"One more reason why everybody should be retested every five years": Cyclists react to latest survey showing many drivers unaware of Highway Code rules; Castelli invents the 'jack-sey'... to everyone's amusement; Peloton's playlist + more on the live blog

You could look at it the other way, people are often more active in the summer anyway, so doing it in autumn to give ideas how to maintain activity through the dark and cold.

The thing that got me in the article was the guidance from the Chief Medical officer that kids should be active for 1 hour per day. I have absolutely no idea how they are supposed to fit that in. My teenagers get at most a couple of PE lessons a week, and 2 of them do Taekwondo twice a week. With the amount of homework that needs to be done, and remembering that rest and sleep are also vital for good health, I honestly don't think there are enough hours in the day.

Yes - I think it's borne of an understandable journalistic desire to use a variety of language, but sometimes accuracy matters!  

NickSprink wrote:

"Less than half of drivers correctly identified pedestrians as having right of way in the scenario below, with more than a third believing they have priority when turning into a side road."

Sorry but that is incorrect - pedestrians have priority, not a right of way.

H170: Take extra care at junctions. You should - give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way 

Pedestrians have a right of way over all roads except motorways, in addition to this they sometimes have priority as well.

Backladder wrote:

Pedestrians have a right of way over all roads except motorways, in addition to this they sometimes have priority as well.

The only time right-of-way is mentioned in the Highway Code is in the introduction, where it says: "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." If pedestrians had right-of-way over all roads it would be compulsory to stop any time a pedestrian wanted to cross the road, even if there was no crossing or junction. That would not be a bad thing in my opinion (in some places in Canada, I'm told, it is compulsory for drivers to stop and let pedestrians cross anywhere if they hold their hand out to indicate they wish to do so) but it doesn't exist.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Backladder wrote:

Pedestrians have a right of way over all roads except motorways, in addition to this they sometimes have priority as well.

The only time right-of-way is mentioned in the Highway Code is in the introduction, where it says: "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." If pedestrians had right-of-way over all roads it would be compulsory to stop any time a pedestrian wanted to cross the road, even if there was no crossing or junction. That would not be a bad thing in my opinion (in some places in Canada, I'm told, it is compulsory for drivers to stop and let pedestrians cross anywhere if they hold their hand out to indicate they wish to do so) but it doesn't exist.

Right of way is not the same as priority, right of way only means that you are allowed to use the road to get from one place to another. As ChrisB200SX mentions below, pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians all have a right of way in law over normal roads, this is why you can walk along a country lane that does not have a pavement at the side.

Backladder wrote:

Right of way is not the same as priority, right of way only means that you are allowed to use the road to get from one place to another. As ChrisB200SX mentions below, pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians all have a right of way in law over normal roads, this is why you can walk along a country lane that does not have a pavement at the side.

Yes, obviously pedestrians have right-of-way in terms of access to roads (although this does not exist exclusively, it does not give you the right to walk continuously down the middle of a busy High Street), but it's generally understood in traffic terms to mean having strict precedence over other traffic rather than priority, and that was the sense in which it was being used in the article and why it was (correctly) challenged.

Rendel Harris wrote:

 

Yes, obviously pedestrians have right-of-way in terms of access to roads (although this does not exist exclusively, it does not give you the right to walk continuously down the middle of a busy High Street),

As I understand it pedestrians are no more required to use pavements than cyclists are required to use cycle lanes so although it might not be advisable it is still legal. In addition there are no laws or rules that give mototists the right to run you over because you are walking along the road rather than across it. The only restrictions I have seen are that you have to be travellng on the road, you can't just stand there. 

Rendel Harris wrote:

but it's generally understood in traffic terms to mean having strict precedence over other traffic rather than priority, and that was the sense in which it was being used in the article and why it was (correctly) challenged.

It seems to be used incorrectly by many in the same sense as the article above but that is not its meaning.

Backladder wrote:

As I understand it pedestrians are no more required to use pavements than cyclists are required to use cycle lanes so although it might not be advisable it is still legal. In addition there are no laws or rules that give mototists the right to run you over because you are walking along the road rather than across it. The only restrictions I have seen are that you have to be travellng on the road, you can't just stand there.

As I understand it, though willing to stand corrected of course, a pedestrian is entitled to walk on the side of the carriageway (even if there is a pavement available) but is liable to be moved on or arrested for blocking the free movement of other traffic on the highway by walking in the middle of it unless as part of an organised event or protest.

Backladder wrote:

It seems to be used incorrectly by many in the same sense as the article above but that is not its meaning.

Oxford in fact offers both definitions, see screenshot.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Backladder wrote:

It seems to be used incorrectly by many in the same sense as the article above but that is not its meaning.

Oxford in fact offers both definitions, see screenshot.

Well now I'm conflicted, because I agree with Backladder, but I also love a dictionary definition...

One might question though, if it is also a legal right giving precedence, where is that precedence set out, given that a lot of the priority rules in HWC are 'shoulds', not 'musts'?

Rendel Harris wrote:

It seems to be used incorrectly by many in the same sense as the article above but that is not its meaning.

Oxford in fact offers both definitions, see screenshot.

[/quote]

I stand corrected.

Backladder wrote:

NickSprink wrote:

"Less than half of drivers correctly identified pedestrians as having right of way in the scenario below, with more than a third believing they have priority when turning into a side road."

Sorry but that is incorrect - pedestrians have priority, not a right of way.

H170: Take extra care at junctions. You should - give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way 

Pedestrians have a right of way over all roads except motorways, in addition to this they sometimes have priority as well.

Same is true of cyclists and horse-riders, no? CROW Act (2000)

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Same is true of cyclists and horse-riders, no? CROW Act (2000)

Yes but I think that is only the latest version of the law, we have had right of way on the roads since long before 2000, just too lazy to google it at the moment.