UKH

Or do they? 

It seems to be 50/50 at best, and completely random. Makes running on the road quite difficult (not that I do much!) as you can never quite tell if someone is going to stop or not..

Are people in your area stopping or are they just carrying on like usual and pretending you don't exist!? 

I initially (and falsely) believed this was a rule about pedestrians crossing 'side streets' but it is in fact all junctions. 

The Highway Code states

"Rule H2 - Rule for drivers, motorcyclists, horse drawn vehicles, horse riders and cyclists. At a junction you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning."

I wonder if this can lead to some strange and dangerous scenarios. Eg, a motorist turning right at a 4-way light controlled junction, on a green arrow filter, should actually give way to a pedestrian waiting to cross the road that they are turning into (even though the pedestrian has a 'red man')?

As a motorist I give way. As a pedestrian I assume motorists won't give way. It's a confusing and dangerous rule.

I had a run in with a driver recently after "exercising" my RoW. He stopped, and started screaming at me, so I stopped in the road and shrugged to say "what's the problem". He opened his door to get out, then thought better of it and drove forward to push me out of the way. I stood my ground and tried to explain that the law had changed but he wasn't for listening... Drove at me a few more times until I gave up and carried on.

In retrospect, I should have taken a picture of his car and filed a police complaint, so it was on record for when he gets road rage at someone more vulnerable.

Lights override all other priority rules, why would this one be any different?

As a pedestrian I adopt the Neapolitan strategy now - establish eye contact with the driver then walk out. It works fine, until you get road rage.

OK then, in the same scenario, the motorist has a green filter light, but the pedestrian doesn't have a pedestrian crossing. Pedestrian is just crossing at a junction and assumes priority. Should the motorist give way?

I've tended to assume that traffic lights would supercede the rule, which seems sensible to me, but it's certainly not clear as written there.

It was always going to take a while for the message to get around, and some people who have heard will disapprove and ignore it, but on the whole I've been pleasantly surprised so far at how many motorists have given way to me as a pedestrian. Though it's always hard to tell how much comes from obedience to the rule, how much comes from some people just being nice and how much comes from me just being assertive and drivers being pissed off but not enough to actually run me over!

I nearly got run over by a bus this week whilst out on my run. Did not even expect him to be turning into the street I was crossing, thought he was indicating to stop at the adjacent bus stop! 

Agree that one should probably assume drivers aren't going to obey this new rule, just to be on the safe side. 

That’s a sensible assumption for pedestrians anyway, new rules or not. I still see drivers carrying on over zebra crossings when pedestrians are starting to cross. How many years have they been around?

The rest of the scenario really doesn't matter, nor does it depend on the rule changes; if a pedestrian walks into the road a driver should always give way, regardless of junction, lights, or anything else. If you had the chance to avoid the accident, and you didn't take it, you're going to be in bother.  

The bit that's ambiguous is if roundabouts are included.

There's a separate section in the code for roundabouts and it doesn't mention giving way to pedestrians waiting to cross, so the consensus on forums at least appears to be that roundabouts are excluded form the rule change.

I agree with this, as stopping on roundabouts is likely to lead to fender benders if cars behind don't expect it.

But this does raise a similar question for me.

There's a mini roundabout near me, where, when walking or running, there isn't anywhere to run except for in the road itself.

So I treat it as though I'm a vehicle, and if I'm running around the roundabout, cars should give way to me. But it doesn't half annoy some drivers.

But there's nothing else I can do, except wait for there to be a gap, but I don't see why I should. I think I'm in the right here, but not 100% sure.

Yes obviously.

I should have been clearer - "pedestrian is WAITING to cross at a junction". Should the motorist give way? Even though motorist has a green filter

If the traffic light is green and a pedestrian is waiting, then cars are free to proceed.

The pedestrian shouldn't step in front of cars when they have a green light.

If they do so anyway, the car should stop.

If there is no traffic light, then the cars should stop to let the waiting pedestrians cross (when at a junction, excluding roundabouts as far as I am aware). A pedestrian just wanting to cross the road should wait for a suitable gap if not at a junction or zebra crossing.

Edit

Rule 21 makes is quite clear

"At traffic lights. There may be special signals for pedestrians. You should only start to cross the road when the green figure shows. If you have started to cross the road and the green figure goes out, you should still have time to reach the other side, but do not delay. If no pedestrian signals have been provided, watch carefully and do not cross until the traffic lights are red and the traffic has stopped. Keep looking and check for traffic that may be turning the corner. Remember that traffic lights may let traffic move in some lanes while traffic in other lanes has stopped."

Bit of a diversion but that reminds me of a time I stood in front of a car in a carpark (a woman was screaming at the time saying the driver had done something to her).  Calmly telling the driver to just wait until we sorted out was going on and police could be called, because she was clearly distressed.

He started nudging the car forward to push me out of the way.  Asked him several times to stop, but when he continued I jumped on the bonnet and brought my fist down on the windscreen hard enough to produce a nice crack.

Motons should give way to more vulnerable road users.  Anything else is just being a dick.

That's quite interesting, thanks. I had missed that Rule 21.

I can still think of junctions near me however, where as a pedestrian I wouldn't be able to see the traffic filter light (or even know there is one there at all without prior knowledge), so wouldn't know to give way to traffic that is turning. 

It needs clarification. Are cars meant to stop on high speed roads for this? Lethal potentially. Something like in 30mph zones would make more sense.

I guess they've tried to address that when they say "Keep looking and check for traffic that may be turning the corner." but they haven't offered a solution. 

If you're quick on your feet it's not a problem, but if not, you're out of luck it would seem.

I can't think of any scenario from the rules in the Highway Code where you would have to stop at high speed, unless something crosses your path when it shouldn't have done.

Turning from a 60mph road (or dual carriageway) to small side road and a pedestrian is crossing 

There shouldn't be a need to stop suddenly from a high speed in this scenario. You should always  have slowed to an appropriate speed before leaving the main carriageway. In the event that pedestrians are around, that appropriate speed will likely be much slower than if you have a clear view round the same junction and no pedestrians (or other vulnerable road users) in sight.

That is a good example. 

But were you deliberately trying to make a point?

I think a lot of these discussions get hung up on right v wrong but no matter what the rules, some people won't know or understand them, and some people are just dicks (whether you're on foot or in a car).

Surely the best advice is to be aware of the general rules so you tend not to do something unexpected most of the time, but just be aware of your surrondings (again which ever way you're moving around). Expect that drivers sometimes won't see you (the advice about eye contact is good), or won't care so be ready for things not to pan out exactly as they should in the relevant subsection of the highway code. Being right doesn't help you regain the ability to walk any quicker (if at all).

Ultimately the more vulnerable road user should have 'priority', or at least it should be the responsibility of the less vulnerable to ensure they're not harmed. I think using the word priority triggers a lot of people who think their rights are being somehow quashed in favour of someone else.

A perfect world where everyone follows the HWC to the letter and reality are different.  High speed cars and people really don't mix well and it is risky (so say the least) to change the rules to increase the danger.  The current situation where a car turning right stops on the carriageway is dangerous enough, but at least here there is a line of sight, a large "thing" to see and people already expect it.

If a pedestrian is crossing at a junction and you turn into a small side road at 60mph then you’ve likely killed them, regardless of what the Highway Code might say about who has right of way. Surely it shouldn’t make any difference whether the pedestrian is waiting to cross or already in the road; if you’re going too fast to stop for the one on the pavement then you’re going too fast to avoid killing the one already crossing.

I’ve just got back from a trip to Canada where pedestrians have right of way at junctions. Seems to work fine when everyone is used to it. 

Lights are advisory for pedestrians.

Highway code - "You should only start to cross the road when the green figure shows".

Should not must so you (pedestrian) can ignore the crossing lights if there's no other traffic. And do the same if there is other traffic, but that may be unwise.

I read MG's example may be something like this:  https://www.google.com/maps/@53.2729987,-3.3126735,3a,75y,79.74h,83.61t/dat...

You can usually legally walk along a 70mph dual carriageway. I know some of the A55 you can't, but I think you can here.

So you could as a pedestrian be waiting to cross the slip road, and I think a car would in theory be required to stop and wait. I think.

Although I would ignore the highway code in this instance, slow down to a safe speed and keep going, but be ready to stop if the pedestrian steps out. I wold argue stopping to wait here is more dangerous.

That might have been a good idea.

Also, I'm glad the outcome wasn't worse than it was but dare I suggest it was a mistake not to think of yourself as 'vulnerable' in that situation - you were about as vulnerable as you would have been in an angry confrontation with someone holding a shotgun.

As it happens I have a cautionary tale for you..

A work colleague of mine was involved in a road rage incident quite a few years ago now that wasn't a million miles away from yours. (In his case a driver had taken exception to his "jumping the queue" by filtering through traffic on a motorbike.)  It went the same way,  with the driver driving forward as if to barge him out of the way and him standing his ground and calling the drivers bluff - except that the driver then properly lost his shit, decided he was no longer bluffing and drove right into the guy.

The outcome was a badly broken leg for my colleague, and eventually a prison sentence for the driver for GBH (it turned out he had committed a couple of violent offenses before).  That was at least a decade ago now, so the driver is probably out by now, and the leg has healed well but was never quite 100% right again.

I think the moral of the story is, as they say, "you might be right, but you're still dead".

Surely the junction is at the end of the slip lane, where it meets the roundabout and where a driver would need to be ready to give way to other traffic anyway.

I could be wrong but I would regard the beginning of the slip lane as a lane of the A55, not a junction. The junction is where you meet another road. 

It is also an exceptionally unlikely scenario. Never in my life have I seen a pedestrian trying to walk along the dashed line between a slip lane and a dual carriageway as if it was a junction. 

Edit: I’m pretty sure the road markings there back me up in that they are lane dividers rather than junction markers. 

I'm not sure I follow this scenario actually. If the junction is light controlled, there should be a light for the pedestrian, which the pedestrian should wait for.

Unless it's it a case of there's a light controlled junction, and then a pedestrian crossing that's not light controlled immediately after it? In that scenario, I'd say the car should proceed through the filter but be prepared to give way to foot traffic immediately after.

If it's a junction where the vehicular traffic is light controlled, but there's no light control for pedestrians, then I'd say the problem is the junction design not the highway code.

I was deliberately knocked off my bike a couple of times in London by idiots like that - once for having the temerity to track stand in the advance cycle box, and refuse to jump the lights when the driver behind me was tooting and gesturing at me to do so.

Never ended up with a serious injury out of it though.

Yes, I'm vulnerable, but I think less so than many other road users on account of being fit, healthy and male, and therefore more able to respond in a appropriate manner (or in the case of the idiot the other day, more likely to make them change their mind about jumping out and starting a physical confrontation.

As far as I'm aware, nothing happened to the drivers I reported in London, but I would hope that the reports would still be on file if brought to police attention in future.

Yes, there's nothing to stop you crossing the road, but "should" wait indicates that you don't have RoW as you would if the junction was not light controlled.

Until recently it was understood that walking out in front of a car at high speed was a bad idea.  The law has changed so a pedestrian now has RoW.  I'm not too interested in the minutiae of right and wrong here, I'm just saying I think this has made things more risky on high speed roads.

You are.  But our main roads even at junctions are designed for speeds well above those that would allow stopping for a pedestrian who steps out.     Simply changing the rule in the HWC doesn't alter this and won't change how drivers approach such junctions, not least because in many cases slowing right down would increase the risk of being rear-ended a lot.

On main roads?  I don't know about Canada but the US's road accident statistics are terrible

Exactly what I had in mind.

Careful with this - I've nearly been run down twice on my bike after definite eye contact. I suspect people's brains automatically filter out things they deem unimportant. Might not be true with pedestrians but it really does seem so on a bike.

I agree, I'm still a bit unsure about that. I'd be more concerned about pedestrian safety than bumping other cars though, particularly driving a van.

If I'm turning right at the roundabout, and stop to let a pedestrian cross, someone in a car approaching to turn left or go straight on may not see that pedestrian until it's too late, so I tend to work on the assumption is safer not to stop.

See the cycle lane crossing the slip road in this article. I have seen this set up a couple of times in the UK, luckily always from a car, I wouldn't want to cycle over it. Its not quite crossing on the dotted line but its not far off and I doubt that many motorists would be able/ready to stop if a cyclist made use of their right of way over the slip road

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/06/most-dangerous-cycle-crossing-...

As in my reply to montyjohn I don’t think that would be regarded as a junction and therefore isn’t affected by the change in the Highway Code. To me that’s a lane of the A55 which later ends at a junction. 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3562246,-1.4774528,3a,75y,222.31h,82.65t/...

Hopefully that works. Traffic going South on A61 turning Right into Heeley retail park. There is a green filter arrow for the traffic turning right, but there isn't greenman/redman lights for a pedestrian. If a pedestrian is waiting to cross, I'm not sure if the traffic turning right should wait despite having a green filter light?

So my reflection on the HWC precedence and priorities at junction changes is the same as LTN, cycle lanes and all of the other new road infrastructure that everyone likes to complain about. The scheme is not designed to meet everyone's approval. They are there to acknowledge that some road users present danger to others. The risk is cars not junction design. A dotted line never got up and murdered a pedestrian. Cars do kill cyclists and pedestrians and the situation is never reversed. 

So, changing priorities attempts to make the motorists journey slower do that they might consider one of the numerous alternatives. 

On my bike I regular have to assert my rights. And yes there is pushback but I will never ceed my rights. To do so created confusion and gives the roads back to the cars. I have managed to stay alive on my bike for 30years. I think I'll probably manage to walk across junctions not giving way to the car successfully and safely for a few more.

While that does look like a daft design, the cycle lane doesn’t cross the entrance of a junction. I’m fairly certain that someone crossing part way along a lane does not have right of way to step out in front of traffic under either old or new rules.

I’m not sure that example adds anything to the discussion about recent changes to the Highway Code since I can’t see how it is affected by them. 

(reposted as I accidentally deleted my reply)

Debatable perhaps, however, there are plenty of examples that unequivocally are junctions with high speed cars.  I don't think it's really an issue day to day - there are few if any pedestrians at such places and they would be mad just to walk out, but it does muddy the waters and eventually someone will get hit.  Limiting the rule to 30mph zones, and perhaps making it a law would clearly shift the priority to pedestrians in areas where cars should be restricted while giving clarity on main roads.

Yeah, that's a badly designed junction. Complaint to council roads dept?

I'd say traffic should give way as pedestrians have no light control to override their priority. The lights only give the car turning right priority over other vehicular traffic on the junction.

I wondered this. This must have come up when they were considering this code change, but I suspect they opted not to limit it to 30mph areas, for example, as there are plenty 40mph areas with pedestrians.

You are then expecting pedestrians to know the road speed, and car drivers to recall when the rule applies and when it doesn't. Decisions that have to be made quickly.

Whilst it makes sense to limit the rule change to urban 30mph areas, I think in practice, the uncertainty from drivers and pedestrians could result in more incidents.

Therefore a blanket rule may be safer overall, even if it exposes these somewhat rare examples highlighted in this thread. 

I never assume a vehicle is going to stop for me, whether it has the legal obligation to do so or not.

I don't want to be a Darwin award winner and./or injured just because I think I'm in the right!!

.

I can also think of a similar example that is 4-way controlled, where a car turning should give way to a pedestrian waiting to cross, but according to the specific wording of the rule, a car going straight on wouldn't !

I think these are well meaning but badly thought through changes to the Highway Code, which puts vulnerable road users in more danger. 

Are you sure? If it's 4-way controlled then pedestrians shouldn't be crossing unless it's safe to do so. Do you have a link for the junction?

Sounds a bit like you've got a solution looking for a problem. Even if there were to be a pedestrian at such a junction, and I agree that's rare, any of the examples I can think of would be places where drivers should already be expecting to meet horses, tractors, cyclists, traffic stopped to turn right, traffic slowing to turn left for reasons other than pedestrians crossing, or any number of other reasons to slow or stop. 

If someone brakes before turning off at a junction and gets rear-ended then the driver behind clearly wasn't driving safely. Similarly, if you take a junction at high speed without being able to see that the road you are turning into is clear then you aren't driving safely.

I think I'd say *pedestrian* lights supercede it.  They certainly do in e.g. Germany where this rule applies and has for years.

It could do with being much clearer and better publicised.

Really it should be something like:

Where a pedestrian is crossing or waiting to cross a road you are turning into from another road, or where they are crossing near a give way or stop sign or marking that applies to you, you must stop and allow them to cross unless to do so would be likely to cause an accident*.

This does not apply where there is a formal pedestrian crossing, e.g. a zebra, Pelican or Toucan crossing, allowing the same crossing to be made, within 10 metres of the junction, however in all cases if a pedestrian is already crossing the road when you reach them you must still give way to them as they may not have seen you.

* Examples of where an accident may be caused is if another vehicle is driving dangerously close behind you, or where stopping would cause you to become stationary partly or fully obstructing a road with a speed limit of 50mph or higher.

I think you can cite examples of junctions where the pedestrian priority might not be the best thing but in general I think it works very well

I do take care still as a pedestrian but it is refreshing to have cars pause to allow me to cross side roads, it does make the whole walking thing more pleasant.

It also seems that drivers have picked up on it quickly. Not all obviously but by far the majority round here at least. in a way it is just extending the courtesy that some drivers might have shown in the past. 

Here's another question.

Since the highway code is constantly evolving, should the theory test be retaken every 10 years to ensure you are up to date?

Guaranteed to be very politically unpopular, so I can't see it happening, but there is a strong argument for it. They could make the cost negligible (or free), and give you 3 months to retake if you fail so nobody should be caught provided you are capable of learning the rules.

If you work on site, you typically need a CSCS card as a minimum, and the test is very similar to a theory driving test. You need to redo the CSCS test every 5 years to make sure you are up to date and haven't forgotten the material.

Thunder, thunder, thundercats 😁

I'm amazed nobody has brought this up yet. Regardless of the intent of the revised legislation and HWC, and regardless of what the correct (and/or nice) thing to do is, this clearly states "should", not "must".

It's no wonder that loads of drivers still don't give way.

If we really want to make a significant difference with this, then this needs to be changed to "must", i.e. legislation to make not giving way an offence.

An online, open book theory test to be repeated every 5 years (say) would be a very good idea and very easy to implement.  For those who don't do computers they could pay to visit an in person test centre or use one at a public library.

Open book is fine - the point is to ensure the person has actually read the changes.  I work with ServiceNow and their certification delta exams are open book and very much designed to just ensure you have basic background knowledge and bother to read the release notes, even if you only do it with the exam in another browser tab.

Though if "must" it needs to be better defined, e.g. having people stopping with their tail sticking out onto a 70mph dual carriageway or when some idiot was driving practically in their boot would cause more accidents than allowing it would prevent.  It'd need to include advice to pedestrians on sensible places to cross, e.g. 10m in from the junction to allow cars to stop safely.

I actually did a little higher🙂. And I agree. Pedestrians need to know too. Several times I've stopped when driving to let people cross and been given a "what are you doing, you moron" look from pedestrians.

I think the following is true.

Pedestrian who has started crossing has priority according to highway code. It's absolute as it doesn't it say priority conditional on pedestrian having green light, see below.

" people have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, the people crossing have priority and the traffic should give way. people driving, riding a motorcycle or cycling must give way to people on a zebra crossing and people walking and cycling on a parallel crossing."

The must is absolute, the should less so for the same situation.

I use ServiceNow through work. I think open book would make sense. I think you would need some extra security to ensure somebody isn't doing it for you. Webcam face recognition or similar. 

I don't know who writes the ServiceNow courses at work, whether it's ServiceNow or Work, but they are a bit long winded so I find myself just clicking next, and answering the questions using common sense / guessing. Which undermines the point of them.

So the course would need to be snappy and to the point to reach out to the masses.

I get  beeped at quite often, I turn off a busy road in to my estate every night and I would say 50% of the time there is someone (or multiple people) standing on the corner waiting to cross, I stop to let them cross as per the rules and often get irate drivers blaring their horns at me.

On the subject of exercising the right of way, I remember an episode of the Britas Empire where Gordon Britas strode confidently in to traffic at a zebra crossing and as the ambulance pulled away from the scene he could be heard saying "I had the right of way" 

Don't insist on your rights, they may be your last.

If you are a bike or pedestrian in the UK you either learn to avoid motor vehicles, irrespective of who theoretically has the right of way, or you end up under the ground.

I would guess unless they are a kid there is a good chance they arent just a pedestrian but also someone who would be in a car later on.

Did see one good example of an idiot pedestrian when out for a stroll at lunchtime. They decided that standing next to the pole on the zebra crossing was a good place to chill out and have a chat on the phone. Was a couple of hundred metres away when first saw them and there was a bunch of cars slowing down trying to figure out whether the muppet was wanting to cross.

High speed and junction seems like a Oxymoron to me. 

The ones that are will have good sight lines (Otherwise you wouldn't be traveling at 40-60) - and therefore easy to spot pedestrians and anticipate their crossing. They usually don't travel fast so shouldn't be difficult to taper your speed so you don't even have to stop! 

You might have priority on the road you are already on, but I don't think you have ever also had priority on a second road too. Hence give way to road users already there when changing lane or entering side roads.

It's spreading slowly west. Was almost run over by a motorbike on a zebra crossing in Penzance this week. He obviously didn't realise he had to stop.  Word will get around about those new darn stripey things, eventually. 

The most sensible reply so far.

For example, I would never dream of cycling down the nearside of an artic or other large vehicle at a junction,  you're just asking for trouble.

Yes the motorist should give way. Not because of the law but because they might kill the pedestrian. 

In reality, both would probably pause and come to a mutual decision as to what is the best solution to suit both parties.

I think you are rather missing point of the rules of the road!

This is often achieved deliberately. Plenty of urban centers now have deliberately confusing road surface patterns where it's not clear if pedestrians are given crossing priority or not.

The result is extra caution from all road users as sure nobody wants to be involved in an accident especially if it might be their fault.

When traffic lights fail, the junction often operates serenely - nobody claims priority because nobody knows what's happening.

Interesting that you mention running in the OP.

I started running (well jogging) in February and as I live in the country with no pavements I run on the RHS facing oncoming traffic. 

The Highway Code isn't explicit but I assumed I would have priority. Not so. I've lost count of the number of times that either cars or horse riders stop in front of me and expect me to run in the middle of the road to go round them, which feels quite dangerous.

What is that all about? Should I be running on the left? Am I supposed to stop and press myself into a hedge to let them pass? 

I’ve always understood that you should run on the right as you can then see oncoming traffic and respond if needed. It certainly feels less vulnerable. 

I’ve never had a driver behave in that way when meeting me. Sounds like really bizarre behaviour. In my experience people just pull out as if they were overtaking and go about their day. If you were running on the left they would have to make an identical manoeuvre anyway, without being certain that you knew they were there. 

I’ve also always been advised to avoid pressing myself into hedges as it encourages dangerous passing. 

The only time I’ve known cars to stop in front of me is if there was traffic coming the other way which means there isn’t space to pull out yet. In these situations I just pause and let everyone pass, although on narrow lanes I usually try to predict when this might happen and step into a driveway or something preemptively if possible - it keeps the traffic moving and generally means that I’m stationary for less time as well. 

A couple of times I have had a car or truck pull in tight to the verge and stop because he couldn't safely overtake; if there was enough space between me and the car behind me I have indeed moved into the middle of the road to pass the 'parked' vehicle, and the moving one has had to wait. No complaints yet, but they do need to be on the ball and have time to take everything in...

Do cyclists also have to give way to pedestrians?

Probably - gliders have to give way to balloons...

Yes

Had me confused for a moment there - misread it as 'baboons'.

As Stuart Williams said, their behaviour is very odd, and you are completely correct in running on the RHS. This is from running for more years that I care to remember, and is still the official prescribed procedure for runners.

That brings up the interesting question, why do so  many run and race directors instruct slower runners to keep left?

Road racing generally insists on running on the left, with exceptions at junctions/bends perhaps, where marshals will direct accordingly. This way traffic can still move, albeit slowly, when it finds itself in a pack of runners and thus avoids the problem of oncoming traffic stopping and obstructing the race.  Solo runners and small groups should still run facing the traffic where practical.

When a road race is organised, there are a large number of persons. In this case it is safer for runners to go in the same direction as traffic. You also have marshals and signposts out, which both warn vehicular traffic of the situation and ensure that all runners stay on the same side. Road races also take place on the road, rather than the pavement, in order not to inconvenience pedestrians - it also means less likelihood of tripping on dodgy paving. Police and Councils have to be informed as well, with permission acquired.

In the same vein, road races organisers (at least should) ensure that left hand turns are the order of the day, rather than right hand ones in order to both maintain a safe course and reduce inconvenience to other road users.

Solo (or small groups of) runners take a myriad of routes, simply because there are so many different people with different distances to run and different homes to start from and return to. In that case the Highway Code rule of travelling in the opposite direction and on the opposite side of the road applies.

I guess that makes sense in road races.

 But having never run a road race it still seems a little incongruous when you hear it at an off road race or run

Anyone living in the UK is used to the idea of overtaking on the right hand side. It’s just the obvious choice to carry that over into other contexts. Why cause unnecessary confusion by arbitrarily changing rules people have been familiar with their whole life?

It sounds like you probably are in the right, but that sounds like a junction where a roundabout is not particularly suitable........and also remember its all very well being "in the right", but i' rather not be "in the right" simultaneous with being "in a hospital bed".....

We're also all used to the idea of travelling on the right as a pedestrian.

Why cause unnecessary confusion by arbitrarily changing rules that people have been familiar with their whole life

I’ve never knowingly come across a rule in the UK that pedestrians should overtake on the right so I’m not sure what you mean. 

If you are running or walking along a road on the right to face oncoming motorised  traffic which side do you overtake other pedestrians on?

Fair enough, not sure that’s sufficient to cause any confusion if you asked people “what side do you usually overtake on in the UK” but maybe it is. 

At the end of the day they only have two sides to choose from and organisers might as well be consistent. The reasoning doesn’t have to logically impenetrable; it’s a race convention, not a mathematical proof. If off road races always asked you to overtake on the left you’d just be asking the same questions about that. 

On the left, of course. You expose yourself to the risk, and give sufficient space not to startle.

My point was that if you have always overtaken on the left when on foot then the race convention comes as a surprise when you first encounter it.

I'm not sure why you would expect anyone who finds it unusual to keep left as a pedestrian to ask a question about something that they have always perceived as normal behaviour.

That is exactly what I would do, which is why the "race convention" seemed surprising when I encountered it later in life.

you overtake pedestrians as a pedestrian on the outside.  So it IS the same rule all the time whether facing the traffic or having it come from behind you.

As I was taught the rule about facing the oncoming traffic it was never an absoulute it was "providing you are not going round a dangerous sharp blind bend in which case at some point we were advised to cross to the left.  This never caused me any confusion as a child, young person or adult as it fitted with common sense and physics

as someone who has spent much of life living in rural areas it is a practice that keeps me safe, as well as knowing when to get off the road!

Why is it referred to as "on the outside"?

Outside of what? If you overtake somebody by moving into the middle of the road, would that not be moving into the inside of the road?

I've never got this one.

Thats just a simple misunderstaning of what you are referring to with inside and outside. Convention is that it is with reference to what / who you are passing, and the relationship of your course to their position relative to the edge of the carriageway / pathway. So if you are running along a pavement and i squeeze between you and a wall, that passing on the inside. If you are in lane 1 on a road and pass in lane 2 (or 3, it always pays to give Rangies a wider berth ....    ), thats outside.

The outside of the safest zone.  Overtaking on the road is like lead climbing - it involves exposure to greater risk

Round my way, I'd give your chances 90/10 (to you) at a Pelican crossing when lights are in your favour, 50/50 at a Zebra (no lights) crossing and about 05/95 just crossing a road Making eye to eye contact with the approaching driver at a Zebra seems to have no benefit.

I nearly got run over on a jog recently when an approaching driver to my right made eye contact and started to slow, at which point I looked left and saw the other side stop, I took a step into the road and jumped back out of it again as the first/right driver had put his foot on it while I glanced left for the stopping car left.

As someone who has lived in rural areas all of my life the common sense safety bit has never caused me any confusion either.

Pedestrians keep right unless circumstances dictate otherwise is my natural instinct.

What still causes a little confusion is the keep left/pass on the right convention in trail running which it appears to be carried over from road racing.

It all gets even more variable if you start running trail races in countries where they drive on the right

I suppose I have the advantage that I'm not athletic enough to have encountered this problem, though I do enjoy running down mountains from time to time

There are downhill mountain races, fortunately the steeper the descent the less obsessive the competitions appear to be about which side you pass on