so, and if someone doesn't give way to you when they should, and you can give way to them instead to avoid an accident, then do so! Many road users also seem to forget this rule: try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well. be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake. do not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey. slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them. There seems to be a tenancy for some people to try and pick and choose rules, instead of viewing the rules in the full context of the other rules.
I was a flight instructor and an airline pilot in the USA prior to moving to the UK to be a simulator instructor, and we pilots have a saying: "Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's safe." I take a "should/should not" to mean that while a particular practice might be legal, your safest course of action is to abide by the should/should not. A "must/must not", on the other hand, means a particular practice is specifically defined as legal or illegal. So just as in flying, when it comes to driving, the question you ought to be asking yourself in any situation isn't necessarily just if a particular maneuver is legal. It may be technically legal, but it may not be safe. If the maneuver is in fact legal (obviously, don't deliberately break the law), then what you should be asking yourself instead is, "Is what I'm about to do actually SAFE?"
@@JamesSimpkinsADI You're very welcome! These days I actually do leadership training specifically as it relates to travel safety (aviation and more), so this is a topic I really get into. Keep up the great work -- I love your videos!
@ thank you so much, I’ll reference this attitude within aviation with my learners as I love it. I worked as helicopter ground crew with the army, so I suppose that sort of mindset is quite natural. Fantastic
The biggest flaw in the Highway Code is it specifies with "Must/Must not" which rules are backed up in law and it gives the relevent legislation. However, in the introduction where it explains that any part of it can be used against you in court it does not include this information. The Road Traffic Act 1988 Part 1, Para 38 "The Highway Code" allows any part of the Highway Code to be used against you in court. So if you undertake on the left and a police officer thinks that you were driving without due care and attention then the Highway Code will prove it even if the rule is advice only.
@@gingernutpreacher Not sure what you are trying to say. In this case following what the highway code says could put a pedestrian in a lot of danger. Imagine a car in the left lane gives way to a pedestrian, they can falsely assume it is safe to cross and then get hit by a car exiting in the right lane.
It only says you should give way to Pedestrians crossing the approach and exit roads (rule 187). We always did that anyway if the alternative was running them over. It also tells pedestrians to cross somewhere safe where drivers can see you and to use the Green Cross code. The 2022 HC changes didn’t really change anything in practice.
One innovation I think might improve the Highway Code is to give stopping distances in time rather than by measurement. Surprisingly, not many people can imagine 315 ft: stopping distance at 60mph: but they are more likely to comprehend the time of 5 seconds it takes to stop at that speed. What do you think?
The biggest flaw is the omission of a statement like: “It is the overriding legal duty of all road users to avoid any form of contact or collision with any person, vehicle or structure.” This will get rid of the “But I had right of way” crowd and those who accept or cause a collision to get a payout. You’ll not be surprised to hear that a similar duty is imposed on all maritime and aviation captains.
I've been sailing boats for 50 years and you are right. Any sailor/moboer who mentions "right of way" in connection with the Avoidance of Collision Regulations will be corrected as soon as they utter the phrase. Like you, I can't see why this would not work on the roads, even if the phrase "right of way" were retained rather than switching to the maritime "give way / stand on".
The phrase 'Right of Way' is probably the most misunderstood in the whole of road use. It has nothing to do with who goes first in a given situation, that is 'Priority'. It defines who has the right to use the public highway. If you are using a motorised transport you NEVER have right of way as you and your vehicle are using the highway under licence. For the best part of 800 years pedestrians, horses, domesticated animals and dogs have had right of way over the highway. Cyclists were added to the list about 150 years ago. Nobody else has Right of Way. Don't get excited about the fact that those with right of way over the highway cannot normally use a motorway as motorways are not Highways, they are Special Roads and the Highways acts do not apply to them. (I say 'normally' as under specific circumstances a Chief Constable, or a deputy with a rank no lower than Chief Superintendant may authorise the use of a motorway by those who are normally barred. I've never heard of this being used, but the provision is included in the Motorways acts).
How about , "The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident."?
james made a video 10 months ago "Roundabouts, give way to pedestrians? Instructors are getting this wrong!" debunking pedestrian crossing rules at roundabouts.
The highway code does not take away from having to think as we drive and doesn't prescribe what to do when other motorists are not following the code. On the 4 lane motorway near us it is very common to encounter someone driving slower than they should in the third lane or outer lane, sometimes whilst on their mobile phones. The traffic backs up behind them with all lanes clear into the distance. No response from flashing headlights from the backing up traffic.
I went to the shops today and to give the car a run, it's a diesel, I took the scenic route via the motorway .... 3 lanes with middle lane of cars and vans doing 60-65 mph and the inside lane empty for fecking miles ahead ....it would burst your head
@@petersmith7126 I am absolutely convinced the "Middle Lane Owners Club" membership could be completely decimated and the club closed by using cameras and AI. Currently cameras measure speed using radar or other sensors to time how long it takes to cover a specific distance, the reciprocal of which is speed. Use similar principles on motorways and dual carriageways where cameras would monitor the speed and time between consecutive vehicles in each lane and the AI decides whether there was sufficient space to move left and bingo! 3 points and a fine in the post. As much as I hate speed cameras, they are a necessary evil in many places. Lane-hogging cameras I am sure would catch more offenders than speed cameras and maybe get the message home to the fully paid-up club members😁
I think the highway code should be the law, not partly suggestions, everything should be legally required practices. Theres more to being a good driver than doing whats legally necessary (and the number of people who break the speed limits is probably the majority of drivers, and that's breaking the law).
I think you may have a misunderstanding of how the Highway Code relates to the law. There are some rules that are explicitly stated in legislation, and they are indicated with must/must not and a reference to the legislation. However, the entire code is referenced in the Traffics Acts and any of the rules can be used to establish liability in court cases. Offences such as careless and dangerous driving are committed when the standard of driving is below the standard expected of a careful and considerate driver, and a careful and considerate driver would be expected to be following the rules of the HC.
Please can I ask for clarity on one point (my old Highway Code here is from 1996!) I was taught to give way when the obstruction is on my side. The only exception being when I am coming uphill and the obstruction is on my side then the traffic coming down hill should give way to me coming uphill.
You could get charged for OVERtaking also if it's done careless. There are many legal manouvers that could be carried out carelessly. Undertaking is another one.
Taken from the UK government website (24-Nov-2024)... 'Wording of The Highway Code 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 licence 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. See an explanation of the abbreviations. Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.'
Giving priority to oncomming traffic when overtaking parked vehicle(s) is advisory, because You are "protected" from situation, when parked cars covers a long distance, and at the moment, when You start overtake, can be no car in sight. Secondary - when oncomming traffic stops ang give You way through... Same at roundabout: it is about who enter into circle first - if we are on circle already, we no longer give priority - this is handy for slow/long vehicles. Obviously we need to adjust speed to stop on time and go around circle. Cutting mini roundabouts is bad idea. Undertake has same background - cannot be illegal, because this will be blocking all trafic at que or junctions. Must be balance on the roads, otherwise we all stuck in big gridlock.
If the highway code says 'You must' then it will be backed by legislation, if it says you should then it is advisory and you may not be breaking a specific law but, under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is an offence to drive without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for others on the road, and if you ignore the advice of the Highway Code then you open yourself to committing an offence under Section 3.
The law cannot codify "give way" in that "must give way to the major road" would mean waiting until there was no vehicle in sight; it is therefore worded as must not emerge if that would cause another vehicle to alter their speed or direction to avoid an accident.
I think the main issue is that, with passing on the left, its usually one of two reasons. Reason 1 is if you are driving like a twat, speeding, cutting over lanes etc and in that case you'd probably meet the criteria for dangerous driving. Reason 2 is people lane hogging, which is a major issue and something too many people do. I vividly remember driving back home on a 3 lane motorway, someone in the outside lane doing 65, and i was in the middle lane wanting to pass them and i was flashing them (leaving plenty of space) for them to move back in, mabye they were just nervous or something and i thought flashing them would reassure them. They just continued to sit out there totally ignorantly so in the end people started passing on the left. If people stuck to the inside lane unless overtaking this would not be an issue, and is in my opinion why undertaking is not an issue, because either you have to do it to keep up with traffic due to the carelessness of others or because you are driving recklessly. People need to remember with the "should not" you are more liable to get done for careless driving at minimum, and i'd argue if you're passing on the left due to lane hoggers its the people hogging the lane who should get the most attention. Whereas with roundabouts it's blatantly you who decides when to go and if you do it badly enough to the point where you get pulled over from it or crash because of it then its on you.
Thos who point the finger need to remember there are three more fingers pointing back at them. I used to criticise others for doing what I did, but have learnt the error of my way.
How do you feel about drivers who speed onto a mini roundabout when there is a car already entering on the left (next roundabout entry) because it was clear when they did. They then complain that that car didn’t give them priority because they were on their right even though they were out of sight perhaps. This happens a lot where the 1st & 3rd exits are inline, effectively a through route, but the 2nd exit is off to the left. ie - 6, 9 & 12 o’clock. There is one like this near me and drivers going 6 o’clock to 12 o’clock drive straight over it at 30mph regardless of others.
@@AaaaandAction yes agreed. I had a learner once move onto a roundabout , and as she went around she was beeped by an Audi coming around the RA. She was convinced she had failed, however when she got back it was a pass. The examiner explained when you emerged, that Audi was not in your sight line. So they have created their own problem by speeding on and then blaming you. He then correctly said if however that Audi had been visible when you emerged it would have been a different story
james, 1. amazing content, I will going through your back catalogue and I am recommending you to learner and qualified drivers I know. 2. I would be extremely grateful if you could make a video on the hot topic of "temporary traffic lights stuck on red....proceeding is (or is not an offence)". You will know the very well-known you tuber driving instructor who has recently created a short on the subject.
Here are my thoughts (I'm not a legal expert). General rules - other stopping procedures - rule 109 says: You MUST obey all traffic light signals (see ‘Light signals controlling traffic’) and traffic signs giving orders, including temporary signals & signs (see ‘Traffic signs’). Rule 176, Junctions controlled by traffic lights says: [...] If the traffic lights are not working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with great care. That rule specifically mentions junctions, but it would seem reasonable to apply the same logic to other lights that aren't working, even though they might not be at junctions. If the lights are working, then they are giving orders that must be complied with. However, if the lights aren't working, then can they reasonably be considered to still be giving orders? If not, then treat it as an uncontrolled situation (which it now effectively is) and proceed with great care.
An interesting situation I came across once was a set of temporary lights that had been loaded onto the back of a vehicle, but left running. So, as it proceed along the road, it was showing red, red and amber, green, and amber lights in sequence to the following vehicles. Obviously, nobody behind was going to stop when the lights changed to red, but it was interesting to see.
@@neilp1885 thank you. however i think there maybe a debate to be had in the meaning of "not working", or at the very least clarity required on it's definition. If the light is not illuminated, then it's probably reasonable to consider the lights are not working. However, there doesn't appear to be specific mention in the legislation for a light illuminated which doesn't change (and clearly not changing after a long period of waiting for it to change). There are videos which suggest you can proceed on a stuck red light, but many people have commented they can't find the legislation to support this POV.
@@familytabletch7517 yes, not illuminated is probably not working, especially now each colour is made of multiple LEDs rather than a single bulb. Though I'd still be careful and probably give it a little while in case it's just one of the colours that's not working. It's also worth waiting to see if traffic moves in sequence from other directions, as their lights might still be working and you can be more confident that it's safer going (cautiously) once the other directions stop. Always watch for pedestrians of course, as the traffic may be stopped to allow them to cross. However, if the light is illuminated but not changing, I'd say that any reasonable person would also consider lights stuck on one colour to be not working. Working lights cycle through the sequence. If it's not doing that, it's not working. If a set of lights were all stuck on red, would it be reasonable to expect all traffic to wait for 30 minutes, an hour, all night, the rest of their lives, just because it's illuminated in its fault condition rather than not illuminated and the legislation says you must stop for a red light? The legislation is written for working lights, not for those that aren't working correctly, so I'd argue that it doesn't apply when the lights aren't working. Of course, like I said, I'm not a legal expert and we'd have to see what happened if I was ever in that situation and was fined/summoned to court for jumping a red light, but I'd like to think that sense would prevail and there wouldn't be an issue as long as I'd proceeded carefully and hadn't caused an accident.
The flaw with the official Highway Code is ambiguity, that's not the fault of the reader. That the accompanying guide book says must not and must never is unhelpful as it effectively contradicts the notion that "should" is any different to "must" People will always interpret ambiguity differently and that's a baked-in flaw of allowing it in the Code in the first place.
"It's only advice......" but "Failure to follow the advice given in this publication may be quoted in a court of law in order to establish liability". A phrase which was always quoted in the introduction to the Highway Code but for some reason was not included in the latest version. I guess it boils down to whether you feel lucky.
It's still in the latest version. "Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."
The fact is if you overtake a parked car into oncoming traffic on the other side of the road and cause a crash( apart from being an utter c***) you will be held responsible if you dont give way to traffic on the right at the roundabout and cause a crash ( apart from being an utter C***) you will be held responsible but the point is moot because the police are never there to spot this behaviour and seldom respond even when they see it happen infront of them
The reason you got so many comments criticising you is because you upgraded “should not” to “must not” about undertaking, then invoked the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy. I.e. you were correct because you’re a driving instructor. Many situations are too complex to encode in law and undertaking is one of them. There are situations where undertaking is advised in the HC and there is no way to draw a legal line between when it’s advised and when it isn’t, so it becomes a decision for the driver using their intelligence and experience. If they cock it up they can be prosecuted but it’s a two stage process: 1) did they undertake? 2) was it careless? Whereas for a simple offence it’s only a one stage process: did they exceed the speed limit?
@@richardsutton01 he didn't as far as I recall. But I learned on that original post that it's pointless arguing with those who wilfully continue to misunderstand.
@@NwaHp3 Except that it isn't a correct explanation as it's mostly errant nonsense. Please do not, out on the road, act upon anything you have read in that comment.
@@richardsutton01 Except that everything I wrote is true. Undertaking as a specific offence was removed from the Road Traffic Act in 1972, so if you get prosecuted for it it’s under the general provisions in the Act for careless or dangerous driving. The same is true of over taking. Do it in the wrong place, for example into oncoming traffic, and you can also be prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving.
Breaking a 'should' rule is a section 3ZA2 offence. Check out the CPS website or the Sentencing Council Definitive Guidelines (what magistrates use to sentence people). I know from personal experience that the CPS can and so prosecute people for breaking 'should' rules. They are not optional. Undertaking is the first example given of a section 3ZA2 offence.
I was wondering when the video was going to answer what the biggest flaw is. 3:50 and there it is. 😆 Totally agree. Of course, for many people, even reading the Highway Code at all once they are no longer learning would be something of a miracle in itself. Just because something isn't actually illegal, it doesn't mean it's a good idea, or even OK, to do it. Overtaking on the left increases risk. That's the reason not to do it. Simple. However, on the legal side of things, dangerous and careless driving are illegal. (Both are defined in the Road Traffic Act 1988, sections 2 and 3 respectively.) So, much as the back cover of the HC intimates, if you have a collision, or other incident, and your overtaking on the left was a contributory factor, then you might find yourself charged with dangerous or (less seriously) careless driving. If you are found to have been driving dangerously or carelessly, then, as the act says, you are "guilty of an offence."
The “not illegal “ point is in essence incorrect. The Highway Code is an advisory document that judges will take account of in court. Therefore, although it is not by an absolute definition a legal document is quasi legal as your case will likely be decided by reference to the code. Another example is the code book in respect of electrical installations. It will be that which may be examined to understand if an electrician has complied with the code; if not, for any alleged wrongdoing he may be judged to have acted illegally or unlawfully.
However, the HC does state which things are illegal, and effectively gives advice on other matters, which, as you say, will be taken into account by courts. The point is that there are things which we believe to be illegal, such as giving way to the right on a roundabout, which it turns out are only advisory. And the next point is that some drivers seem to feel it’s ok to contravene some of this “advice”, but not other parts, whereas they carry the same weight of law (or lack of it).
On the topic of passing on the left, there is one scenario that got me thinking. When joining a motorway from a slip road, I sometimes accelerate to pass in front of a vehicle in the left lane of the motorway, ideally of course I will try and slot in behind someone, but that isn't always possible when slotting into a gap. Is this considered 'overtaking' on the left?
I think accelerating or indeed decelerating as necessary to slot into a gap would be classed as reasonable driving and not overtaking on the left because that's what is described in the Highway Code. Until you cross the give-way markings, you are actually on a separate road, although you could give other drivers a scare. Any slip road should be long enough and give enough visibility at normal driving speeds to allow safe joining by a competent driver in a normal vehicle. What is completely unacceptable is the way many drivers attempt to force their way into a non-existent space expecting other vehicles to move out of their way which is not always possible.
@@125brat Yes I think so too, I was using it as an example because I believe it is more about using your judgement rather than rigidly following a rule. I find a lot of the issues could be avoided by a bit of common sense on both sides, I personally will try to leave a gap when I see traffic merging from a slip road, even going so far as to ease off a bit to let them in when necessary, or better yet move to the middle lane if possible.
@MattersOfOpinion-x4d Absolutely agree with you, however there are times as I'm sure you've experienced when there's nowhere to go because you've got a big lorry close behind, one to your right and an idiot to your immediate left going at the same speed as you. Do you risk braking to get rammed from behind? It's a difficult one but it's what is reasonable given the situation.
Does it depend where motorway regulations start on the slip road? One junction on the M1 near where I live has a long slip road that is marked as M1, although several hundred metres from the main carriageway. As you approach the main carriageway with an HGV in lane 1, surely if you’re travelling at 60+ mph then you can merge onto lane 1 in front of the HGV even if you’ve passed it on the slip road?
@@125brat Yes I have found myself in that situation more times than I'd like, often times just easing off the gas can be enough, though you are then relying on the person to your left being aware of you, and having the sense to accelerate a bit to merge smoothly. I must admit I do everything I possibly can not to be put in a situation where my safety is reliant on another drivers actions.
Mandatory retesting of drivers every 5-7 years is crucial for maintaining road safety and efficiency. As traffic laws and safety standards evolve, a significant knowledge gap emerges between newly licensed drivers and those who have been driving for decades without updating their knowledge. This discrepancy leads to conflicting interpretations of road rules, increased risk of accidents, and unnecessary confrontations. By implementing regular retesting, we can ensure all drivers are aware of current laws, reduce accidents caused by ignorance of new rules, create a more predictable driving environment, and improve overall road safety. While some may view retesting as inconvenient, the benefits to public safety far outweigh any temporary inconvenience, especially if the process is streamlined and made accessible through online platforms or local community centers
Your sentiments are honorable, unfortunately most poor driving is due to attitude and behaviour not lack of knowledge. IE, I know I shouldn't do this but whatever!. Passing a test is easy you simply do what is required on the day, ignoring the fact that learner waiting lists are 6 months or so. The problem revolves around lack of deterrent and lack of interest in good driving. How we improve this is a tricky one.
Hi D I U K, thank you for this, are you as good a driving instructor as you are a video creator?. I am very impressed by your calm sensible style and manner. I have my own ideas and ways of doing things that are more or less compliant with the Highway Code in so far as it is a useful template for guidance, at the same time my driving style is mostly based on observations and judgement made on the scene at the time, in some circumstances I do pass other traffic on the left but only if I am reasonably sure they do not intend to transfer to the inside lane, I make these judgements based on what I see not what I expect, most drivers will exhibit some movement or sign of intended variation in course before doing it, once a long time ago I saw the driver of the car waiting to turn right across my path was only looking at the people at the roadside, when his right hand came up over the steering wheel I 'knew' he was going to turn inn front of me and hit the brakes a shard as I could, luckily nobody was hurt in the ensuing collision and only one of the eight people at the roadside saw that happened, in fact he said that he was not looking at the traffic until he heard my tyres squealing!, just a few seconds before the crash. I was not concerned then or now about who was right and who was wrong!, then as now I consider it to be one of many incidents that are a direct consequence of setting vehicles in opposite directions on the same narrow roads and just hoping they miss each other by a few inches!, in that sense I do not think we ever have 'accidents', by definition they must be unpredictable!. What usually happens is one or more individuals make bad decisions and suffer the consequences. The main underlying reasons must include irrational attitudes of entitlement, false assumptions about how others operate, failure to actually understand the rules and laws as they are written, and thinking that driving is ever really 'safe'. I suppose I must also include the occasional bad error or failure to observe, I have pulled out right in front of other traffic myself once in a while, not deliberate nor accident, just not paying enough attention!. none of us are immune to mistakes The one thing that I never rely on is the 'law' all laws invented by humans for legal purposes work only to punish offenders they never do anything to prevent offences!, I avoid getting caught in speed traps because I hate paying extra for insurance for years afterwards!. that does not stop me from breaking the speed limits if I feel, like it!. Cheers, Richard.
IMHO. part of the problem is people's poor understanding of English. The Highway Code (and other official publications) are written by educated people who use English very precisely, but few people reading it know the exact meanings of words so they interpret them to the nearest of their understanding, which may not be correct.
and I would suggest the bad behaviour starts in the instructors car and the very format of the driving test itself at work I randomly asked people what the dashed line marking in the middle of the road ment most said it marks the middle of the road ! and with the standard of driving i see daily its clear the test needs revamping
Assuming you are referring to the "centre line" on a single carriageway road, it does mark the centre of the road. Well, not necessarily the exact physical centre but the logical centre, the separation between lanes of traffic flowing in opposite directions. If you are talking about the middle of a one-way road then it's a lane divider, but unless you are trying to test your work colleagues with a trick question (being deliberately ambiguous) then I presume that's not what you are taking about. If the gaps are shorter and the lines are longer then they are indicating a hazard, but they still represent the centre line or lane divider too. What do you think the dashed line in the middle of the road means?
It's not "only advice". If you go against the highway code you are at risk of prosecutuon for careless or dangerous driving, or similar, and will be found at fault in the event of an accident. All this crap about making everything the law is what's ruining society. We all know what's right or wrong and those who selfishly take advantage need to be admonished by the rest of us.
Diving Instructor UK: You made some really brilliant points in your video; you also said that your a small channel getting started, which is great!! BUT I just hope that you don't 🔚up being another Ashley Neal?? 🤔🤔 Keep up your great work, so far!!!!!
@@powernab8457 haha well the purpose of my channel is literally promoting debate and helping those that want to be helped. It won’t change and is a good outlet for me to share my passion for road safety. That’s all it was ever intended to be and won’t change ❤️
@@JamesSimpkinsADI Thank you for your reply. I understand that your channel is to promote debate and to help those that want to be helped? That's why I said at the end "Keep up your great work, so far!!!!!" because you are not doing the "I'm so right all the time" line unlike (mention no names no pack drill) and start to delete valid comments that people make and start a witch hurting exercise. Like you said "promote debate" as their is always two sides and a middle!!
When Ashley Neal said he's not going to undertake on his bike he never said because it's classed as committing the offence of Careless Driving. He knows it's legal to do so. Why don't you ask your subscribers would they move from lane 1 to 2, to 3 to 4 and hog behind another hogger, flash your lights and wait and hope he's going to move back to the left. You'll have traffic catching up and forming 1 long queue in lane 4, and you approve that.
It's truly hopeless. Some horses can be led to water a million times but will still die of thirst. 😉 That question about moving to the right has also been asked a million times. Those drivers who know how to drive correctly will move to the right. The drivers who know how to drive like a donkey will undertake on the left.
I think with respect, you have totally ignored road etiquette. Someone breaking the advice of the HC in order to improve traffic flow and remove frustration (undertaking a lane hogger) will not be viewed by most other users as unreasonable. Someone not giving way at a round about will be quite rightly judged as dangerous after all, the person on the roundabout is acting correctly, unlike a lane hogger. It's not at all the same thing.
To compare passing on the left with failing to give priority causing an imminent collision is a silly comparison. Clearly they are vastly different situations and the latter a far greater risk of harm. Sorry, but I think you've completely missed the point on this. If you're passing on the left because someone else in a right lane is clearly driving illegally causing a queue whilst you are driving steadily and sensibly in a left lane, then they slow and you pass them, the risk is minimal and there is no imminent danger. Whilst it may arguably be called inadvisable according to the HC it is clearly not breaking the law per se. It is even reasonably arguable that to brake suddenly to avoid passing would create the greater hazard. However, deliberately pulling out in front of moving traffic who have priority over you, causing them to take drastic action to avoid collision or a collision actually occurring is blatantly and obviously careless and dangerous. Very different situations and very different outcomes if considered by the CPS.
Using the headlights in short flashes and indicators is the preferred method. The use of the horn is a lot more prescribed in the Highway Code as it can more easily be perceived as being aggressive or threatening.
How about being on a bike, turning right at a set of traffic lights and over taken on the left by a car also making that same right turn. I couldn’t move over to the cycle lane because I was being undertaken and obstructed!
How about it? Well, I gotta ask (unless you could supply some clarity) why would you be in the road wanting to turn right but looking to get into the cycle lane? Shouldn’t you have played safe and been in the cycle lane in the first place?
People just need to understand that the only difference is that the must/must not rules have a specific piece of legislation that applies to that rule, whereas all of the other rules can be used in prosecutions under the legislation in the road traffic act, etc. Just because there isn't a specific law doesn't mean they can just choose to ignore the rule. If a person drives or cycles dangerously on a road or other public place, or without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, they are guilty of an offence. These offences occur when the driving or riding falls below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver or rider. The rules of the Highway Code (all of them, not just the must/must not ones) can be used to establish the expected standards for a careful and competent driver or rider. So, while not following those rules in the Highway Code isn't an offence in itself, it can show liability for an offence. "A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code will not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind, but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings."
How about rule 167: Do not overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. That's literally everywhere. When you overtake there's a pretty good chance you might come into conflict with the very vehicle you're overtaking. Does that mean we should never overtake?
The biggest flaw with the Highway Code is that it exists and it is the primary source of information for drivers. This should not be the case. The primary source should be the law itself. If you say the law is too difficult to understand which is why we need to have the Highway Code, then the law needs to be reformed and rewritten. I cannot even tell you how many people think there is no such thing as priority in the UK, only because the Highway Code does not talk about priority, since it has no legal capacity to grant priority. Only the law can do that. Also, more to the point of your video, there are loads of weird scenarios in British driving law that simply do not exist in the rest of Europe.
Surely the biggest flaw in the highway code is the advice?. If they were that concerned they would have re written the highway code and changed the advice into law, it's no wonder people cherry pick what advice they want to follow, talk about muddying the water for the average reader. Certainly not helpful in any way.. bad highway code. 🤦♂️
You didn't enlighten us to motorway overtaking on the left when in congested conditions from your guide, do you not consider this as overtaking or just that your lane is moving faster than the one to your right. I'll be critical of this point as now this will make some think that under no conditions will they overtake on the left and in congested conditions it's important that they use this exclusion A, in order to use available road space and B, for good flow of traffic. Please can you correct this matter.
@@richardsutton01 Yes understood, but I myself have just come upon these videos and just a mention of that would have been sufficient within the video rather than rely on something that was in a previous video as normaly most would want to watch a follow up one. So unless one is a frequent viewer they may not have caught the earlier video and so would miss that point even if viewing a latter video if he did not cover it again for awhile. So I was just asking him to correct that and maybe include things like this at the time as it is relevant, from viewing Ashley I'm sure he would not leave it out within the same video and very likely cover it within the same mention of overtaking in this context.
Aaah James. Realistically your examples at the start of this video aren't convincing. Because pulling out on someone in the examples you've given can't be done safely, in a manner that wouldn't cause stress or give cause for another driver to alter their speed or direction in order to avoid a possible collision. (Plus there could be pedestrians in the area possibility getting injured also.) Passing on the left on a dual carriage way or motorway is not hindering the lane hogger. You're not pulling out in any fashion where THEY are having to alter they're driving. They probably won't even realise you've passed them and if they did -THEY would not get annoyed or have any need to claim they're within their rights. Weigh up the situation, realise the hogger has no intention of moving in and passing can be done safely rather than cause OTHERS to put everyone in danger by squeezing through small gaps between lanes and directly in front of "me" holding back in a staggered formation at a safe distance behind said lane hogger. Yes, if an accident occurred it would be me to blame,or 50-50. But,as I've said before, drivers pull out to the RIGHT as well without checking so overtaking in the correct manner regularly results in an accident also. I admit- I HAVE been passed on the left once that I remember in all honesty. I only was annoyed at myself ,and embarrassed at myself. I said to my missus-"That was my fault and I should've pulled over earlier." No great problem as I was watching mirrors all the time. 'Knew what was unfolding. I let it happen and then moved back left to where I should've been.
I'd say the biggest flaw with the HC is that most drivers read it when they are learners and once they've passed their test never look at it again!
The next biggest flaw is that it's not updated enough and so often feels as though it is written to reflect the roads and vehicles, attitudes and language of the 1970s, not the 2020s.
Not sure about the latter, I think it's worded pretty much fine. I only have an issue with definition of a road being in an index.
** An annex.
It was updated in 2022.
its just had quite a big update, with the new 'pedestrians have priority crossing' rule - as most folk walk round with their eyes on a phone screen nowadays..
It was last updated September 2023. It’s been updated 22 times in the last 10 years (2015 on).
You can sign up to get email alerts when the rules change.
my favourite is mini roundabouts in Dash cam videos, usually the cam car cuts the mini roundabout to complain at a driver that didnt give way and to get their clip, but its a should give way, its a Must go round the road markings, they dont even realise they have done something worse lol
@@douglasreid699 spot on. That’s actually my next video. Spooky! 👻
I always think this is so back to front. The giving way is generally more crucial than wiggling around some paint. Mini roundabouts are crossroads with a priority scheme dictated by the give way priority.
There are obviously times when this notion creates an error state and everyone looks to to righ5for someone to make the first move.
The Highway Code may be an official document, but it's by no means perfect, even after all these years...
Here in South Africa mini roundabouts or mini traffic circles as they are called here are essentially 4 way stop streets. The law was changed a few years ago to stop the endless waiting in rush hour on suburban streets for a gap in the traffic on the more heavily trafficked street if " give way" to the right was still in force.
@@TheSynthnut on page 42 of a current version highway code, there is a line on general advice, give way if it will help avoid an incident.
Too many drivers dont think they should give up their priority when someone makes a mistake or doesnt care and does not give way to them. But if you drive relaxed, and dont worry too much about other drivers, a high percent of mini roundabouts help flow. Its rare to get all drivers stopping at them and not knowing who goes first.
Having just come back from holiday in Italy, over their roads are so busy in some places you just need to crawl out, inch by inch, until you make a gap, no one is bothered about the priority, they just want you to emerge and get going to clear the road to allow flow.
Its over here in the UK that people get annoyed if someone didnt give way to them, even more funny when they cut a mini roundabout then jam the brakes on when had they just went round the markings they would need to slow a little but still would flow.
@@douglasreid699 yes!
This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.
Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care
[...]
- try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well.
- be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake.
- do not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey.
- slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them.
Give way is largely misunderstood. I learned from Ashley Nel that 'Priority is given not taken' and that I should always check to see if the other driver has seen me before assuming that I can proceed at normal speed for the circumstances. I would welcome regular retesting of all drivers, subject to the system being improved to remove delays with testing - we would all be better driver, fewer accidents and happier people. As I joked in an earlier post, how many people have the HC open on their lap whilst driving, plus the other recommended books in the door pocket?
More people should take advanced training and there should be more benefits offered to those who do. Cheaper insurance (significantly subsidised by government) for instance.
Retesting is not the answer.
Why?
Because you cannot teach patience, common sense and imagination.
@@cliveadams7629 Wouldn't it be better if drivers were trained to the advanced stage before being granted their licence?
@farrier2708 it's an idea, but not very practical. You need to practice in real life.
@@cliveadams7629 It took my Father to teach me how to handle a skid. He also taught me the difference that accelerating or decelerating around corners had on under and over steer. How to recognise I was on black ice, etc., etc,. etc. All things that are not mentioned by instructors but would instil in learners that driving is a dangerous pastime. Without that insight, it is natural that young learners will push boundaries on public roads, putting us all at unnecessary risk. "Practice in real life"? No! Practice for emergencies on a skid pan. Practice on motorways under supervision. There is a lot more to driving a vehicle than just operating a machine under normal conditions.
I was going to crash in with "what flaw in the Highway Code - what on earth are you saying is wrong with it?" !! But at 4:00 you are making it perfectly clear that it is the way people interpret the HC that is the problem - and I agree. There are also many people blissfully unaware of the preamble before the general rules 103-158 "The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident." So even if someone barges their way through a roundabout, say, when theoretically they should have given way to you but you get incensed and carry on towards them and cause a collision, you will be held equally liable due to this contributory negligence!
A lot of people get too hung up on this should/must thing, I guess so they can see what they think they can get away with. I take it as a sign of a poor driving standard.
I would argue its a flaw in the syntax of the Code. The adage 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile" comes to mind as soon as there's a whiff of ambiguity.
RFC 2119 explains MUST and SHOULD.
@@ChrisCaaa far to many people get hung up on the "I've got the right of way" and not enough on the "avoid an accident at all costs if possible"
I've given way to traffic having to cross onto my side of the road simply because it's the decent thing to do as I know they've been waiting ages and more so when I can see that there's a queue of traffic building up on my side beyond their obstruction....
There is a staggered cross roads in our village and the amount of times it is blocked as traffic travelling up don't allow traffic coming down through despite being nowhere to go as the traffic in front can't turn right as the roads blocked so they block the road on their side and the bloody place grinds to a halt
@@petersmith7126
"far to many people get hung up on the "I've got the right of way"..."
And yet the Highway Code clearly states *nobody has right of way.*
The problem is, as you put it...should and must! Although somethings Like undertaking on left, eating or drinking aren't illegal...they cross over into due care!!
Driving without due care and attention is a sub section of Careless Driving and is illegal. Undertaking along with overtaking are not illegal. So anybody who says that careless driving is not illegal, should start reading again and freshen up on the Highway Code.
@JohnLynch-r4c the new..inconsiderate driving...like not indicating your intentions at a roundabout! So many times in my hgv I'm waiting as I see a car approaching to my right! Then they just take the 1st exit, I could have gone if they just had the indicator on!!
@@terrystratford1235 yes, they should signal! However, even if they do, you'd still need to check they were really going that way before committing to going, in case they'd not cancelled a previous indication, or got confused about the exit (minor first exits aren't always obvious and I've seen lots of times when a driver has indicated left on approach and then taken the second left).
"You should not assume, when waiting at a junction, that a vehicle coming from the right and signalling left will actually turn. Wait and make sure"
It would at least give you an indication that they were likely to take the first exit so you could be prepared though.
@neilp1885 absolutely agree! I see so many bikers driving along with the indicator still going! Generally I can tell by the speed and road positioning what they intend to do!
This is a great learning topic for me as a pdi ( not yet on a pink ) I hadn't paid as much attention to the must / must not and should / should not rules in the HC as I should have. I've spent a few hours studying them, since watching your video. I actually thought overtaking on the left was "illegal" as it would cause you to fail your driving test. A great learning curve.
Even though a rule isnt directly backed by a law, it doesn't mean that by ignoring it you cant be prosecuted, for careless or dangerous driving. Maybe a 10 yearly refresher theory test for drivers when they update their license wouldnt be a bad thing.
People like to cherry pick the rules for the most part i do follow the guidelines. If someone doesn't do something correct i simply let it go and dont get all upset if they dont follow the rules to the letter . As long as im safe thats the main thing and if not make it so im safe
Exactly as the Highway Code says you should 🙂
The Roman politician Tacitus once suggested the level of corruption of a society is proportional to the number of laws. The highway code is the same problem: it is forever expanding as if making new rules makes anyone safer. The latest updates and additions were a fiasco where common sense was ignored. It's a bit like car manuals: in the 1950s they told you how to adjust the tappets, now they tell you not to drink the battery acid.
@user-xu5vl5th9n considering how complex the roads (and law) can be, I think the Highway Code is a remarkably slim volume, I think it's excellently well written. I thought the later additions were not before time, and those of us who try to drive well were doing them anyway.
As I say, the HC is a remarkably slim volume, but it's just the starting point, there is endless reading material on good driving. However the majority will read the HC only, and then only to pass their tests, then they'll misquote it for the rest of their lives. 🙂
James, I've been arguing this exact point for about 20 years on forums but it's like banging your head on a brick wall. People just do not seem to get it no matter how many times I refer people to the exact wording of the Highway Code.
I think that the Highway Code should be changed to something like "You must not overtake on the left, apart from in the prescribed circumstances, unless there is no other alternative available to you"
I'm pretty sure the reason why Ashley said "I'm not doing it" was because he was on a bike which makes him particularly vulnerable if someone doesn't check their mirror before moving to the left.
And people can ALSO move to the RIGHT without looking in mirrors, or doing a blind spot check ,where a perfectly acceptable method of passing is executed.
@@RogeyRD250DX They can, however people are less inclined to do so when moving left as they mistakenly believe nobody will ever be passing them on the left.
The simple solution to this is to remove the "should not pass on the left" rule and then it will be just as safe (or unsafe) passing on the left as the right.
@@boostar155 But then everyone would do it without a thought,and just speed down the left . It SHOULDN'T be done,in opinion but ot can be done 95% safley. So where there's a 20% chance that NOT doing it would encourage other approaching drivers to take risks and tailgate or swing around me to my right and fly past the hogger on their left directly in front of me - then that might be the time to consider passing said lane hogger BEFOR this happens. In this kind of situation it's safer. That's why it's not illegal ,I say.( And should not be done as a rule but MAY be done.
What many fail to understand, 'Other offences may apply'.
It is fairly clear really, in the HC things that you MUST or MUST NOT do are offences, things that you should or not do are not, but you could be liable in other ways. For instance overtaking a stationary vehicle is only a should not (because there might be room enough), but if you hit something coming the other way on the wrong side of the road, then you will certainly be civilly liable and may have committed more general [and serious] offences such as careless or dangerous driving.
There are plenty of things wrong, for instance stopping distances have not changed for over seventy years (I checked) when they were based on cars with sloppy rod operated drum brakes and cross ply tyres. Modern cars with ABS can pull nearly 1 g even in the wet and stop in about much shorter distances.
Incidentally the rules about undertaking have changed from the [6p) HC I used when taking my test as have many others.
Remember that stopping distances include the driver's reaction time and humans haven't changed in the last 70 years ( for the better at least!)
Indeed, although modern servo assisted hydraulic brakes acting on disks do act more quickly than tired cable / rod brakes acting on drums. If your car still has an old style handbrake try it one day and see what happens (not a lot).
It's flaw is that it's a CODE of suggested behaviour. As I understand it, in Germany it's the LAW. If there is an accident in Germany, it's because someone broke the LAW.
It's a combination of the law (you MUST/MUST NOT) and best practice (you SHOULD/SHOULD NOT). Where a law applies it is referenced below the rule in question. If you choose not to follow the best practice and an incident occurs, you will need to pursuade the court that your actions carried no higher risk than the advice given. This is likely to be difficult to achieve in practice.
@@keystonedriving8180 if fact, you'd not just need to show that your actions didn't carry a higher risk, you'd be likely to need to show that your actions were not below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver - and a careful and competent driver would usually be expected to follow the rules in the Highway Code.
I was aware of the must/should thing, but I didn't appreciate that there is so much "should" in the highway code in so many pivotal and risky situations. Imagine the chaos and risk if everyone chose to ignore the give-way-to-the-right rule at roundabouts!
It's a good thing that when people are taught by instructors, they don't emphasise that "should" means 'you don't have to' else the roads would be even worse than they are.
Especially with the new vulnerability hierarchy stuff, that there is still so much left up to the driver/rider to decide is insane.
The new rules encourage vulnerable road users to do risky things because others _should_ be acting for your safety first, but even if most drivers were aware of the new rules they aren't law, so really you'd be crazy to trust your life to those rules.
As for the new rules encouraging vulnerable road users to do risky things, I think a lot of that comes down to some very poor and irresponsible reporting on the changes. Many reports just focused on saying that road users who can cause the greatest harm have to take care of more vulnerable road users and give way to them at junctions (which is correct), but they did so without covering the rules fully, which I think has given some pedestrians and cyclists the attitude you see more now where they are trusting their safety to others.
The HC tells them not to do that!
For example:
The hierarchy does not remove the need for everyone to behave responsibly.
None of this detracts from the responsibility of ALL road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, to have regard for their own and other road users’ safety.
The Green Cross Code is still part of the HC (I've seen some people suggest that it isn't, I think they got that idea from the way the hierarchy introduction was covered, without actually reading the HC to check before saying it wasn't there now).
(Cyclists) When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.
(Cyclists) If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise (see Rule H3). Check that you can proceed safely, particularly when approaching junctions on the left alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic. Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road.
(All road users) The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.
So, that one is saying you don't just go, you make sure you are being allowed to go before doing so, and if someone doesn't give way to you when they should, and you can give way to them instead to avoid an accident, then do so!
Many road users also seem to forget this rule:
try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well.
be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake.
do not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey.
slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them.
There seems to be a tenancy for some people to try and pick and choose rules, instead of viewing the rules in the full context of the other rules.
I was a flight instructor and an airline pilot in the USA prior to moving to the UK to be a simulator instructor, and we pilots have a saying: "Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's safe." I take a "should/should not" to mean that while a particular practice might be legal, your safest course of action is to abide by the should/should not. A "must/must not", on the other hand, means a particular practice is specifically defined as legal or illegal. So just as in flying, when it comes to driving, the question you ought to be asking yourself in any situation isn't necessarily just if a particular maneuver is legal. It may be technically legal, but it may not be safe. If the maneuver is in fact legal (obviously, don't deliberately break the law), then what you should be asking yourself instead is, "Is what I'm about to do actually SAFE?"
@@britainunleashed that’s a great explanation and certainly the way I work with the Highway Code, thank you for that!
@@JamesSimpkinsADI You're very welcome! These days I actually do leadership training specifically as it relates to travel safety (aviation and more), so this is a topic I really get into. Keep up the great work -- I love your videos!
@ thank you so much, I’ll reference this attitude within aviation with my learners as I love it. I worked as helicopter ground crew with the army, so I suppose that sort of mindset is quite natural. Fantastic
The biggest flaw in the Highway Code is it specifies with "Must/Must not" which rules are backed up in law and it gives the relevent legislation. However, in the introduction where it explains that any part of it can be used against you in court it does not include this information. The Road Traffic Act 1988 Part 1, Para 38 "The Highway Code" allows any part of the Highway Code to be used against you in court. So if you undertake on the left and a police officer thinks that you were driving without due care and attention then the Highway Code will prove it even if the rule is advice only.
I don't get you here. Where is the flaw?
What about the HC advising to give way to pedestrians on the exit of a 2-lane roundabout? I think that's a pretty big flaw.
Advice? A should do will still get you in a lot of pain in case of incident
But yes its a stupid situation and should be removed
@@gingernutpreacher Not sure what you are trying to say. In this case following what the highway code says could put a pedestrian in a lot of danger. Imagine a car in the left lane gives way to a pedestrian, they can falsely assume it is safe to cross and then get hit by a car exiting in the right lane.
@@PointNemo9 agread
It only says you should give way to Pedestrians crossing the approach and exit roads (rule 187). We always did that anyway if the alternative was running them over. It also tells pedestrians to cross somewhere safe where drivers can see you and to use the Green Cross code. The 2022 HC changes didn’t really change anything in practice.
One innovation I think might improve the Highway Code is to give stopping distances in time rather than by measurement.
Surprisingly, not many people can imagine 315 ft: stopping distance at 60mph: but they are more likely to comprehend the time of 5 seconds it takes to stop at that speed.
What do you think?
The biggest flaw is the omission of a statement like: “It is the overriding legal duty of all road users to avoid any form of contact or collision with any person, vehicle or structure.” This will get rid of the “But I had right of way” crowd and those who accept or cause a collision to get a payout. You’ll not be surprised to hear that a similar duty is imposed on all maritime and aviation captains.
I've been sailing boats for 50 years and you are right. Any sailor/moboer who mentions "right of way" in connection with the Avoidance of Collision Regulations will be corrected as soon as they utter the phrase.
Like you, I can't see why this would not work on the roads, even if the phrase "right of way" were retained rather than switching to the maritime "give way / stand on".
The phrase 'Right of Way' is probably the most misunderstood in the whole of road use. It has nothing to do with who goes first in a given situation, that is 'Priority'. It defines who has the right to use the public highway. If you are using a motorised transport you NEVER have right of way as you and your vehicle are using the highway under licence. For the best part of 800 years pedestrians, horses, domesticated animals and dogs have had right of way over the highway. Cyclists were added to the list about 150 years ago. Nobody else has Right of Way.
Don't get excited about the fact that those with right of way over the highway cannot normally use a motorway as motorways are not Highways, they are Special Roads and the Highways acts do not apply to them. (I say 'normally' as under specific circumstances a Chief Constable, or a deputy with a rank no lower than Chief Superintendant may authorise the use of a motorway by those who are normally barred. I've never heard of this being used, but the provision is included in the Motorways acts).
How about , "The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident."?
james made a video 10 months ago "Roundabouts, give way to pedestrians? Instructors are getting this wrong!" debunking pedestrian crossing rules at roundabouts.
The highway code does not take away from having to think as we drive and doesn't prescribe what to do when other motorists are not following the code.
On the 4 lane motorway near us it is very common to encounter someone driving slower than they should in the third lane or outer lane, sometimes whilst on their mobile phones.
The traffic backs up behind them with all lanes clear into the distance.
No response from flashing headlights from the backing up traffic.
I went to the shops today and to give the car a run, it's a diesel, I took the scenic route via the motorway .... 3 lanes with middle lane of cars and vans doing 60-65 mph and the inside lane empty for fecking miles ahead ....it would burst your head
@@petersmith7126 I am absolutely convinced the "Middle Lane Owners Club" membership could be completely decimated and the club closed by using cameras and AI.
Currently cameras measure speed using radar or other sensors to time how long it takes to cover a specific distance, the reciprocal of which is speed. Use similar principles on motorways and dual carriageways where cameras would monitor the speed and time between consecutive vehicles in each lane and the AI decides whether there was sufficient space to move left and bingo! 3 points and a fine in the post. As much as I hate speed cameras, they are a necessary evil in many places. Lane-hogging cameras I am sure would catch more offenders than speed cameras and maybe get the message home to the fully paid-up club members😁
@125brat there's nothing beats a marked car on the roads to improve driving habits but that costs money not generate it
I think the highway code should be the law, not partly suggestions, everything should be legally required practices. Theres more to being a good driver than doing whats legally necessary (and the number of people who break the speed limits is probably the majority of drivers, and that's breaking the law).
I think you may have a misunderstanding of how the Highway Code relates to the law.
There are some rules that are explicitly stated in legislation, and they are indicated with must/must not and a reference to the legislation.
However, the entire code is referenced in the Traffics Acts and any of the rules can be used to establish liability in court cases.
Offences such as careless and dangerous driving are committed when the standard of driving is below the standard expected of a careful and considerate driver, and a careful and considerate driver would be expected to be following the rules of the HC.
Please can I ask for clarity on one point (my old Highway Code here is from 1996!) I was taught to give way when the obstruction is on my side. The only exception being when I am coming uphill and the obstruction is on my side then the traffic coming down hill should give way to me coming uphill.
You could get charged for OVERtaking also if it's done careless. There are many legal manouvers that could be carried out carelessly. Undertaking is another one.
Taken from the UK government website (24-Nov-2024)...
'Wording of The Highway Code
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 licence 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. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.'
Giving priority to oncomming traffic when overtaking parked vehicle(s) is advisory, because You are "protected" from situation, when parked cars covers a long distance, and at the moment, when You start overtake, can be no car in sight.
Secondary - when oncomming traffic stops ang give You way through...
Same at roundabout: it is about who enter into circle first - if we are on circle already, we no longer give priority - this is handy for slow/long vehicles.
Obviously we need to adjust speed to stop on time and go around circle.
Cutting mini roundabouts is bad idea.
Undertake has same background - cannot be illegal, because this will be blocking all trafic at que or junctions.
Must be balance on the roads, otherwise we all stuck in big gridlock.
If the highway code says 'You must' then it will be backed by legislation, if it says you should then it is advisory and you may not be breaking a specific law but, under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is an offence to drive without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for others on the road, and if you ignore the advice of the Highway Code then you open yourself to committing an offence under Section 3.
The law cannot codify "give way" in that "must give way to the major road" would mean waiting until there was no vehicle in sight; it is therefore worded as must not emerge if that would cause another vehicle to alter their speed or direction to avoid an accident.
It's annoying that something is labelled as a "Rule", then states "Should".
I think the main issue is that, with passing on the left, its usually one of two reasons. Reason 1 is if you are driving like a twat, speeding, cutting over lanes etc and in that case you'd probably meet the criteria for dangerous driving. Reason 2 is people lane hogging, which is a major issue and something too many people do. I vividly remember driving back home on a 3 lane motorway, someone in the outside lane doing 65, and i was in the middle lane wanting to pass them and i was flashing them (leaving plenty of space) for them to move back in, mabye they were just nervous or something and i thought flashing them would reassure them. They just continued to sit out there totally ignorantly so in the end people started passing on the left. If people stuck to the inside lane unless overtaking this would not be an issue, and is in my opinion why undertaking is not an issue, because either you have to do it to keep up with traffic due to the carelessness of others or because you are driving recklessly.
People need to remember with the "should not" you are more liable to get done for careless driving at minimum, and i'd argue if you're passing on the left due to lane hoggers its the people hogging the lane who should get the most attention. Whereas with roundabouts it's blatantly you who decides when to go and if you do it badly enough to the point where you get pulled over from it or crash because of it then its on you.
Thos who point the finger need to remember there are three more fingers pointing back at them. I used to criticise others for doing what I did, but have learnt the error of my way.
How do you feel about drivers who speed onto a mini roundabout when there is a car already entering on the left (next roundabout entry) because it was clear when they did. They then complain that that car didn’t give them priority because they were on their right even though they were out of sight perhaps.
This happens a lot where the 1st & 3rd exits are inline, effectively a through route, but the 2nd exit is off to the left. ie - 6, 9 & 12 o’clock. There is one like this near me and drivers going 6 o’clock to 12 o’clock drive straight over it at 30mph regardless of others.
@@AaaaandAction yes agreed. I had a learner once move onto a roundabout , and as she went around she was beeped by an Audi coming around the RA. She was convinced she had failed, however when she got back it was a pass. The examiner explained when you emerged, that Audi was not in your sight line. So they have created their own problem by speeding on and then blaming you. He then correctly said if however that Audi had been visible when you emerged it would have been a different story
james, 1. amazing content, I will going through your back catalogue and I am recommending you to learner and qualified drivers I know. 2. I would be extremely grateful if you could make a video on the hot topic of "temporary traffic lights stuck on red....proceeding is (or is not an offence)". You will know the very well-known you tuber driving instructor who has recently created a short on the subject.
@@familytabletch7517 great idea thank you very much I appreciate the feedback
Here are my thoughts (I'm not a legal expert).
General rules - other stopping procedures - rule 109 says:
You MUST obey all traffic light signals (see ‘Light signals controlling traffic’) and traffic signs giving orders, including temporary signals & signs (see ‘Traffic signs’).
Rule 176, Junctions controlled by traffic lights says:
[...]
If the traffic lights are not working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with great care.
That rule specifically mentions junctions, but it would seem reasonable to apply the same logic to other lights that aren't working, even though they might not be at junctions.
If the lights are working, then they are giving orders that must be complied with.
However, if the lights aren't working, then can they reasonably be considered to still be giving orders?
If not, then treat it as an uncontrolled situation (which it now effectively is) and proceed with great care.
An interesting situation I came across once was a set of temporary lights that had been loaded onto the back of a vehicle, but left running. So, as it proceed along the road, it was showing red, red and amber, green, and amber lights in sequence to the following vehicles.
Obviously, nobody behind was going to stop when the lights changed to red, but it was interesting to see.
@@neilp1885 thank you. however i think there maybe a debate to be had in the meaning of "not working", or at the very least clarity required on it's definition. If the light is not illuminated, then it's probably reasonable to consider the lights are not working. However, there doesn't appear to be specific mention in the legislation for a light illuminated which doesn't change (and clearly not changing after a long period of waiting for it to change). There are videos which suggest you can proceed on a stuck red light, but many people have commented they can't find the legislation to support this POV.
@@familytabletch7517 yes, not illuminated is probably not working, especially now each colour is made of multiple LEDs rather than a single bulb. Though I'd still be careful and probably give it a little while in case it's just one of the colours that's not working. It's also worth waiting to see if traffic moves in sequence from other directions, as their lights might still be working and you can be more confident that it's safer going (cautiously) once the other directions stop. Always watch for pedestrians of course, as the traffic may be stopped to allow them to cross.
However, if the light is illuminated but not changing, I'd say that any reasonable person would also consider lights stuck on one colour to be not working. Working lights cycle through the sequence. If it's not doing that, it's not working.
If a set of lights were all stuck on red, would it be reasonable to expect all traffic to wait for 30 minutes, an hour, all night, the rest of their lives, just because it's illuminated in its fault condition rather than not illuminated and the legislation says you must stop for a red light? The legislation is written for working lights, not for those that aren't working correctly, so I'd argue that it doesn't apply when the lights aren't working.
Of course, like I said, I'm not a legal expert and we'd have to see what happened if I was ever in that situation and was fined/summoned to court for jumping a red light, but I'd like to think that sense would prevail and there wouldn't be an issue as long as I'd proceeded carefully and hadn't caused an accident.
"A Driving Instructor in Norfolk....."" where do you go for "Hill Starts"? Is that the same as in the Netherlands? :-)
The flaw with the official Highway Code is ambiguity, that's not the fault of the reader. That the accompanying guide book says must not and must never is unhelpful as it effectively contradicts the notion that "should" is any different to "must"
People will always interpret ambiguity differently and that's a baked-in flaw of allowing it in the Code in the first place.
"It's only advice......" but "Failure to follow the advice given in this publication may be quoted in a court of law in order to establish liability". A phrase which was always quoted in the introduction to the Highway Code but for some reason was not included in the latest version. I guess it boils down to whether you feel lucky.
It's still in the latest version.
"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."
The fact is if you overtake a parked car into oncoming traffic on the other side of the road and cause a crash( apart from being an utter c***) you will be held responsible if you dont give way to traffic on the right at the roundabout and cause a crash ( apart from being an utter C***) you will be held responsible but the point is moot because the police are never there to spot this behaviour and seldom respond even when they see it happen infront of them
Witness evidence should help, as well as the prevalence of dash cams in cars.
The reason you got so many comments criticising you is because you upgraded “should not” to “must not” about undertaking, then invoked the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy. I.e. you were correct because you’re a driving instructor.
Many situations are too complex to encode in law and undertaking is one of them. There are situations where undertaking is advised in the HC and there is no way to draw a legal line between when it’s advised and when it isn’t, so it becomes a decision for the driver using their intelligence and experience. If they cock it up they can be prosecuted but it’s a two stage process: 1) did they undertake? 2) was it careless? Whereas for a simple offence it’s only a one stage process: did they exceed the speed limit?
The only comment ive seen with the correct explanation.... Thankyou!
When did James upgrade "should not" to "must not" about undertaking?
@@richardsutton01 he didn't as far as I recall. But I learned on that original post that it's pointless arguing with those who wilfully continue to misunderstand.
@@NwaHp3 Except that it isn't a correct explanation as it's mostly errant nonsense. Please do not, out on the road, act upon anything you have read in that comment.
@@richardsutton01 Except that everything I wrote is true. Undertaking as a specific offence was removed from the Road Traffic Act in 1972, so if you get prosecuted for it it’s under the general provisions in the Act for careless or dangerous driving. The same is true of over taking. Do it in the wrong place, for example into oncoming traffic, and you can also be prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving.
right of way.
Breaking a 'should' rule is a section 3ZA2 offence. Check out the CPS website or the Sentencing Council Definitive Guidelines (what magistrates use to sentence people). I know from personal experience that the CPS can and so prosecute people for breaking 'should' rules. They are not optional.
Undertaking is the first example given of a section 3ZA2 offence.
@@ditch3827 thank you very much , very useful
I was wondering when the video was going to answer what the biggest flaw is. 3:50 and there it is. 😆 Totally agree.
Of course, for many people, even reading the Highway Code at all once they are no longer learning would be something of a miracle in itself.
Just because something isn't actually illegal, it doesn't mean it's a good idea, or even OK, to do it.
Overtaking on the left increases risk.
That's the reason not to do it.
Simple.
However, on the legal side of things, dangerous and careless driving are illegal. (Both are defined in the Road Traffic Act 1988, sections 2 and 3 respectively.) So, much as the back cover of the HC intimates, if you have a collision, or other incident, and your overtaking on the left was a contributory factor, then you might find yourself charged with dangerous or (less seriously) careless driving. If you are found to have been driving dangerously or carelessly, then, as the act says, you are "guilty of an offence."
The “not illegal “ point is in essence incorrect. The Highway Code is an advisory document that judges will take account of in court. Therefore, although it is not by an absolute definition a legal document is quasi legal as your case will likely be decided by reference to the code.
Another example is the code book in respect of electrical installations. It will be that which may be examined to understand if an electrician has complied with the code; if not, for any alleged wrongdoing he may be judged to have acted illegally or unlawfully.
However, the HC does state which things are illegal, and effectively gives advice on other matters, which, as you say, will be taken into account by courts. The point is that there are things which we believe to be illegal, such as giving way to the right on a roundabout, which it turns out are only advisory. And the next point is that some drivers seem to feel it’s ok to contravene some of this “advice”, but not other parts, whereas they carry the same weight of law (or lack of it).
Its not illegal to overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake, is correct. If it was illegal rule 268 would say you Must Not
On the topic of passing on the left, there is one scenario that got me thinking. When joining a motorway from a slip road, I sometimes accelerate to pass in front of a vehicle in the left lane of the motorway, ideally of course I will try and slot in behind someone, but that isn't always possible when slotting into a gap. Is this considered 'overtaking' on the left?
I think accelerating or indeed decelerating as necessary to slot into a gap would be classed as reasonable driving and not overtaking on the left because that's what is described in the Highway Code. Until you cross the give-way markings, you are actually on a separate road, although you could give other drivers a scare. Any slip road should be long enough and give enough visibility at normal driving speeds to allow safe joining by a competent driver in a normal vehicle. What is completely unacceptable is the way many drivers attempt to force their way into a non-existent space expecting other vehicles to move out of their way which is not always possible.
@@125brat Yes I think so too, I was using it as an example because I believe it is more about using your judgement rather than rigidly following a rule. I find a lot of the issues could be avoided by a bit of common sense on both sides, I personally will try to leave a gap when I see traffic merging from a slip road, even going so far as to ease off a bit to let them in when necessary, or better yet move to the middle lane if possible.
@MattersOfOpinion-x4d Absolutely agree with you, however there are times as I'm sure you've experienced when there's nowhere to go because you've got a big lorry close behind, one to your right and an idiot to your immediate left going at the same speed as you. Do you risk braking to get rammed from behind? It's a difficult one but it's what is reasonable given the situation.
Does it depend where motorway regulations start on the slip road? One junction on the M1 near where I live has a long slip road that is marked as M1, although several hundred metres from the main carriageway. As you approach the main carriageway with an HGV in lane 1, surely if you’re travelling at 60+ mph then you can merge onto lane 1 in front of the HGV even if you’ve passed it on the slip road?
@@125brat Yes I have found myself in that situation more times than I'd like, often times just easing off the gas can be enough, though you are then relying on the person to your left being aware of you, and having the sense to accelerate a bit to merge smoothly. I must admit I do everything I possibly can not to be put in a situation where my safety is reliant on another drivers actions.
The main problem would be the use of several words of more than one syllable. As the confusion in this comment section illustrates.
You [should] read the instructions carefully before driving! :)
Mandatory retesting of drivers every 5-7 years is crucial for maintaining road safety and efficiency.
As traffic laws and safety standards evolve, a significant knowledge gap emerges between newly licensed drivers and those who have been driving for decades without updating their knowledge.
This discrepancy leads to conflicting interpretations of road rules, increased risk of accidents, and unnecessary confrontations. By implementing regular retesting, we can ensure all drivers are aware of current laws, reduce accidents caused by ignorance of new rules, create a more predictable driving environment, and improve overall road safety.
While some may view retesting as inconvenient, the benefits to public safety far outweigh any temporary inconvenience, especially if the process is streamlined and made accessible through online platforms or local community centers
Your sentiments are honorable, unfortunately most poor driving is due to attitude and behaviour not lack of knowledge. IE, I know I shouldn't do this but whatever!. Passing a test is easy you simply do what is required on the day, ignoring the fact that learner waiting lists are 6 months or so.
The problem revolves around lack of deterrent and lack of interest in good driving. How we improve this is a tricky one.
Try ignoring the highway code on your driving test and the result will be a fail!
Hi D I U K, thank you for this, are you as good a driving instructor as you are a video creator?. I am very impressed by your calm sensible style and manner.
I have my own ideas and ways of doing things that are more or less compliant with the Highway Code in so far as it is a useful template for guidance, at the same time my driving style is mostly based on observations and judgement made on the scene at the time, in some circumstances I do pass other traffic on the left but only if I am reasonably sure they do not intend to transfer to the inside lane, I make these judgements based on what I see not what I expect, most drivers will exhibit some movement or sign of intended variation in course before doing it, once a long time ago I saw the driver of the car waiting to turn right across my path was only looking at the people at the roadside, when his right hand came up over the steering wheel I 'knew' he was going to turn inn front of me and hit the brakes a shard as I could, luckily nobody was hurt in the ensuing collision and only one of the eight people at the roadside saw that happened, in fact he said that he was not looking at the traffic until he heard my tyres squealing!, just a few seconds before the crash.
I was not concerned then or now about who was right and who was wrong!, then as now I consider it to be one of many incidents that are a direct consequence of setting vehicles in opposite directions on the same narrow roads and just hoping they miss each other by a few inches!, in that sense I do not think we ever have 'accidents', by definition they must be unpredictable!. What usually happens is one or more individuals make bad decisions and suffer the consequences.
The main underlying reasons must include irrational attitudes of entitlement, false assumptions about how others operate, failure to actually understand the rules and laws as they are written, and thinking that driving is ever really 'safe'. I suppose I must also include the occasional bad error or failure to observe, I have pulled out right in front of other traffic myself once in a while, not deliberate nor accident, just not paying enough attention!. none of us are immune to mistakes
The one thing that I never rely on is the 'law' all laws invented by humans for legal purposes work only to punish offenders they never do anything to prevent offences!, I avoid getting caught in speed traps because I hate paying extra for insurance for years afterwards!. that does not stop me from breaking the speed limits if I feel, like it!.
Cheers, Richard.
IMHO. part of the problem is people's poor understanding of English. The Highway Code (and other official publications) are written by educated people who use English very precisely, but few people reading it know the exact meanings of words so they interpret them to the nearest of their understanding, which may not be correct.
and I would suggest the bad behaviour starts in the instructors car and the very format of the driving test itself at work I randomly asked people what the dashed line marking in the middle of the road ment most said it marks the middle of the road ! and with the standard of driving i see daily its clear the test needs revamping
Assuming you are referring to the "centre line" on a single carriageway road, it does mark the centre of the road. Well, not necessarily the exact physical centre but the logical centre, the separation between lanes of traffic flowing in opposite directions.
If you are talking about the middle of a one-way road then it's a lane divider, but unless you are trying to test your work colleagues with a trick question (being deliberately ambiguous) then I presume that's not what you are taking about.
If the gaps are shorter and the lines are longer then they are indicating a hazard, but they still represent the centre line or lane divider too.
What do you think the dashed line in the middle of the road means?
On a roundabout I thought the broken white lines way a giveaway
It's not "only advice". If you go against the highway code you are at risk of prosecutuon for careless or dangerous driving, or similar, and will be found at fault in the event of an accident.
All this crap about making everything the law is what's ruining society. We all know what's right or wrong and those who selfishly take advantage need to be admonished by the rest of us.
Diving Instructor UK: You made some really brilliant points in your video; you also said that your a small channel getting started, which is great!! BUT I just hope that you don't 🔚up being another Ashley Neal?? 🤔🤔
Keep up your great work, so far!!!!!
@@powernab8457 haha well the purpose of my channel is literally promoting debate and helping those that want to be helped. It won’t change and is a good outlet for me to share my passion for road safety. That’s all it was ever intended to be and won’t change ❤️
@@JamesSimpkinsADI Thank you for your reply. I understand that your channel is to promote debate and to help those that want to be helped? That's why I said at the end "Keep up your great work, so far!!!!!" because you are not doing the "I'm so right all the time" line unlike (mention no names no pack drill) and start to delete valid comments that people make and start a witch hurting exercise.
Like you said "promote debate" as their is always two sides and a middle!!
I just bought one after 55 years of driving ,for a refresher,it says a £500 fine for cycling on the pavement😂😂😂
When Ashley Neal said he's not going to undertake on his bike he never said because it's classed as committing the offence of Careless Driving. He knows it's legal to do so.
Why don't you ask your subscribers would they move from lane 1 to 2, to 3 to 4 and hog behind another hogger, flash your lights and wait and hope he's going to move back to the left. You'll have traffic catching up and forming 1 long queue in lane 4, and you approve that.
Two wrongs
It's truly hopeless. Some horses can be led to water a million times but will still die of thirst. 😉
That question about moving to the right has also been asked a million times. Those drivers who know how to drive correctly will move to the right. The drivers who know how to drive like a donkey will undertake on the left.
I think with respect, you have totally ignored road etiquette. Someone breaking the advice of the HC in order to improve traffic flow and remove frustration (undertaking a lane hogger) will not be viewed by most other users as unreasonable. Someone not giving way at a round about will be quite rightly judged as dangerous after all, the person on the roundabout is acting correctly, unlike a lane hogger. It's not at all the same thing.
To compare passing on the left with failing to give priority causing an imminent collision is a silly comparison. Clearly they are vastly different situations and the latter a far greater risk of harm. Sorry, but I think you've completely missed the point on this.
If you're passing on the left because someone else in a right lane is clearly driving illegally causing a queue whilst you are driving steadily and sensibly in a left lane, then they slow and you pass them, the risk is minimal and there is no imminent danger. Whilst it may arguably be called inadvisable according to the HC it is clearly not breaking the law per se. It is even reasonably arguable that to brake suddenly to avoid passing would create the greater hazard.
However, deliberately pulling out in front of moving traffic who have priority over you, causing them to take drastic action to avoid collision or a collision actually occurring is blatantly and obviously careless and dangerous.
Very different situations and very different outcomes if considered by the CPS.
The biggest flaw people don't understand as they don't read it.….
Nit picking here, but as a Driving Instructor I thought you might spell Licence correcty in your tags.
@@TOGUN_TK haha I always get that mixed up, but luckily when I passed driving school, spelling wasn’t a requirement 👴🏻
Can I position my car and horn behind the drive who drives slow on the right hand lane?
The Highway Code covers use of the horn, possibly not a good idea to contravene it.
Using the headlights in short flashes and indicators is the preferred method. The use of the horn is a lot more prescribed in the Highway Code as it can more easily be perceived as being aggressive or threatening.
How about being on a bike, turning right at a set of traffic lights and over taken on the left by a car also making that same right turn. I couldn’t move over to the cycle lane because I was being undertaken and obstructed!
How about it? Well, I gotta ask (unless you could supply some clarity) why would you be in the road wanting to turn right but looking to get into the cycle lane? Shouldn’t you have played safe and been in the cycle lane in the first place?
Jesus, O M G, that would be the turning point of my life.
Perhaps more of the 'should (not)'s should be changed to 'must (not)'s.
People just need to understand that the only difference is that the must/must not rules have a specific piece of legislation that applies to that rule, whereas all of the other rules can be used in prosecutions under the legislation in the road traffic act, etc.
Just because there isn't a specific law doesn't mean they can just choose to ignore the rule.
If a person drives or cycles dangerously on a road or other public place, or without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, they are guilty of an offence.
These offences occur when the driving or riding falls below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver or rider.
The rules of the Highway Code (all of them, not just the must/must not ones) can be used to establish the expected standards for a careful and competent driver or rider.
So, while not following those rules in the Highway Code isn't an offence in itself, it can show liability for an offence.
"A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code will not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind, but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings."
Guidance of the wise slavish obedience of fools problems, and which way to jump?
The biggest problem is the wording.
The HC needs sorting out. The 2 second rule is in conflict with stopping distances; bizarre why it's still in there.
Not why which is there? The 2 second rule or the stopping distance?
When driving we can't measure stopping distances but we can easily measure 2 secs.
How about rule 167: Do not overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. That's literally everywhere. When you overtake there's a pretty good chance you might come into conflict with the very vehicle you're overtaking. Does that mean we should never overtake?
@paulthompson8608 Paul its nothing to do with stopping distances as a lot of drivers think the 2 second rule is to do with the thinking distance.
The biggest flaw with the Highway Code is that it exists and it is the primary source of information for drivers. This should not be the case. The primary source should be the law itself. If you say the law is too difficult to understand which is why we need to have the Highway Code, then the law needs to be reformed and rewritten. I cannot even tell you how many people think there is no such thing as priority in the UK, only because the Highway Code does not talk about priority, since it has no legal capacity to grant priority. Only the law can do that.
Also, more to the point of your video, there are loads of weird scenarios in British driving law that simply do not exist in the rest of Europe.
I think you'll find that the Highway Code talks about giving priority, or not giving priority, on 14 separate occasions.
Well said 🌞
Surely the biggest flaw in the highway code is the advice?. If they were that concerned they would have re written the highway code and changed the advice into law, it's no wonder people cherry pick what advice they want to follow, talk about muddying the water for the average reader. Certainly not helpful in any way.. bad highway code. 🤦♂️
You didn't enlighten us to motorway overtaking on the left when in congested conditions from your guide, do you not consider this as overtaking or just that your lane is moving faster than the one to your right. I'll be critical of this point as now this will make some think that under no conditions will they overtake on the left and in congested conditions it's important that they use this exclusion A, in order to use available road space and B, for good flow of traffic.
Please can you correct this matter.
That is covered in James' previous video. He can't keep re-covering everything in every video or his videos would get longer and longer.
@@richardsutton01 Yes understood, but I myself have just come upon these videos and just a mention of that would have been sufficient within the video rather than rely on something that was in a previous video as normaly most would want to watch a follow up one.
So unless one is a frequent viewer they may not have caught the earlier video and so would miss that point even if viewing a latter video if he did not cover it again for awhile.
So I was just asking him to correct that and maybe include things like this at the time as it is relevant, from viewing Ashley I'm sure he would not leave it out within the same video and very likely cover it within the same mention of overtaking in this context.
Aaah James. Realistically your examples at the start of this video aren't convincing. Because pulling out on someone in the examples you've given can't be done safely, in a manner that wouldn't cause stress or give cause for another driver to alter their speed or direction in order to avoid a possible collision. (Plus there could be pedestrians in the area possibility getting injured also.)
Passing on the left on a dual carriage way or motorway is not hindering the lane hogger. You're not pulling out in any fashion where THEY are having to alter they're driving. They probably won't even realise you've passed them and if they did -THEY would not get annoyed or have any need to claim they're within their rights.
Weigh up the situation, realise the hogger has no intention of moving in and passing can be done safely rather than cause OTHERS to put everyone in danger by squeezing through small gaps between lanes and directly in front of "me" holding back in a staggered formation at a safe distance behind said lane hogger.
Yes, if an accident occurred it would be me to blame,or 50-50. But,as I've said before, drivers pull out to the RIGHT as well without checking so overtaking in the correct manner regularly results in an accident also.
I admit- I HAVE been passed on the left once that I remember in all honesty. I only was annoyed at myself ,and embarrassed at myself. I said to my missus-"That was my fault and I should've pulled over earlier." No great problem as I was watching mirrors all the time. 'Knew what was unfolding. I let it happen and then moved back left to where I should've been.
No one reads it?
ANYTHING that involves driving through entire villages/town blocks at 20mph
The biggest flaw with the highway code...?? Is the fact that taxi drivers, bus drivers and delivery drivers have never read it, they're all bums
And what about suicyclists? Who knows if they read the HC, but they flout it all the time and are easily the most delinquent roads users by far.