New version of Countryside Code urges people to be nice to each other when enjoying the outdoors

...unless its a bogus journey.

Having driven around a tight left blind bend to find a runner heading towards me 2 foot out from the left verge with an oncoming car in the far lane,  I'm not sure this is the best advice for pedestrians in all cases.   

Slow down on blind bends, then

It's not the advice in all cases
"It may be safer to cross the road well before a sharp right-hand bend so that oncoming traffic has a better chance of seeing you." (Highway Code)
Although you might have got lucky I've seen a couple of near misses while out running. I cross the road to go round a corner and get overtaken by a driver who is now going round a blind bend on the wrong side of the road, and very surprised to find it occupied by someone driving the other way.

Unless you are on a bend in which case you should walk on the outside of the bend.

You know when some cyclists get annoyed about people saying that they should wear helmets and hi-viz and not ride with earphones? That's effectively what you're doing in relation to pedestrians. The HC is very clear - pedestrians in the carriageway have priority. It's not always safest to walk facing the oncoming traffic. And regardless of safety, its for other road users to take into account, particularly in rural areas, that you might encounter walkers in the road and drive/cycle appropriately. 

then its awkard that it is rule 2 of the HC which is also very clear that if there is no pavement, keep to the right-hand side of the road so that you can see oncoming traffic, be prepared to walk single file would be a nice one for people to follow as well.

or do we only follow the HC rules you approve of ?

that rule isnt there btw to make other road users less responsible for how they use those roads, its there because if you walk with your back to traffic, you are only relying on your ears, if you face traffic you have your eyes and ears and that allows you to be far more aware of your surroundings and the dangers present.

Some roads absolutely it might be less safe to stick to the right side, so you cross the road,but you stay vigilant whilst you do it, and cross immediately back again as soon as the right side is less dangerous again.

you dont as has been the most frequent encounterance of the past year walk 3-4 abreast with your back to traffic wandering around like youre in some traffic free park completely oblivious to everything, and get the hump when a cyclist rings their bell at you not as a you must get out of the way, but as much just to say hey heads up Im here & please dont suddenly jump towards me when I pass you, which wouldnt need to be information I had to pass on anyway if you were just walking on the right side of the flipping road !!!

Rule 2 is advisory for pedestrians (as is most of the pedestrian section apart from motorways and slip roads). It's for the driver to drive to the conditions

I do a lot of walking on country lanes and much like cycling in primary I've noticed it's actually safer to walk in the carriageway rather than on verges. I tend to walk side by side with my child (with me on the outside) because it forces drivers to slow down and acknowledge your presence. You have to create a visual cue, otherwise they buzz past at undiminished speed with wing mirrors inches from your head. 

Drivers getting it in their head that "oh, what an idiot, he's walking with his back to traffic" is just the same as "should have been on the cycle path mush". There are a bunch of reasons why I do that (walk on the left) including knowledge of traffic flow, availability of a refuge, upcoming bends, etc. For example, there's a road near me with a grass verge on only one side of the road. I'll always walk that side regardless of which direction I'm walking, because I have somewhere to step out of the carriageway when a vehicle approaches. 

Be nice, share the space.

Sadly holding some walking poles (those with sharp pointy ends) seem to be the only item which I find a minority of car drivers provide sufficent room when passing along country lanes. They seem the value of not getting their car scratched far higher than that of hitting or causing dis-comfort to a pedestrian or a child. This is not all car driver but a depressing significant minority who either through attitude or inepitude think wrongly roads are only for them.

It's a good point about poles. My son and I go birdwatching, which often involves standing on verges or in gateways alongside roads. We tend to be dressed in dark colours (refuse to go full camo). I make a point of standing in the road on straights and ideally eyeballing the driver on approach and usually they pass wide. If I stand on the verge more often than not they'll whizz past at undiminshed speed. When walking I carry the camera/scope/tripod over the shoulder nearest the roadway. Cyclists usually move way out into primary, I'm guessing because the thought process is "oh, that tripod with that expensive camera on it might fall under my wheels"

Turns out they actually do. 

I have seen far, far more people walking on the left of country roads since the first lockdown a year ago. I absolutely agree that vehicles need to drive to conditions, but it does make vehicle/ pedestrian conflict inherently more risky when walkers don't follow HC principles. 

I thought this wasn't true. I though Sustrans couldn't possibly be as bad as that. Then I did some googling. And yes, Sustrans genuinely prefer shared cyclist/pedestrian space over segregation. 

Sustrans are an abomination - #abolishsustrans. No organisation has done more to harm the cause of cycling over the last 20 years.

the little onion wrote:

Sustrans are an abomination - #abolishsustrans. No organisation has done more to harm the cause of cycling over the last 20 years.

Hmmm, slight exaggeration perhaps? Yes to Sustrans not always thinking things through, but can't say I'd agree no other organisation has been worse. Quite a few parish/town/city/county/what-have-you councils & their ideas about "cycling provision" might qualify, for a start...

My point is that you'd expect those various other organisations to often be against cycling - you aren't surprised when they do something bad for cyclists. You aren't surprised when 'the enemy' harm cycling.

The problem with Sustrans is that they claim to be pro-cycling, but their efforts cause more harm than good. They would literally sign off any old crap as cycliing infrastructure if you can stick a small blue sign next to it, and call it part of the national cycling network. There are sections near me that actually have huge flights of stairs on it. They condone and indeed encourage bad infrastructure and bad laws. If you see nonsense infrastructure and someone claims that it has the support of a cycling organisation, you can bet your mortgage that it is Sustrans who provide the seal of approval.

I understand they also opposed CTC/Cycling UK's legal case (the Daniel Cadden case) that gives cyclists the legal right to not use cycle lanes. 

Sustrans should go. Now.