- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Highway Code.PNGGovernment slammed for not informing public of Highway Code changes aimed at protecting cyclists and pedestrians just days before they come into effect
The government has been strongly criticised for its lack of communication to the public of key changes taking place to the Highway Code aimed at protecting vulnerable road users, with a senior Labour politician saying that they will be “totally meaningless” if people are not aware of them.
Meanwhile, a poll of more than 13,700 of its members by the AA earlier this month found that one in three (33 per cent) did not known that the Highway Code is being changed, and 4 per cent said they had “no intention” of refreshing their knowledge of the guidance, reports Sky News.
Subject to Parliamentary approval, the new rules include:
- Establishing a new Hierarchy of Road Users, meaning that those posing the greatest risk to others have a greater degree of responsibility – ie motorists to people on bike or foot, or cyclists to pedestrians.
- The introduction of a minimum 1.5-metre passing distance for motorists overtaking cyclists.
- Recommending the ‘Dutch Reach’ to drivers and other occupants of motor vehicles to avoid cyclists being ‘doored’.
- Simplification of rules regarding non-signalised junctions aimed at preventing crashes where drivers ‘left-hook’ cyclists.
- Clarification that cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast – and that it is often safer for them to do so.
But Jack Cousens, AA head of roads policy, said: “With a week to go, too many drivers are unaware of the new rules of the road.
“While the government formally announced these changes last summer, they have been far too silent in promoting them.
“Shockingly, one in 25 drivers say they have no intention of looking at the new rules.
“These changes affect everyone, so we encourage people to read the updated code now so we can make our roads safer.”
Labour MP Louise Haigh, the Shadow Transport Secretary, said that the changes to the Highway Code would be “totally meaningless” if people were not made aware of them.
“Incredibly, ministers haven’t even begun telling the public about these major changes,” she said.
“A comprehensive national safety campaign is needed to keep cyclists safe on our roads, but ministers are missing in action.”
Last month, Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at Cycling UK, urged the government to run a publicity campaign to make the public aware of the impending changes.
> Public must be told about Highway Code changes, says Cycling UK
He said: “Cycling UK is concerned the forthcoming improvements to road safety outlined in the latest revision of the Highway Code, which will benefit everyone, are not being communicated through official channels.
“In a month’s time, our Highway Code should change for the better, but these changes will be of limited benefit if the public aren’t aware of them.”
However, a DfT spokesperson said: “The proposed upcoming changes to the Highway Code will improve safety for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders and were announced to national press.
“The department has established a working group of key organisations to ensure that messages about the changes are as widespread as possible and our well-established Think! campaign will continue to ensure all road users are aware both when these changes come into effect and beyond.”
> Highway Code changes: ‘What about cyclists, or do the rules not apply to them?’
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Patrick9-32 5 min 23 sec ago
Ask the reasonable ones, tell the unreasonable ones through peoper enforcement.
- brooksby 12 min 35 sec ago
I wonder how they are objectively defining "causing public offence"? Seems to me likely that their Enforcement Officers will simply tell all...
- ubercurmudgeon 12 min 42 sec ago
It is very easy to make an e-bike look like an aero-bike if you only post side-on views. Take a photo from anything other than precisely 90 degrees...
- OnYerBike 13 min 35 sec ago
No - as per the article, the setting allow you to receive messages from 'Following,' 'Mutuals' or 'No One' - i.e. at the very least, you have to...
- Rendel Harris 23 min 13 sec ago
Quite, sounds like not very much but a 25% improvement is pretty massive: if the world marathon record had undergone a similar change since 1968...
- bigwheeler88 30 min 16 sec ago
If only the pig policeman had been close passed while on the bike. Then maybe they'd finally understand and appreciate what we go through every day.
- Paul J 30 min 19 sec ago
Holy crap at that shirt! My eyeballs are bleeding AND I'm going to have nightmares!
- bigwheeler88 31 min 58 sec ago
Utter moron. Cyclists have the right to be in the middle of the lane, as they should be. Other road users (we're talking cars here) have the duty...
- chrisonatrike 53 min 35 sec ago
25mph cruise speed? Sounds like Nigel's celebrated courtesy and politeness finally reached breaking point...
- Jigzy99 1 hour 7 min ago
Have you tried the local press? They love a good 'police not doing their job' story. May just kick them into action.
Add new comment
53 comments
There is an error in the 'news item' about the changes, although not in the amended rules themselves:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-highway-code-8-changes-you-need-to-know-from-29-january-2022?utm_source=dvsa&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dvsa-direct&utm_content=rules-have-changed
leaving at least 1.5 metres (5 feet) when overtaking people cycling at speeds of up to 30mph, and giving them more space when overtaking at higher speeds
Our local BBC news last night got it even more wrong:
"Drivers will be required to give cyclists at least 1.5m when passing at more than 30mph."
Lots of the right words, but in all the wrong places.
This was the hyper-junk Mail report on the DfT mistake:
When overtaking cyclists riding at speeds up to 30mph, a driver should leave at least 1.5 metres (5 feet) of space, and even more if the motorist is passing at higher speeds
Presumably, you can't get a job on the Mail if you're any good as a journalist so it's cut-and-paste, cut-and-paste...
Of course no-one round here would have any familiarity with such practices.
Let's be honest here, how often do most people refresh themselves on the current Highway Code? I expect a lot of cyclists do check the HC from time to time but I doubt many drivers do.
New highway code rules require drivers to give priority to cyclists
NEW rules to protect 'vulnerable road users' have been welcomed by campaigners at an independent travel group [who get a few words in at the end].
The major changes to the Highway Code, aimed at protecting cyclists and pedestrians come into force this week.
its been up 2 hours and already has 12 comments...dare I look?
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/19868747.new-highway-code-rules-r...
Actually there's some lively debate going on, definitely not all 1 way (which cyclists never obey anyway).
My favourite so far is that this victory for leftie communist cyclists would not have been possible without Brexit. [actual quote: "Only possible since leaving the EU"]
Does that mean we can seize the means of production now?
I didn't think we had any left?
Well, can we start seizing the means of assembling overseas manufactured parts?
That only makes it easier
Sure, I'm at work today and tomorrow, but should be able to slope off Wednesday for an afternoon of seizing
Perfect.
Oppressed woodland creatures of the world - RISE UP!
Some of us just want to seize the means of having a nice ride without mixing with heavy traffic. I understand that's Marxist now - but do I need to carry a red banner with me or have someone holding the red flag proceeding before me?
Or does it mean that when the People's traffic lights are deepest red we should proceed under them?
A True Marxist would be travelling in a prolechariot
Having read a few echo articles courtesy of the car hits building thread, I believe the poster is the resident joker and comments should be taken with a pinch of salt.
If so, well said that person!
Cyclists should be registered. The money from this will fund the NHS.
A number of drivers are also reading the highway code and think existing rules are new ones.
Everyone will be in electric cars and no one will need to cycle.
Nah. Brexit covered that.
Possibly Nige. You know what else is a possibility? That you and socraticcyclist are one and the same. And that you're both the invention of a Road.cc journalist designed to drive up clicks at Road.cc
I think we took the red pill some months back...
That's what They want you to think....
1 in 25 drivers have no intention of refreshing their knowledge of the Highway Code.
There needs to be a transition period, so say ... 12 weeks after the rule changes come in, any 'accident' involving these new changes should be an automatic loss of licence for minimum 1 year, and compulsory retest.
Not quite out of the woods yet: (my emphasis)
"The Highway Code was laid in Parliament on Wednesday 1 December and will be subject to a 40-day approval process. Subject to approval, DVSA will publish the new Highway Code online following 29 January 2022 when the 40- day laying period comes to an end."
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/8133/documents/83362/default/
A lot of official publicity would be premature at this point. It just worries me that it could still be binned in the current search for popularity. I don't understand what this government wants for the people of this country.
People's relationship with government and official documents, like the cover of your passport and the expiry date on your driving licence are at issue here: the latter seems to imply to some drivers that there's nothing needed from them now, nothing will change for the next 45 years.
I've had a few skirmishes on local Facebook where local news articles about this have got on there: a fair bit of "I'll respect cyclists when they pay road tax" etc. Oh, really? That's you and your 2 tonne killing machine, is it? The other one is "should be using the cycle lanes when provided" - (a) like you'd know - cue picture of crappy cycle lane (b) cyclists will choose their route just like drivers do. The "it's only advisory" is at least easily dealt with, but the level of denial shown there is concerning.
I've made the point elsewhere that my annual car insurance and VED come to about £400 - pretty minor in the wider scheme of running a car, yet repeatedly called on to do quite a lot of heavy lifting. If not that, then something else, I guess.
Driving, a miserable experience - I guess like being the boss, being drunk, if you're deep down an arse then these things maginify the fact, usually to the detriment of others. Driving: its effects dominating every corner of our lives for decades, a meagre set of rules labour-intensive enforcement, yet whatever is given to drivers, it's never enough. Never enough.
I don't think government necessarily wants anything for the people. From the people - tax, votes, and for the rest sit there quietly.
In my cynical moments I find myself re-reading Transmetropolitan (set in the US but as much about UK politics of the late '90s) and wondering what's changed.
"That's what I hate most about this f@$£$%$ city – lies are news and the truth is obsolete!"
As Tories bang on about low tax, I don't think it's that, unless it's tax the less well off to pass to the rich in subsidies.
Our system doesn't work without tax. There might be more or less but it's a requirement. I think Jared Diamond has a point when he categorises these as kleptocracies. Luckily UK / Europe mostly features very enlightened / apparently well balanced ones but that's how they work. (Other models are available of course!)
Although I do appreciate the effort that many politicians make to "self-fund" via "donations" from wealthy individuals, corporations and organisations! This is stereotypically attributed to the "right" but politicians from all parties have proved themselves able in this respect.
Oh, I'm no Anti-taxxer. Bring it on. I aspire to pay 45%. Hell 40% would be good...
No, I'm questioning Tory commitment to any kind of system in the first place. The determination seems to drive down tax receipts (as this benefits them and their donors) and screw the consequences
I'm not sure the current leader has much commitment to any kind of system! As for his party my prejudices may chime with yours. But our system is exactly one of taking from people and giving it to someone else. The quibbles are simply about how much, and from and to whom. (To whit, to who!)
This may be (or may not) true, but would be equally true if there were no taxes. Taxes simply codify the redistribution of wealth. Of course this may be what we mean as a "system"
There is also the point that "taking from people" presupposes an objective view of ownership, when in fact, as all good communo-anarchists know, Property is Theft.
See you at the barricades comrade
Pages