The updated Highway Code, which comes into effect today, has the potential to usher in a “mindset shift” which will make the roads safer for everyone, according to Cycling UK – but only if the government commits to a long-term, well-funded public awareness campaign, the charity says.
On Wednesday the Department for Transport (DfT) announced the launch of a £500,000 communications drive to raise awareness of the new changes and to ensure that “road-users across the country understand their responsibilities”.
The announcement followed weeks of criticism from both cycling and motoring organisations of what many view as the government’s failure to effectively communicate the Highway Code revisions to the public, which has led to a spate of misleading reports in the mainstream press.
> Public must be told about Highway Code changes, says Cycling UK
The publicity campaign, operated by the government’s long-standing road safety campaign Think!, will be broadcast across radio and social media, and will run in two phases beginning in mid-February and concluding in the summer.
In a statement issued yesterday, Cycling UK welcomed this initial campaign but called on the government to “look beyond the summer and commit to a long-term awareness campaign”.
“The latest changes to the Highway Code are a hugely important start towards a mindset shift that will make the roads safer for everyone – not just for people who choose to cycle or walk,” Cycling UK’s head of campaigns Duncan Dollimore said.
“The changes in our driving behaviour, however, will only happen if the government commits to communicating them with simple, accurate, and memorable messaging in the long term.
“We’ve seen the public’s attitude shift on seat belt use and drink driving. This shows entrenched driving behaviour can change. The new Highway Code requires a similar shift, and it can happen again but not overnight.
“To make our roads safer for everyone, the government must be looking in terms of years not months to communicate and eventually enforce these changes.”
Alongside the DfT’s upcoming publicity campaign, Cycling UK has also created a free online toolkit, featuring ‘myth-busting’ graphics, videos, and cartoons, to ensure that the changes are accurately communicated and to prevent confusion among road users.
40 thoughts on “Highway Code changes: Cycling UK calls for long-term public awareness campaign to help produce a “mindset shift” on British roads”
quite frankly with the way
quite frankly with the way the media have been covering the HC updates, Im not sure the government needs to bother with much of a publicity campaign, its more like a correction campaign
heres todays Daily Mail offering entitled “Cyclists take to the middle of the road for the first time and drivers are POWERLESS to stop them…” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10454809/Cyclists-middle-road-drivers-POWERLESS-stop-new-Highway-Code.html
and its worth remembering the seatbelt & drink drive campaigns took the best part of 20 years of quite hard hitting adverts (that would almost certainly not be allowed on TVs thesedays for being too graphic as they used to show people actually being crushed by cars or flying through windscreens) to have an effect.
They can’t even get that
They can’t even get that right : ‘middle of the road’
“A cyclist in Richmond takes to the streets after the new measures were introduced to boost protection for cyclists and pedestrians”
Yeah, they turned up in Kingston and got the bike and all that kit today just so they could annoy motorists.
yes and its quite obviously,
yes and its quite obviously, even if you didnt notice the bylines, written by two people, as the top half is the ranty cyclists in middle of road stuff angle, but the bottom part is a pretty decent explanation of the updates, but I doubt most of their readers get that far.
and we all know theyll be waiting for the first crash they can spin as being caused by a misunderstanding of the rules.
You’re right, they will be
You’re right, they will be waiting for the inevitable increase in collisions and declare this whole thing a disaster which was dreamt up by woke eco warriors to antagonise motorists. All so predictable though, isn’t it?
If you can see it, and I can see it, why can the people who made these changes and Cycling UK not see it?
The sad inevitability of road
The sad inevitability of road safety in the UK is people are killed daily on the roads regardless of updates to the HC,hence doing nothing isnt an acceptable choice imo, but these updates do not i believe increase the risk to any road users and should make it safer for the most vulnerable going forward.
I’m at a loss as to why organisations like the AA claim it will result in an increase in rear collisions,whilst not making the point to remind people to leave enough braking & stopping distance at the same time, the two are inexorably linked.
It reminds me of a close pass when I was signalling right to turn into a side road using a painted turning lane, and the car behind me who was going straight on overtook me. I admonished him in my best Anglo Saxon as he passed me and veered back left across me and he took both his hands off the wheel and shrugged as if to say sorry but what else could I do, so i suggested back i could stick that centre pedal in his car somewhere he wouldnt forget about it in a hurry, but in much shorter 1 syllable words.
My point ultimately here was not there will be crashes as a result of these HC updates, theyll happen inevitably unfortunately, but that some hack will try and spin the next incident they spot as a direct consequence of these updates, when it really wont be the case at all.
Any one would think that rule
Any one would think that rule 126 is brand new
Stopping distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.
You should
leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance
Discussed this at dinner and
Discussed this at dinner and one thing that came up is zebra crossings.
At the moment drivers do stop if someone is loitering. Also many are completely unaware of the rule that where there is a refuge, then it is 2 crossings. Many a time I have had to stop because the driver in front has halted because someone is loitering on the far side.
When driver behaviour is voluntary, there are few collisions, but when it is mandated, there will be 10000s !
The piece in the second half
The piece in the second half was actually the lead this morning (10am) I was pretty impressed by it. The comments were typical DM readership though. When I came back to it this afternoon it had a new lead which totally dismayed me as the DM had reverted to type.
Then there was the bloke who
Then there was the bloke who was stuck behind some cyclists for 8 miles! Seriously. If you can’t pass a bunch within a mile you really do need some refresher lessons. I’ve never been stuck behind a cyclist for more than half a mile and I sure haven’t delayed a motorist for anything much further than that.
To which you must yet add
To which you must yet add something more substantial through profound changes in our transport systems, driving back individual motorized traffic and making active travel the norm.
Essentially nothing had
Essentially nothing has changed in the highway code, all it has done is include misguided, divisive, inflammatory rhetoric which some newspapers are now taking advantage of, to my deep regret.
Given nothing has really changed, what exactly are cycling UK looking at to “enforce the revisions”? What revisions?
This is disastrous and will cause more accidents and deaths, not less.
I still find it very odd that
I still find it very odd that in all of the msm discussion regarding the changes to the highway code over the last week there’s an Elephant in the room that is not being discussed, climate change.
It is obvious that to meet the climate change targets we need to reduce our reliance in the internal combustion engine. It’s in Gear Change it’s in the COP26 agreement. From what we know about the way the current populist neo-lib administration works they are very keen on nudge tactics rather than straight forward, unambiguous communication.
The change to Highway Code seem like a classic nudge designed to make Active Travel more attractive. If that means making driving less attractive so be it.
However, even when LBC get Shapps in they don’t ask the obvious question “are you trying to make life difficult for drivers because you want to reduce the number of short journeys taken by cars as part of your commitment to net zero?”. Why? Because it’s already unacceptable to be a climate change denier but being actively pro-environment is a different matter. So rather than being anti the pro-environment agenda they choose to ignore it when issues like this come up. Worse than that they actively engage in all sorts of whataboutery, cry hypocrisy at anybody that tries to reduce their carbon footprint and label activists as deranged woke hippies.
Let’s be honest you can understand why. They rely on advertising income which only counts consumers. If they starting to suggest that we should reduce consumption and not buy shit product that nobody needs, then some might realise that the Daily Heil is on top of that list.
there’s an Elephant in the
there’s an Elephant in the room that is not being discussed, climate change
There is no possibility that Standard Audi/BMW/Range Rover driver will ever consider voluntarily not driving before the sea level comes up to his axles
wtjs wrote:
No; they’ll move to higher ground.
More likely they’ll just try
More likely they’ll just try to drive through it at speed, and then attempt to blame the sea when they get stuck.
Enjoy the first 30 seconds of
Enjoy the first 30 seconds of this video featuring your favourite brand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSpORWsO4Os
Almost as heartwarming as the
Almost as heartwarming as the grin on Zoe Backstedt’s face this afternoon, Thanks for sharing.
Dear God – what a bunch of
Dear God – what a bunch of stupid ckuffers, eh? What happened to Darwinian selection?
You’d think the crowd that
You’d think the crowd that comes out would be a clue !
There was one where a mini had been abandoned just off the edge of water but another driver tried anyway and ended up broken down by the mini. What goes through any of their minds is beyond me.
The series in well into the 50s of episodes too !
IanMK wrote:
— IanMKThat would be the same COP26 where the Transport day was entirely about electric cars, and public transport, cycling and walking were excluded, with the agenda set by the UK government? That one?
Our government is fully, totally, utterly committed to greenwash, and the msm simply ignore it, with the BBC having pretty much two blind eyes on the subject.
Given the notion of “major
Given the notion of “major change to transport within a few years” is for most people about as welcome as being asked to start managing their own excrement we should understand reluctance at all levels. People immediately see externally imposed changes as negative. They’ve built their lives around the current system. Unfair, ill-thought-out, not achieving the goal, unnecessarily restrictive etc.
Conversely once you’ve committed to a change it’s difficult to understand how others can’t see all the benefits – and the new possibilities.
Most governments are conservative with a small “c” *. What do we want? Gradual change! etc. Maybe that’s an issue with money (Big Bung theory)?
I’m not sure how to bridge the gap. It does seem framing in terms of positives helps. So “how do we want our streets to be”? Wouldn’t it be great if our children could cycle to school, our older relatives could get about without having to fire up the car, we had more local facilities rather than jumping in the motor to reach ones 10 miles away or more?
That doesn’t necessarily give changes an urgency that you get from “marketing through fear” though.
I’m not happy we’ve gone for “replace cars with electric cars”. Sure, harm minimization. It seems an “out of sight, out of mind” decision, by just moving from polluting here to polluting elsewhere. Though particulates from roads, tyres and brakes stay local and this doesn’t necessarily address congestion, road crashes etc. (I’m dubious of “smart taxi” ideas). Possibly “climate crisis” is too abstract to really engage people and politicians? Are the effects too far away in time / space? (We’re alright, Jack – and in the UK may mostly remain so – see “Turned out nice” for a detailed evaluation.) Do the actions we can take appear irrelevant (“why should we wear hair shirts when China / India …”)?
* Unless the new thing promises to give them huge chunks of cash to play with, or it’s “mah identity” because war, some ideological point etc.
One of the weird things about
One of the weird things about ‘the changes will cause crashes’ hysteria is that the numpties making the argument that the changes are dangerous are pretty much all saying the changes are dangerous because motorists are too angry behind the wheel. On the face of it, that make sense… a crash pretty much can’t happen in these circumstances without someone driving like a dick.
However, these geniuses also can’t seem to make the following connections:
-For the crash to happen, the motorist can’t be following the highway code. So it doesn’t matter what’s in the highway code or indeed what changes, the motorist wasn’t intending on following it anyway.
-The problem they describe is emotional lightweights with anger management issues being behind the wheel of a car.
Anyway, I have a brand new proposal that I’m sure everyone can get behind, and it is scrupulously fair:
If you cycle like a dick, drive like a dick or park like a dick then your chosen vehicle of dick-waddery is crushed.
The roads will be clear in no time meaning there will be far more scope for active travel schemes.
Thank you for coming to my ted talk
I think part of what you say
I think part of what you say is correct – some drivers will act more angrily behind the wheel. But there is a second cause of crashes, which is cyclists being empowered to ride more arrogantly and unsafely on the road, with a misplaced extra sense of entitlement due to these changes.
On your idea that if you cycle or drive like a dick, your vehicle should be crushed, I think it has merit but I personally think said vehicle should be sold at auction (revenue generating and causes less environmental damage).
‘which is cyclists being
…’which is cyclists being empowered to ride more arrogantly and unsafely on the road and drivers, with a misplaced extra sense of entitlement, running into them with intent to harm and punish due to these changes.’
I don’t know what ‘FTFY’ stands for…but I can think of a couple of phrases that will fit the acronym.
Down, down, down with
Down, down, down with demented dick-waddery, I say.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
I saw them once. They were opening for Showaddywaddy. Everyone just wanted the main event. Plus the sound engineer was doing a rubbish job. The audience were shouting exactly this.
Newspapers are taking great
Newspapers are taking great joy in stirring hatred……. take this joyous example from the Sun….. headline
“ROAD RAGE Cyclists seen in the middle of the road under new Highway Code rules as drivers brand laws a ‘nightmare’”
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/motors/8353369/cyclists-middle-road-new-highway-code-rules/
To an extent they are correct
To an extent they are correct… the only problem is road rage.
What it fails to mention is that it isn’t possible for a crash to be caused by a cyclist following the updated code… unless someone else isn’t following the highway code. And death and serious injuries will be caused when the person not following the code is a motorist who shouldn’t be behind the wheel.
Local newspaper FacePlant
Local newspaper FacePlant page is awash with outraged morons. Fighting them off with a shitty stick but the level of malign ignorance is simply astonishing.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158797449053031&id=61340303030
Our village fb page has lots
Our village fb page has lots of locals being outraged by the idea that cyclists might gain more rights on the road than “road tax paying motorists”. Weirdly, they don’t have any problem with enhancing rights for equestrians.
And I don’t want to wind them up further by pointing out that cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians have always had more rights on the general road network (excepting motorways, obviously).
Dare you !
Dare you !
Hello Kiddiwinks, it Uncle
Hello Kiddiwinks, it Uncle Doom and Gloom here with another update.
So, we have had a whole load of click bait published. My favorite so far is Gloucester Live (on FB) with the headline “Drivers face £200 fine for skipping songs”. This is of course relating to the ‘innocent’ use of handheld devices to play music, Lithuanian TV or Pornography. The article also goes on to inform us about the other changes to the HC that include, that it is NOW illegal to throw a cigeretette out of the window, that you mustn’t cross the solid white line at traffic lights = £100 fine, and having a dirty number plate. Cue comments about fining innocent motorists.
The DM actually had published an accurate article on the changes including debunking some of the myths…but the comments soon made up for that.
Anyway, continuing from my comment on the Grant Shapps annoucement about the “New” Death by Dangerous Cycling bill, (where I warn that this bill will be the price of the HC revisions) there was a Lords debate where we learnt a few things.
You can read the full text of the debate on Hansard, but here is what we learnt.
First of the debate was a move to regret by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, the former Green party MP Jenny Jones.
The move to regret for the HC was the only way to raise the debate and was withdrawn at the end of that debate.
It reads
That this House regrets the draft Revision of the Highway Code because, despite making important changes to protect road users from harm, Her Majesty’s Government has failed sufficiently to educate the public on the changes.
Right onto the meat and potatoes of the story.
After the introduction by Jenny our favorite person Barroness McIntosh (what about the cyclist that jump red lights) of Pickering enters the debate. In her speech we learn that she is dead keen to get the Dangerous Cycling Bill through (no surprises there) and that she has submitted a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, to include the offences of causing death by dangerous cycling, causing serious injury by dangerous cycling and causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling.
(Actually I think in principle that amending the RTA1988 is a better method that introducing a new law, but I have not seen her wording. See my comment and explanation under Shapps)
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Conservative, related her unhappy expeirence of being run down by a “bicyclist” were the police took no action and that serious thought ought to be given to bike owners being registered and therefore identifiable.
Also a reference to e-scooters to be banned from the highway. responded to by Baroness Randerson Liberal Democrat Lords Spokesperson (Transport) that she was surprised that e-scooters are not mentioned at all in the code. The reason for this was explained later (See Hansard).
Then came the interesting bit about why it seemed that the government has not run an awareness campaign.
Lord Atlee said that he tried to obtain a copy of the new HC, but found that it was not available either in print or on-line.
Now this and the awarness campaign not being started until now is because of two things.
The first is parlimentary proceedure. “for any changes there is a parliamentary process which needs to be gone through. At any time, they could be prayed against, in which case those changes would not happen. I could also imagine, had I started communicating this 40 days ago, noble Lords being very cross with me for communicating something Parliament had not yet agreed.” Baroness Vere of Norbiton Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
Okay, makes sense and the government could have overidden the 40day period. The question I have is why they didn’t. Was someone going to raise a pray?
The second reason why you can’t buy a hard copy until at least April….you’ll love this…
is because there is an acute paper shortage and because the price is too low for the booksellers to stock it.
Play safe.
New article in the Mail today
New article in the Mail today about the changes. In all fairness much more balanced than yesterday – they’ve enlisted the help of the top lawyer dealing with traffic offences for clarity. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10456065/Cyclists-accuse-drivers-ignorant-new-rules-tell-bikers-ride-middle-lanes.html
It covers an interview called “talking pints” with Nigel Farage, where road safety expert Nick Freeman gives his verdict on the new legislation.
So you want us all to click a
So you want us all to click a link that:
1. gives ad revenue to what is surely the shittiest, nastiest media outlet in the UK;
2. features the odious frogfraced racist Brexiteering profiteering c**t and Mr Poophole.
Neither of those characters is likely have anything genuinely helpful to say about anything, they just want to raise their own profiles for money.
Suggesting that anything published by the Mail is “fair” and “balanced” is tantamount to a lie. These things might happen occasionally but they are drowned out and forgotten because of the tidal wave of nauseating vomit produced by that rag.
Road.cc should do what Singletrack did many years ago and ban any hyperlinks to the Mail’s clickbait ‘n’ hate website.
[quote=Simon E
[quote=Simon E
Road.cc should do what Singletrack did many years ago and ban any hyperlinks to the Mail’s clickbait ‘n’ hate website.
[/quote]
Wholeheartedly agree, and ban anyone from the forum who tries to spread their $hite.
https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/wikipedia-daily-mail-generally-unreliable.html
Wholeheartedly agree, and ban
Wholeheartedly agree, and ban anyone from the forum who tries to spread their $hite
I think the site has the banning policy about right already. They eliminated a standard Anti-Vax Nutter invasion a few months ago, and the persistence of the usual nutter is attributable to people responding to him instead of just ignoring anything connected to him. That’s what I do, although (because it’s my specialist subject) I did enjoy his creation of an imaginary traffic light phase: established red.
As much as you dislike the
As much as you dislike the Mail (and I can see why, it must be irksome having the best selling, award winning daily newspaper producing scoop after scoop when you’d rather have state controlled media), they are relevant as a litmus test for middle England, in the same way the Guardian is relevant to guage the opinion of middle class public sector workers.
For example, they’ve just produced a story on how driving groups intend to overturn this divisive legislation – see https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10457437/Drivers-begin-fightback-battle-Highway-Code-Furious-motoring-groups-meet-WEEK.html for more.
The Heil, the lavatory paper
The Heil, the lavatory paper beloved of Nigels everywhere, is right on the changes today. Too much putrid filth to bother repeating, but this picture, or rather its caption, did amuse me – I hope these roadhogs feel ashamed of themselves, riding two abreast when there’s…a long open clear road for overtaking right by their side…
Surely Richmond, Yorkshire?
Surely Richmond, Yorkshire?
hirsute wrote:
Good spot, I was wracking my brain to think where in Richmond, London, that was, an area I’ve cycled round for forty-odd years! Definitely not London Transport bus stops. Seems their accuracy and editing is every bit as shite as their agenda!