Give way to buses in new highway code?

steptoe · 20 February 2012 00:58

Solly:

Driveroneuk:

Solly:
The Highway Code is not a law. It is what is say’s - a " Code".

Quite a few posters seem to be saying the HWC is not law. Guess its some years since you read a copy and that even when you did, you did not read it in detail.

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. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in ‘The road user and the law’.

souce: direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr … /DG_070236

Read the title of the book - The Highway “CODE” - it is not a law. Never has been - never will be. Believe me.

Yes it is a code, not an indepth law book, however its as good as law, many of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements, and the Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts, and the courts will adhere to it.

bigvern1 · 20 February 2012 05:58

Ignore all the road signs then…See what happens!

coffeeholic · 20 February 2012 06:37

Driveroneuk:

Solly:
The Highway Code is not a law. It is what is say’s - a " Code".

Quite a few posters seem to be saying the HWC is not law. Guess its some years since you read a copy and that even when you did, you did not read it in detail.

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. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in ‘The road user and the law’.

souce: direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr … /DG_070236

I guess you didn’t read what you have copied and pasted. None of the above says the Highway Code is the law. This confirms it isn’t law and is only a guide book to many different pieces of legislation.

Bit of a fail there, posting something to try to prove your point that in fact confirms the opposite.

gardun · 20 February 2012 08:33

Driveroneuk:

Solly:
The Highway Code is not a law. It is what is say’s - a " Code".

Quite a few posters seem to be saying the HWC is not law. Guess its some years since you read a copy and that even when you did, you did not read it in detail.

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. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in ‘The road user and the law’.

souce: direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr … /DG_070236

Sorry - I have read it frequently and refer to it often if in doubt. It is NOT law, it only refers to law in the way you have indicated above. That does not make it law in itself.

Returning to the subject of buses pulling out, why would there be a law allowing them to pull into moving traffic with impunity (that’s effectively what some on here seem to expect)? The rest of us would be prosecuted for doing so.

bigvern1 · 20 February 2012 08:44

That’s my point.

gardun · 20 February 2012 09:18

223
Buses, coaches and trams. Give priority to these vehicles when you can do so safely, especially when they signal to pull away from stops. Look out for people getting off a bus or tram and crossing the road.

Just checked again - no sign of MUST or even SHOULD. It is not a legal requirement. In fact it qualifies the advice with the phrase “when you can do so safely”. If I can, I will let them out. I AM NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO SO.

coffeeholic · 20 February 2012 09:26

gardun:

223
Buses, coaches and trams. Give priority to these vehicles when you can do so safely, especially when they signal to pull away from stops. Look out for people getting off a bus or tram and crossing the road.

Just checked again - no sign of MUST or even SHOULD. It is not a legal requirement. In fact it qualifies the advice with the phrase “when you can do so safely”. If I can, I will let them out. I AM NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO SO.

This^

muckaway · 20 February 2012 10:04

I’ve seen a few school operated minibuses with “please let buses pull out”; Mostly private schools so I ignore these as they’re no better than chauffeur driven cars.

donutuk · 21 February 2012 23:32

gardun:

223
Buses, coaches and trams. Give priority to these vehicles when you can do so safely, especially when they signal to pull away from stops. Look out for people getting off a bus or tram and crossing the road.

Just checked again - no sign of MUST or even SHOULD. It is not a legal requirement. In fact it qualifies the advice with the phrase “when you can do so safely”. If I can, I will let them out. I AM NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO SO.

However, if you fail to give way to a bus that is in the process of pulling out and collide with them, let me know how your argument holds up in court.

A reasonable, competent driver would be driving in accordance with the Highway Code (that is the courts view) therefore a reasonable competent driver will give way to those vehicles when they can do safely.

By the way, “safely” is not the same as “it’s going to delay me so i’m not going to bother with it” which so many of you seem confused about.

bigvern1 · 22 February 2012 06:21

The phrase “3 cars and I’m off” doesn’t help your case. Or would you not mention that in court?

gardun · 22 February 2012 07:01

DonutUK:

gardun:

223
Buses, coaches and trams. Give priority to these vehicles when you can do so safely, especially when they signal to pull away from stops. Look out for people getting off a bus or tram and crossing the road.

Just checked again - no sign of MUST or even SHOULD. It is not a legal requirement. In fact it qualifies the advice with the phrase “when you can do so safely”. If I can, I will let them out. I AM NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO SO.

However, if you fail to give way to a bus that is in the process of pulling out and collide with them, let me know how your argument holds up in court.

A reasonable, competent driver would be driving in accordance with the Highway Code (that is the courts view) therefore a reasonable competent driver will give way to those vehicles when they can do safely.

By the way, “safely” is not the same as “it’s going to delay me so i’m not going to bother with it” which so many of you seem confused about.

Maybe I’m playing devil’s advocate here, but I object to the suggestion that I do not understand the meaning of safely. (I don’t bother to go on about it here, but I am an IAM senior observer - I do understand safe.)

What would not stand up in court, in my opinion, is that a bus can pull into moving traffic with impunity and I doubt that anyone would consider prosecuting anyone who collided with that bus. The basic rules of the road apply to all vehicles and are not variable just because you are driving a bus. And before you bother - designated bus lanes are a totally different issue, not a different law.

A reasonable and competent bus driver should be aware that they do not have any right whatsoever, despite their deluded imagination, to expect traffic to give way automatically. I am still waiting for any indication that there is any legal case to support this delusion - THE HIGHWAY CODE IS NOT LAW however sensible it may be. I think you would find that a bus driver causing an accident by pulling into moving traffic will be prosecuted and not the driver of the vehicle with which they collide.

bigvern1 · 22 February 2012 07:06

HERE ,HERE.

donutuk · 22 February 2012 08:55

gardun:

DonutUK:

gardun:

223
Buses, coaches and trams. Give priority to these vehicles when you can do so safely, especially when they signal to pull away from stops. Look out for people getting off a bus or tram and crossing the road.

Just checked again - no sign of MUST or even SHOULD. It is not a legal requirement. In fact it qualifies the advice with the phrase “when you can do so safely”. If I can, I will let them out. I AM NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO SO.

However, if you fail to give way to a bus that is in the process of pulling out and collide with them, let me know how your argument holds up in court.

A reasonable, competent driver would be driving in accordance with the Highway Code (that is the courts view) therefore a reasonable competent driver will give way to those vehicles when they can do safely.

By the way, “safely” is not the same as “it’s going to delay me so i’m not going to bother with it” which so many of you seem confused about.

Maybe I’m playing devil’s advocate here, but I object to the suggestion that I do not understand the meaning of safely. (I don’t bother to go on about it here, but I am an IAM senior observer - I do understand safe.)

What would not stand up in court, in my opinion, is that a bus can pull into moving traffic with impunity and I doubt that anyone would consider prosecuting anyone who collided with that bus. The basic rules of the road apply to all vehicles and are not variable just because you are driving a bus. And before you bother - designated bus lanes are a totally different issue, not a different law.

A reasonable and competent bus driver should be aware that they do not have any right whatsoever, despite their deluded imagination, to expect traffic to give way automatically. I am still waiting for any indication that there is any legal case to support this delusion - THE HIGHWAY CODE IS NOT LAW however sensible it may be. I think you would find that a bus driver causing an accident by pulling into moving traffic will be prosecuted and not the driver of the vehicle with which they collide.

First point - they are not pulling out with impunity, they are indicating to leave a bus stop, other road users are choosing to ignore the rules of the road i.e. the Highway Code, so they have to resort to using their vehicle to influence other road users behaviour EXACTLY how they were taught to do. Where the problem lies is not with the bus driver that pulls out directly into the path of an oncoming car, but where the bus is already half way out of a stop having seen a gap where they can pull out into, and the car driver then refuses to wait, or worse speeds up, and tries to go round the bus as it is pulling out. In this instance i would like to see the motorist defend their actions by stating the Highway Code isn’t law!
Most of the time, the 3 car rule means that you end up angling your bus into traffic in an attempt to register in the dullard minds of other motorists that you are trying to get out, unfortunately everyone likes to play “beat the bus”.

2nd point - WRONG! The very subject we are discussing suggest that actually a reasonable and competent bus driver does have an expectation that traffic should give way to them, after all, it is written in the bible of safe driving that is quoted by courts across the land…the Highway Code.

I just love the IAM types…all full of righteous indignation that they are only purveyors of all things safe and good on the road. Why is it whenever i am stuck behind a Rover 75 on a Sunday doing 35 mph on a NSL single carriageway, they always seem to a ROSPA or IAM sticker in the car?

I’ll concede that the 3 car rule may not be polite or courteous, however it is never going to change until other motorists change their blinkered attitude towards public transport and realise that actually the 3 or 4 minutes you might lose travelling behind a bus is totally inconsequential in the grand scheme of things…whereas the poor bus driver has to explain why he is late, probably involving writing a report, put up with the whinging from the passengers because he is late etc etc.

And for the record, i believe the same priority should be given to HGV’s as well…after all, they have a job to do, which can have similar time constraints!

bigvern1 · 22 February 2012 09:25

You speak for every bus drive then? And you seem to be using STILL, the Highway Code as law. Despite it being clearly not so. Some elements are true, but not the bit you keep harping on about. End of the day, just enjoy your circular lifestyle. You’ll get out…Eventually.

donutuk · 22 February 2012 09:40

bigvern1:
You speak for every bus drive then? And you seem to be using STILL, the Highway Code as law. Despite it being clearly not so. Some elements are true, but not the bit you keep harping on about. End of the day, just enjoy your circular lifestyle. You’ll get out…Eventually.

Got out of buses quite a while ago thanks.

Please point where i have stated the Highway Code is law?

All i have done is mention that a court, when considering driving offences, often refers to the Highway Code. That is entirely different to stating it is law.

bigvern1 · 22 February 2012 09:51

DonutUK:

gardun:

DonutUK:

gardun:

shuttlespanker:
this is not a new rule, it has been there for years

it states that you give way to buses wanting to pull away from the bus stop

Highway Code “Rule” 223
Buses, coaches and trams. Give priority to these vehicles when you can do so safely, especially when they signal to pull away from stops. Look out for people getting off a bus or tram and crossing the road.

It doesn’t mention must or even should - it is not a rule; merely advice. I don’t understand why buses should get priority anyway; they get their own lanes in many towns. I appreciate that they think they are more important than the rest of us but then I think I am more important

However, that “advice” is considered when you are prosecuted for dangerous driving, careless driving etc. The Highway Code is considered to be “best practice” if you like, and if you are not in accordance with it and something happens, do not be too surprised if a court finds against you. They may well consider that your failure to drive in line with the Code falls below a standard which is reasonably expected.

If failing to observe the “Code” could be classed as dangerous or careless I agree, although I would also refer to Roadcraft if applicable. However, letting a bus pull out of a bus-stop (or not) is not, in my opinion, a matter of safety (dangerous) or even “without due care and attention”. Therefore, I would be very surprised to receive a NIP for not letting a bus out. That said, I would give way if it was safe to do so.

However, if by swerving round the bus at the last minute because you were too impatient too wait, you caused the bus to brake sharply, injuring a passenger…you may well be on the receiving end of a NIP for one of those offences. Especially with the advent of CCTV on buses.

As a point of interest, an elderly lady died last year after suffering head injuries from a fall on the bus, caused by an impatient van driver who decided he absolutely had to get out of a junction ahead of a bus…sadly, they have never traced the van driver, but safe to say if they had, they would have faced charges.

The Highway Code Rule does not just apply to bus stops, it is a general rule…give way to buses.

Hope this helps!

I apologize. I can’t see you saying law anywhere!
This kind of backs myside up…You see this as RULE. So why ask…"Please " give way to the bus?
Sounds more like an appeal than a rule!

muckaway · 22 February 2012 11:32

Everyone be grateful that rule 199 isn’t “Please let tractors pull out.” I let the local buses out around here, as they might be around to hold back the traffic while I reverse in somewhere.

gardun · 22 February 2012 16:32

DonutUK:
First point - they are not pulling out with impunity, they are indicating to leave a bus stop They are indicating to pull into moving traffic, from where is irrelevant. , other road users are choosing to ignore the rules of the road i.e. the Highway Code The Highwway Code does not constitute the rules of the road no matter how many times you say it, so they have to resort to using their vehicle to influence other road users behaviour EXACTLY how they were taught to do. Where the problem lies is not with the bus driver that pulls out directly into the path of an oncoming car, but where the bus is already half way out of a stop having seen a gap where they can pull out into If that is the case there was not sufficient room, so he should not be obstructing the highway. That said, I would probably do the same in slow moving traffic, and the car driver then refuses to wait, or worse speeds up, and tries to go round the bus as it is pulling out. In this instance i would like to see the motorist defend their actions by stating the Highway Code isn’t law! That was not the original point. The motorist in this case would be quite wrong (although not technically breaking the law)
Most of the time, the 3 car rule means that you end up angling your bus into traffic in an attempt to register in the dullard minds of other motorists that you are trying to get out, unfortunately everyone likes to play “beat the bus”.

2nd point - WRONG! The very subject we are discussing suggest that actually a reasonable and competent bus driver does have an expectation that traffic should give way to them, after all, it is written in the bible of safe driving that is quoted by courts across the land…the Highway Code. It’s not written in my bible of safe driving that I MUST give way to them, and neither should they assume that they have a right to expect it.

I just love the IAM types…all full of righteous indignation that they are only purveyors of all things safe and good on the road. Why is it whenever i am stuck behind a Rover 75 on a Sunday doing 35 mph on a NSL single carriageway, they always seem to a ROSPA or IAM sticker in the car? Obviously you know nothing about “Roadcraft”, the book and principal on which advanced driving is based. Making progress (e.g. maintaining the speed limit where safe to do) is a basic principal. I will happily take you for a demonstration drive and explain it to you. I find that very few members have badges anymore, and I have never seen an IAM or Rospa member driving in that manner, although I’m sure one or two do

I’ll concede that the 3 car rule may not be polite or courteous, however it is never going to change until other motorists change their blinkered attitude towards public transport and realise that actually the 3 or 4 minutes you might lose travelling behind a bus is totally inconsequential in the grand scheme of things…whereas the poor bus driver has to explain why he is late, probably involving writing a report, put up with the whinging from the passengers because he is late etc etc. I don’t have a blinkered view of public transport, and contrary to your suggestions I am normally courteous and considerate towards them. I also let them out of bus stops provided they don’t try to bully their way out

And for the record, i believe the same priority should be given to HGV’s as well…after all, they have a job to do, which can have similar time constraints!
For the record I don’t believe anyone should receive special treatment with the exception of emergency vehicles; I do my best to maintain the flow of traffic as best I can by being considerate, looking/planning ahead. I am not perfect, but I try to be! You have mis-judged my attitude and assumed that I will not allow buses out, that I along with everyone else (can’t speak for them, sorry) want to play “beat the bus”, etc. That is wrong, as is your assertion that the Highway Code is law.

bigvern1 · 22 February 2012 20:20

Here’s a fine example for ya!

driveroneuk · 22 February 2012 20:43

I appreciate its difficult to tell without an aerial shot of the junction, but the bus does look to be in an odd position. Nearly collecting the BMW with the tail swing as a bonus.