A road safety group from Warwickshire has advised cyclists to be “considerate of motorists who are trying to pass them”, amongst other instructions that go against the new Highway Code, kicking off a huge round of criticism.
The campaign called Warwickshire Road Safety Partnership claims to introduce guidelines and offers counsel to road users to reach its target of reducing road deaths and serious injuries by 50 per cent by 2030.
The group, on Saturday evening, posted on Twitter: “Cyclists need to be considerate of motorists who are trying to pass them, by moving from a central ‘Primary’ road position o a Secondary road position to invite a vehicle to pass. If there is insufficient room they should stop when safe to do so to allow vehicles to pass them.”
It also contained an image with “updated advice” for cyclists riding in groups, which reiterated the Highway Code 66, which came into effect in January 2022, suggesting cyclists to allow drivers to overtake, for example, by moving into single file or stopping, but only when they feel that it is safe to let them do so.
> Highway Code changes: ‘What about cyclists, or do the rules not apply to them?’
As many people, including journalist, writer and cycling campaigner Peter Walker pointed out, Warwickshire Road Safety’s guidelines were misleading. Other people also replied that the post was contradictory, will confuse people and simply untrue in some aspects.
“Cyclists should only do it when THEY feel it is safe. It’s not up to the driver to beep when they want you to single out. If I’m cycling with my daughter on the inside, they may have to wait some time. Her safety is more important than a driver’s time keeping,” said one reply under the post.
BicycleBen said: “Motor-centric tweet puts drivers first. But remember the hierarchy. It’s not the job of cyclists to get out of the way of drivers or to facilitate an overtake. Cyclists *may* consider moving over or pulling in to let other traffic pass, only *if they* consider it safe to do so.”
Can @warkspolice comment? Since you are a partner of the organisation below.
Cyclists give way to motorists? I thought it was the other way around. The way this “advice” is written is not a good look. It makes it seem that cyclists should not “inconvenience” motorists. https://t.co/anhi6wtvOC
— Andreas (@cargobikerLDN) April 23, 2023
The road in the graphic is wide enough for a vehicle to overtake on the opposite side of the carriageway. On a narrow road it would make sense for the cyclists to ride single file, providing it leaves sufficient clearance for a vehicle to overtake safely.
— ExitStrata (@ExitStrata) April 23, 2023
Why are you tweeting untruth? pic.twitter.com/Raw5eDTRSd
— CyclingMikey (@MikeyCycling) April 23, 2023
The Highway Code changes that came into effect last year introduced a new road hierarchy as one of the eight changes, which also included the much contested Dutch Reach that involves looking over your shoulder when getting out of your car so as to not injure any cyclists or pedestrians.
The hierarchy of road users placed road users who are most at risk in the event of a collision at the top. According to the UK Government, this rule is meant to remind all road users that they have the responsibility to ensure other users remain safe.
In the hierarchy, pedestrians are placed at the top due to their lack of protection on the road making them the most vulnerable in a road traffic accident. The code rules are based on the lower a road user is in the hierarchy, the more harm they can cause others. This explains why cyclist sit second, yet bus or lorry drivers come in last place due to the size and damage the vehicle can cause.
> Have Highway Code changes made drivers more aggressive?
However, when a lot of people started pointing this out, Warwickshire Road Safety posted: “The hierarchy of road users underpins the changes to the Highway Code but there are a number of specific rules for cyclists & drivers to understand. It’s really important that all road users behave responsibly, consider each other and do what they can to keep each other safe.”
The partnership group was formed in 2019 and has recently published the Warwickshire Road Safety Strategy to 2030. It says on its website: “Using an evidence based Safe System approach, we will strive to eliminate fatal and serious casualties, thereby creating a safe road environment which will encourage active and sustainable travel.”
Last week, we reported that over half of UK drivers were still confused by Highway Code changes, with only one in five bus and lorry drivers could identify the correct hierarchy of road users, and nearly half of them believing that they topped the hierarchy.
The new changes to the Highway Code also outlined that drivers should “leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds”.
Recently, we had also reported that of the 286 reports of careless, inconsiderate, or dangerous driving around cyclists considered by West Midlands Police in 2022, 213 reports of careless or dangerous driving around cyclists last year resulted in no further action being taken, and only one resulted in a prosecution.
We have reached out Warwickshire Road Safety Partnership for a comment regarding their tweet.
67 thoughts on “Road safety group draws ire after advising cyclists to “stop and allow drivers to overtake””
Interestingly, this
Interestingly, this Partnership has a mix of partnership, mostly police, fire/rescue, local government, highways agency etc. also includes British Horse Society. But NO cycling specific organisation. Or pedestrian specific either.
Thanks for looking that up
Thanks for looking that up and saving me the trouble. My guess would have been that there were no cyclists on that partnership. But why would they need someone who knows?
I don’t understand these
I don’t understand these articles, it is always described as them (car users) and us (cyclists). In reality most people who are reading this are both.
The whole point of the rules of the road are to be a considerate road user, and that means there are rules both written and unwritten. Who goes first at a road narrowing for because of parked cars for example, in town quite often it depends on what else is going on.
When on a piece of road where overtaking is difficult, at an opportune moment/location the front road user should let the faster user behind past, whether the front person is on a bicycle, driving a tractor or a car.
If anyone thinks that the only rules of the road are those in the highway code and that following them at the expense of being considerate is the way to go, frankly should not be on the road as they are too immature.
McFrancis wrote:
I’ve seen tractors and cyclists pull over to let cars past. Strangely, though, I’ve never seen a car do it ( unless you count the time I was on holiday in Canada, where they have special lanes, for this purpose).
Make your own mind up about where the inconsiderate behaviour can be found.
Cyclists are more likely to
Cyclists are more likely to experience car drivers being deliberately obstructive to stop someone on a bike getting in front of them in traffic.
Even though I’ve paid my Road Tax, 10x that in Council Tax, 100x that in Income Tax, have 2x 3rd party insurances, 1x fully comprehensive insurance, passed my Cycling Proficiency aged 4 before I rode on a road to school, have a full licence for cars, unrestricted motorcycle licence, 7.5tonne LGV, passed my IAM test and had many subsequent driving assessments. But hey, I’m only a cyclist……….
My favourite bugbear from
My favourite bugbear from motorists to cyclists is the lack of any acknowledgment when stopping and letting a car coming from the opposite direction through parked cars etc…if you’re in a car they can’t thank you enough….on a bike, zilch… I’ve taken to giving them a sarcastic thanks as they go passed.
If you have never seen a car
If you have never seen a car let another pass, you might want to reflect on why that might be.
belugabob wrote:
Much of what occurs in momentary road relationships depends on the local cultural zeitgeist in which they occur. When I lived in and cycled through big towns or urban sprawls in England, there were many more rude and inconsiderate road users of all ilks & tittles, including pedestrians and cyclists albeit mosty motorists. In rural West Wales folk are generally far more considerate in their road behaviours (and elsewhere).
Being human, we tend to take on the attitudes of those around us that impinge upon us with the greatest “force”. Even a lovely nice fellow like me can get very arsey if every other road user acts the prat! 🙂
In West Wales, I have become nicer to others on the road, as they’re nicer to me, largely.
Cugel wrote:
Obv’s, that’s becuase people from West Wales are just nicer
Gimpl wrote:
And so many lanes in Pembrokeshire are practically holloways – you have to learn to negotiate.
This is a tabloid website
This is a tabloid website that is struggling to survive so is pumping out increasingly sensational articles. Us versus them attitudes like the ones in the article guarantee clicks.
Exactly, a few weeks back I
Exactly, a few weeks back I rode my usual route home from the station, something was going on on Reading’s IDR, nose to tail on an urban dual carriageway, I’m filtering down the middle and it’s like the parting of the Red Sea, because, of course, I’m the far faster vehicle.
As if…!
ktache wrote:
More like the closing of the red sea in my experience!
ktache wrote:
Round the M25 rush hour car park on my 1000cc V4 with stock pipe is an hilarious parting of the seas mainly because they can hear you and don’t want their paint scratched..
Obviously the loud pipes save lives idea is ludicrous given the look but not see human behaviour but can be funny anyway.
In reality a high risk game that demands both attention, experience and intuition about what happens next..
McFrancis wrote:
Many – if not all – current adult UK cyclists also drive. Most UK drivers do not cycle and almost never for transport. So in a way there are indeed two tribes.
There’s another way in which this makes sense and you’ve put your finger on it – human psychology. It’s just a human psychology thing that the majority expect the minority – particularly if they’re easily identifiable – to defer to them. If the minority stand up for the same rights as the majority some of those will feel some strong emotions including anger.
However the law doesn’t recognise this. Or rather it doesn’t on paper but does in practice since the police and courts are reluctant to take issue with drivers.
In my experience on the roads most people are reasonable. Of course when cycling, given the number of drivers I interact with vastly outnumber cyclists I’m mostly going to meet far more inconsiderate and aggressive drivers, rather than the same on bicycles. And being in a car around an idiot on a bike is vastly preferable to the opposite situation.
I think our whole transport system is a bit immature to be honest, but I think we’re slowly growing up. Here’s what it looks like when we apply a more mature approach to road safety.
McFrancis wrote:
Low post-count account says trollish things – I’m shock I tells you shocked ?
No not really, I’m normally
No not really, I’m normally just a reader of these sections. I was just pondering/posing the “them and us” question. Do you have anything to add on the topic? Or do you just misquote people as you have above and then write troll on every post?
“In reality most people who
“In reality most people who are reading this are both.”
Most people reading this are both, yes, but they tend to be out cycling far far more than the average (many thousands of miles as opposed to 55 miles a year). So the people on here tend not to do the shit when driving that a lot of people do who hardly cycle at all, except once in a blue moon on a tow path.
So you are a better and more
So you are a better and more considerate car driver and a better cyclist….. Interesting. But still very much a “them and us”
McFrancis wrote:
Apparently there is significant insurance industry data that multi mode operators are better than single mode. Thus IAM advise and enablement to share knowledge and experience across modes, e.g. Come and see what HGV drivers can see, not see.
Plus encouragement to gain Advanced skills in all modes.
Validated by insurance industry benefit of reduced premiums for Advanced skills.
My take on this is that
My take on this is that cyclists tend to get a bit pissed when organisations which purport to have an interest in promoting road safety are doing nothing of the sort. In this instance they are suggesting that getting out of the way and not being an inconvenience is what cyclists need to do in order to earn the respect of their car driving superiors.
Edit: Mulling this over a bit more. I think that cyclists who are also drivers get irked about this whole unsubstantiated myth of cyclists even being a significant cause of delay or somehow difficult to navigate around in the first place. My personal experience is that in nearly 40 years of driving the total time I have been delayed by cyclists must be measurable in terms of minutes. Compared to time spent in traffic jams on the M25 alone (no cyclist involved) must stretch to days. Even driving around the notoriously cycle infested roads of Cambridge, cyclists are way down the list of delays, somewhere south of badly parked delivery vans, drivers waiting to turn right across the flow of traffic and several orders of magnitude less than traffic lights and the Foxton level crossing.
Recent anecdote. Driving to Wiltshire with some friends, we agreed to meet up at a National Trust location (yes we are that demographic). Wives went in one car and got to the meeting point about 15 minutes before us. Being questioned as to our tardiness, my friend explained that we had been held up by cyclists. Followed by much muttering by wives about having the same problem. But the truth was we were behind a group of 8 for about 30 seconds at 20mph through a 30mph village and overtook several others out on country B roads on a Saturday morning without really having to make any particular effort. Total delay in the order of several seconds. The actual reason for our 15 minute difference was because we stopped for donuts and I had to fill up with fuel.
And with no mention that it
And with no mention that it up to the cyclist to decide when it is safe to move over. If they decide it isn’t safe, they aren’t being inconsiderate by staying in primary.
In my experience on this site
In my experience on this site especially with near miss of the day, there is a strong correlation between the use of the word primary and avoidable incidents taking place.
Ooh I know! Is it “it should
Ooh I know! Is it “it should have been no surprise the motorist was inconsiderate – you didn’t take primary position and so they thought they’d just squeeze past”?
Hello again
Hello again
“yes Clem I can hear you!”
“yes Clem I can hear you!”
From the leafy lanes of Essex
From the leafy lanes of Essex?
perce wrote:
No Scotland.
McFrancis wrote:
From the leafy lanes of Essex?
— McFrancis No Scotland.— perce
…as any child knows 😉
McFrancis wrote:
Are you saying that you don’t know how cyclists should use the road safely and other road users treat them with respect?
Or are you just trolling? Virtually all of us are drivers, we know how to drive properly. From what you’ve written, I’m not sure you do.
Definitely not a troll, my
Definitely not a troll, my comments are very much about the animosity created by these sorts of comments page, it is all “them and us”.
It’s fascinating that we all know how to drive properly and are better riders than average as well, but these bicycle/car incidents continue to happen. Perhaps we humans are not perfect and a bit of humility would go along way.
Hello Nigel. Let’s see when
Hello Nigel. Let’s see when you’ll be banned this time around.
marmotte27 wrote:
No I’m afraid I’m not Nigel, but do you have anything valid to add on the subject of “them and us” which was after all the question posed.
Common sense at the end of
Common sense at the end of the day, but sadly that’s missing from society these days.
Highway code rule 66 is specific to group rides, but the other week I was out on narrow country roads. It clearly made sense in that situation to allow traffic to pass when possible rather than hold traffic up for a few miles. It doesn’t take much to slow up at a passing place and wave a following car through, but the that doesn’t create the kind of conflict situation so many crave to post on YouTube these days.
Adam Sutton wrote:
In general, cyclists don’t want motorists following behind them for too long, so it’s usually in our interest to let through following traffic. The problem is when motorists think that they have a right to overtake and try to do so when it isn’t safe – that’s what tends to create conflict.
No denying that. There is
No denying that. There is also a problem though of some cyclists wanting to make a point and deliberately causing conflict, makes for good clicks on their YouTube channels and outrage on their TV shows in some cases too.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Really? Can you be more specific about these cyclists “causing” conflict?
I suspect that it’s far more likely to be cyclists rallying against the appalling behaviour of some drivers and not allowing their law-breaking to go unchallenged.
Adam Sutton wrote:
— Adam SuttonJust how many cyclists are you talking about across the UK – 2? 5?
Plenty of dickheads out there doing all sorts of stupid sh*t for Youtube/TikTok but that doesn’t seem to be a problem, only when cyclists are supposedly at fault.
And if you’re referring to experienced cyclists ‘taking the lane’ i.e. riding primary for their own safety then getting aggressively cut up and/or threatened with physical violence then you can get in the sea.
Adam Sutton wrote:
On these narrow lanes where there is insufficient space to over take a cyclist safely, and you pull over into a hedge to allow the driver to pass because obviously their urgency to be somewhere is greater than your need for safety, what happens when that driver meets another car coming the other way? Should they both drive into the hedge to allow you to pass now that you have caught up with that conflict and are being held up? As a regular driver and cyclist on narrow lanes I will often go at well below the speed limit so I don’t have to slam on the brakes and avoid a collision with a knobhead coming the other way at 40mph thinking they are in a rally. Two cars colliding at 40mph is an 80mph collision, i.e. likely killing all occupants and potentially throwing cars into the cyclist they have just squeezed past. Why can’t people just acknowledge these lanes were never designed for speeds above a horse and cart, because that is exactly what created them.
Muddy Ford wrote:
Aside from the whataboutism making an assumption all drivers on country roads are speeding twats, you claim to drive counrty roads and don’t understand the concept of passing places. I certainly wouldn’t pull into a hedge.
Adam Sutton wrote:
As someone who has always lived and driven in the countryside, and who now lives somewhere properly remote and does almost all their driving on singletrack, I agree – it’s unreasonable to suggest that all drivers on country roads are driving at an unreasonably fast speed for the winding, blind lane they’re on, and would be totally unable to avoid an unexpected hazard. It’s more like 98% of them.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to hike up to our top pasture to dig another Fiesta ST out of our boundary hedgerow…
Nice anecdote. Still not
Nice anecdote. Still not representative of rural traffic as a whole.
Muddy Ford wrote:
More likely a 120mph as both drivers will likely be travelling at 60mph, if not exceeding the speed limit. Also many people seem to be unable of doing the simply arithmetic to work out that when you overtake a cyclist on a blind bend at 60mph and hit another coming at 60 mph in the opposit direction, that is the same impact force as if you were to drive at 190 mph on the motorway and hit a vehicle travelling in the same direction at 70 mph.
Nice see the usual road.cc
Nice see the usual road.cc suspects proving my point regarding common sense, adding a nice dose of whataboutery to the mix too. Kudos
No mate, that’s your own little strawman there. I clearly stated in my example
” I was out on narrow country roads. It clearly made sense in that situation to allow traffic to pass when possible rather than hold traffic up for a few miles. “
If you have a clear road ahead for miles it makes no sense to hold up faster traffic… you know… that common sense thing.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Your posts seem to be vague and hinting at things without being specific. What was your point about “common sense” and who are these “usual suspects”?
Also, you didn’t answer my question from earlier: “Can you be more specific about these cyclists “causing” conflict?”
I agree with the squirrel.
I agree with the squirrel. Perhaps a link to a YouTube video showing someone on a bike deliberately slowing traffic?
I don’t have a rear camera so
I don’t have a rear camera so sadly cant explain the mind numbingly obvious any further. As I stated in my own example, cycling 15ish mph along an open stretch of country lane with a car behind it is nothing but common sense to let them pass when the road widens with a passing place. They’re not speeding, but they are the faster traffic in this instance.
It is fascinating that all that has happen here is my point has been proven. Common sense is non existent these days.
The advise provided by the
The advise provided by the Warwickshire body isn’t common sensical because it’s incomplete. The same could be said about HC 66, because these spell out in black and white (i.e. to give way to motorists when it is ‘safe to do so’) a situation that is far, far too nuanced (i.e. when is it safe? What if it’s easier to keep going? Is this going to result in motorists getting a sense of entitlement?). I feel very strongly that a maneouvre as complex and dangerous as an overtake should never be allowed unless on a clear, open road with good sight lines. In fact, it shouldn’t even be presented as an option.
If we consider what others have said in reply to your comment, these roads are also too narrow to make decent progress anyway and the use of passing places is incorrect – they are ostensibly meant for oncoming traffic to ease into.
I know that a lot of this advice comes from common sense and courtesy etc. etc., though it does always baffle me why said courtesy too often seems to involve vulnerable road users giving way to motorists, and not the other way round.
Interestingly there is a
Interestingly there is a country where they have actually banned overtaking entirely in many places (especially country roads). And actually physically blocked this sometimes. But this has nothing to do with cyclists – they’re accomodated on their own track. It’s because allowing motorists to overtake into the path of an oncoming vehicle is seen as a clear safety hazard, given human nature.
I think lots of the “debate” around “entitlement” / “courtesy” / “common sense” is framed by our limited and local nature of what we observe and what’s most salient, isn’t it? “A cyclist nearly killed me once!” / “I get close-passed every other time I ride!” / “at every red light a couple of cyclists will just ride through past me”. After that – just generalise and rationalise e.g. “The cyclist didn’t move over within a couple of seconds *because* they want to make a point – like they all do!” / “The driver close-passed me *because* many drivers are out to run cyclists off the road!”. The latter is maybe more often a mix of ignorance, lack of competence and / or ordinary human impatience – although that doesn’t make it right or reduce the danger.
I missed the chance to, but
I missed the chance to, but probably should’ve said that common sense isn’t all that common.
This is a nice take on the ‘red mist’ arguments we hear all too often; however, the difference is that the red mist in motorists is borne out of the anger at being delayed a tiny bit, whereas the red mist in cyclists is borne out of the fear at nearly being killed n times a day.
Doesn’t really make it more acceptable in the latter but, in my opinion, less harmful.
vthejk wrote:
Amen. In both senses e.g. both “it was a moment of madness…” and also “common to which group?”
Returning to the point: I probably make way for people when on a bike in a similar manner as I would when in a car. As in – I probably will if it’s not a major inconvenience for me and little benefit to them (e.g. we’re both coming up to a red light). The main difference on bike is I’m probably more conscious of safety. On a bike that also covers “will this person just run into me / squeeze past when it’s not safe?”
What trickery is this?
What trickery is this?
I WILL NOT YIELD!
Well, at least Warwickshire
Well, at least Warwickshire Road Safety Partnership wasn’t also advising doffing one’s cap to one’s lords and masters…
brooksby wrote:
Implied.
Why do we even give Twittery
Why do we even give Twittery groups like this air time and report what they say like its news? Who are they and what are their credentials? The worst thing about social media is that it allows insignificant outfits to get a bigger voice than they should.
PRSboy wrote:
I wouldn’t call a local Road Safety organisation that includes the police and fire and rescue services among its partners an “insignificant outfit”.
Just those two affiliations give the organisation (and its advice) credibility that it doesn’t deserve … and makes it more likely that people will trust that the advice they give is correct.
The wonderful enforced
The wonderful enforced balance issue…
We have told drivers to do something (don’t overtake cyclists before turning left).
So now we have to tell cyclists to do something.
Despite the fact that only one of these significantly improves road safety.
To be fair, they did also do a tweet about correct road positioning (https://twitter.com/WarksRoadSafety/status/1648718104246239238), something that will actually improve safety.
I can count on one hand the number of (unique) times (inc videos) I have seen a cyclist intentionally blocking traffic. But I will see drivers complaining about cyclists ‘blocking the road’ on a daily basis. Regularly see people complaining about it on twitter when there are several obvious, clear hazards that fully justify riding in primary (per the rules).
If we want to improve road safety we would be far better encoraging riders to keep central more often as most ride too close to the road edge in a misguided attempt to keep out of the way… We don’t need to tell people to let faster moving traffic pass when safe – they are already doing it, even when not safe…
qwerty360 wrote:
Like the Australians bringing in a legal distance for passing cyclists, but then “balancing” it by bringing in massive fines for cyclists not wearing helmets or fluoro clothing…
brooksby wrote:
Don’t forget they then can choose which laws to enforce, depending on various factors such as colour of skin and socio-economic groups.
I think enforcement here is
I think enforcement here is more focused on behaviour than other factors. The cops have too much else going on to harass poverty stricken cyclists, regardless of skin colour.
They would probably grab you for using a mobile phone while cycling through, and that’s a $1,000 fine in Queensland where I live. I think it’s more in a couple of other States.
The helmet laws are seldom
The helmet laws are seldom enforced here in Australia and the fines are not “massive”. In some tourist areas (usually near popular beaches) they are not enforced at all.
There are no laws at all, to the best of my knowledge, regarding clothing colour and more than half of all cyclists wear dark clothing, even after dark.
Helmets became compulsory during the 80’s but minimum passing distances were introduced about 20 years later so it’s not a matter of introducing one law to “balance” the other.
Just saying… ?
Is that also required when on
Is that also required when on “safe cycle lanes”
https://road.cc/content/news/councillor-cycling-road-safety-meeting-hit-driver-300791
In parts of rural Scotland,
In parts of rural Scotland, where A-roads are single track with passing places, road users are explicitly requested to allow overtaking by using the passing places. My experience is that this system works well and I try to use it on all single track roads. My experience is that I get more frequently and seriously bullied as an often slower driver/rider on my local Yorkshire single track than I do in Scotland, but I’m happy to pull over and allow overtaking when safe to do so.
We visited Skye last year and
We visited Skye last year and noticed this. There’s definitely a better understanding, I think our biggest hold up was sheep ?
levestane wrote:
I’m sure it does work well where the passig places are more frequent than cars, but my experience in the chilterns is that if you pull over into the passing place (risking a puncture because they are all mud and flints and not tarmac) More likely than not you will catch the car tha passed up ahead where they have met an oncoming car and Mr Jaguar does not want to back up for Mr Mercedes and vice versa.
Never heard of this
Never heard of this Warwickshire Road Safety Partnership before. Okay… let’s get poking about on t’internet.
Chaired by Philip Seccombe, also Police & Crime Commissioner for Warwickshire, and has been in local government fot the Conservative Party. The WRSP is a partnership between Warwickshire Police, Warwickshire Fire & Rescue, and Warwickshire County Council, current leader, Cllr Izzi Seccombe OBE.
It does have lots to say for and about cyclists, including a pretty anodyne 52 page booklet. Duncan Dollimore gets quoted on page 23, I’d be interested to hear his views on WRSP’s more recent position, particularly in light of WRSP’s stated position on page 29 under the section “Stay Out Of The Gutter”. The last page made my eyes go funny and say “What?” in the style of Amber Ruffin. But. Yeah. Moving on.
What does it have to say for drivers? The page for Young Drivers holds a 116 page booklet, of which I read precisely nothing. And three videos from Cycling UK and the British Horse Society about watching out for cyclists and horse riders. Including something about the Dutch Reach, which google tells me it wasn’t what I initially thought it was. Anyway, more Amber Ruffin impersonations.
There are other pages for Mature Drivers (only 52 pages in their booklet), Motorcyclists, Pedestrians, Horse Riders, and a curiously empty page on Commercial Drivers, serving largely to advise drivers to check their commercial vehicle before being driven, and then redirect browsers to the more national Driving For Better Business. No 50+ page booklet for you 🙂
Also Mobility Scooters. There is lots of the WRSP site I didn’t read.
Overall… the WRSP seem largely to be a fairly harmless and ineffective talking shop. Their latest missives seem not so much to conflict with intelligent and coherent thought as – more pertinently – some of their own previous stated posiitions as regards driver behaviour and the heirarchy of vulnerable road users. Most odd.
I can guarantee those
I can guarantee those leaflets will have zero effect, because nobody is going to read booklets of 52 and 116 pages. I’d look up how long the HC is to see if it’s that long, but I’m too lazy, and the HC is much too long for most people.