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?’
54 thoughts on “Government slammed for not informing public of Highway Code changes aimed at protecting cyclists and pedestrians just days before they come into effect”
“Shockingly, one in 25
“Shockingly, one in 25 drivers say they have no intention of looking at the new rules.”
Then remove their licenses then. Surely the AA should be reminding their members of the reponsibilities of their licenses to keep abreast of the HC and that ignorance is not a defence in court.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
what’s shocking? that 20% of drivers have no intention of looking but deny it? or that 4% are really bad drivers? we know rthe number of bad drivers vastly exceeds 4%. I would be plesantly surprised if 96% of drivers did actually review the highway code as revised.
A theory test resit (full
A theory test resit (full practical resit if you fail) every five or 10 years would fix this.
Really? It’s been click bait
Really? It’s been click bait on most of the Mirror Groups local news, social media outlets, for the last couple of weeks.
Oh and ‘Meow, Meow, Meow Meow’ – Charlie says the government could use a good old public service announcement if they wanted to. Would make a welcome change from COVID.
We’ve all been discussing the
We’ve all been discussing the proposed changes as if they’re done-and-dusted. Except they’re not, are they? Even though it’s only a week until they’re supposed to be in place, they are still “subject to Parliamentary approval”. Given what an out-group cyclists are, and the trouble Johnson is still in, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility for the Govt to suddenly kick this into the long grass as a sop to his Mr Toad backbenchers…
I’ve said for months, this
I’ve said for months, this should have been advertised on TV regularly, just like the Government adverts of old, such as Reginald Molehusband, Tufty Club, and ‘Learn to swim, young man!’
Perhaps they have had other things on their mind of late…….
biker phil wrote:
PARTY!
Sadly, we can’t rely on the
Sadly, we can’t rely on the fourth estate to spread the good word on these Highway Code changes. Instead we should expect a peculiar sort of dangerous nonsense, such as this from the Evening Standard: a misleading headline and a perversely out of context photograph. An assertion in the same article that the term “Dutch Reach” was coined in the Netherlands is simply lazy; numerous sources point out that the phrase is unknown in the country.
That paper still edited by a
That paper still edited by a poor tory ex-Chancellor?
Shame they didn’t show the current wording of the HC.
you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic
Although as drivers passngers can cause doorings, who is responsible then.
I’ve actually been doored as a pedestrian as a pavement parkers passenger (say that 10 times fast) just swung open their door as I was walking past. The corner of it actually dug in just under my clavicle leaving a painful bruise.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Still the driver. I had the passenger of a taxi swing their door into the side of my car while I was driving past. The taxi driver tried hard to pin it on his fare! Needless to say the insurance companies did not agree and found him to be at fault for the collision as the driver is responsible for the actions of their passenger.
It’s the same for passengers
It’s the same for passengers wearing seatbelts or being in a non-age appropriate or poorly secured child seat isn’t it? The driver has the ultimate responsibility for the vehicle and its occupants. Which makes it all the worse when a driver can’t even drive the vehicle properly.
“That paper still edited by a
“That paper still edited by a poor tory ex-Chancellor?”
Hasn’t been edited by him for coming up to two years.
In the Netherlands, they just
In the Netherlands, they just call it The Reach.
anyone who doors a cyclist
anyone who doors a cyclist approaching fromt he front of the car should simply be charged with assault/gbh/attempoted murder depending on the outcome, what a ridiculous photo.
I’m OK if media outlets and
I’m OK if media outlets and the AA want to make some issues out of the forthcoming changes – at least it highlights that they are coming. I get a bit fed up with some of the disingenuous representation of them.
For example, the outrage that drivers express at their priority at junctions being taken away… where does it say they had that priority in the first place? “Road position was previously not mentioned in the code”… which means it is no different from any other vehicle. All that is happening is that a courtesies that should already have been extended to vulnerable road users (see existing introduction to the HC) now need to be spelty out to the hard of thinking.
As far as the lack of government messages, I have some sympathy with the DfT: until the changes are clear of the parliamentary hurdle, a comms campaign could be wasted money if either House rejects the proposals. That seems unlikely, but it could happen. This period of reasonable certainty can be well used to prepare a decent campaign. There will be plenty of time to criticise if there is no official message, or if the message is out of the TfL ‘See Their Side’ mould.
GMBasix wrote:
Exactly! One of the tabloids was moaning about how motorists sitting stationary in a traffic queue might now be expected to let pedestrians cross in front of them before they move. ??? Surely any responsible and considerate road user would have done that anyway, and not have to be instructed to do it…
It would be a waste of money
It would be a waste of money booking media to raise public awareness if the code hasn’t been approved yet.
If for some reason the code isn’t approved then the media bookings would inform the public of the wrong information.
It would be sensible to make
It would be sensible to make plans to publicise the changes.
In the unlikely event that the changes are not approved, the plans could be changed or cancelled.
But they’re not being
But they’re not being criticised for not having planned to publicise them. They’re being criticised for not having publicised them yet.
They apparently (according to the last paragraph) do have plans to publicise them – albeit we don’t exactly know what this plans are and how effective they’re likely to be.
It does make sense not to
It does make sense not to publicise them until they are guaranteed to come into force. The issue then is with this ridiculous system we seem to have where right up until the changes are published an in force they can be scrapped.
Surely what should have happened is that the changes were approved (irrevocably) by parliament in November, to come unto force on 29th January and spend December and January publicising what they are and what they mean.
For us to be in a position where the government could still pull the plug on the 28th January, and there be no official publicity until after they are already in force is just stoopid.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
It could be worse – we could have the Met police decide that they may want to fine a few people for Highway Code breaches and delay the publication of the rules just in case it would interfere.
There is an article in the
There is an article in the Sunday Times today outlining the changes which it says WILL come into effect next Saturday. It also says that the DfT will begin a £500, 000 campaign to boost public awareness in mid February.
which is exactly what weve
which is exactly what weve been saying, everytime this subject crops up framed like this, like some unwanted re-heated in the microwave takeaway (I had to check the date on the article to make sure this wasnt some resurrected thread)
We had confirmation of the plans from an answer to a written question in parliament, that clearly no one in the AA or Cycling UK took the blindest bit of notice of.
just google “highway code changes” and look at the hits returned from news sites for just this week, let alone going back over a month, every tabloid has covered it, every broadsheet, at least once, its now hitting local & regional news papers.
Does the AA & Cycling UK believe these articles magically appear because news editors are concerned about telling their readers this info ?
So as the changes come in expect radio & tv to start the same nudge coverage before the proper campaign kicks off.
Not quite out of the woods
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.
David9694 wrote:
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!”
chrisonatrike wrote:
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.
Captain Badger wrote:
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.
chrisonatrike wrote:
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
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!)
chrisonatrike wrote:
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
1 in 25 drivers have no
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.
These new rules will never
These new rules will never come into effect – the press have finally cottoned onto it.
Possibly Nige. You know what
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
I think we took the red pill some months back…
chrisonatrike wrote:
That’s what They want you to think….
New highway code rules
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-require-drivers-give-priority-cyclists/
David9694 wrote:
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”]
Captain Badger wrote:
Does that mean we can seize the means of production now?
hawkinspeter wrote:
I didn’t think we had any left?
mdavidford wrote:
Well, can we start seizing the means of assembling overseas manufactured parts?
mdavidford wrote:
That only makes it easier
hawkinspeter wrote:
Sure, I’m at work today and tomorrow, but should be able to slope off Wednesday for an afternoon of seizing
Captain Badger wrote:
Perfect.
Oppressed woodland creatures of the world – RISE UP!
hawkinspeter wrote:
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?
chrisonatrike wrote:
A True Marxist would be travelling in a prolechariot
Having read a few echo
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.
hirsute wrote:
If so, well said that person!
Cyclists should be registered
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.
hirsute wrote:
Nah. Brexit covered that.
Let’s be honest here, how
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.
There is an error in the
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
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
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
Of course no-one round here would have any familiarity with such practices.