Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Most drivers still don't know Highway Code changes, poll shows

Cycling UK has called on the government to commit funding to a long-term awareness campaign

A YouGov poll carried out on behalf of Cycling UK suggests that many British drivers are still unaware of last year's changes to the Highway Code, implemented to protect vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

The research — undertaken this month to mark the one-year anniversary of the changes, which came into effect on 29 January last year — showed that a quarter of British adults (25 per cent) asked were unaware of the update to the Highway Code, while just 28 per cent of those who said they were aware could correctly answer a question about safe passing distances when overtaking cyclists.

Of those who were aware, 72 per cent incorrectly answered the question: 'how much space should a driver leave when overtaking people cycling at speeds of up to 30mph?'. Furthermore, only 30 per cent of people who said they drive at least once a week gave the correct answer of at least 1.5 metres. 

The concerning results prompted cycling charity Cycling UK to call on the government to commit investment in a long-term awareness campaign.

Upon the introduction of the changes, THINK, the government body responsible for promoting road safety, ran a short-lived awareness campaign which was well-received by road safety groups.

> From Highway Code changes to Active Travel England – the big cycling campaigning stories of 2022

Cycling UK believes this was a good first step, but argues these figures show how much more needs to be done to "change entrenched driving behaviour, and the necessity for a sustained well-funded awareness campaign of at least three years."

Sarah Mitchell, the charity's chief executive, said: "A year on since the Highway Code update, the lack of understanding and knowledge of the changes is alarming.

Highway Code (Department for Transport)

"If widely adopted, these changes can save lives and make the roads better for everyone – but if you've not passed your test in the last year, it's unclear how you would know about them.

"We need government commitment and investment in a long-term awareness campaign of at least three years to help change long-established driving behaviours.

"With more people looking for other ways to travel, whether for financial reasons, health or environmental, making our roads safer for its most vulnerable users is essential."

Highlighting government figures — which show there were 1,558 fatalities on Britain's roads in 2021, of which 111 were cyclists and 361 pedestrians — Mitchell notes the initial THINK campaign cost £500,000 and suggets "saving human lives is not something we should be scrimping and saving on".

Edmund King, AA president, also commented on the poll results: "It is vital both for cyclists and drivers that the well-intentioned changes highlighted in the new Highway Code one year ago are understood and respected by all road users.

> Highway Code: 61% of drivers HAVE NOT read new rules, AA survey suggests

"AA driving schools are doing this with new drivers but unfortunately this recent research seems to indicate that this is not the case amongst the general public, so more action is needed to promote these potentially life-saving changes.

"When the changes are spelt out to drivers, our surveys suggest that 89 per cent support the reasons for giving 1.5m space when overtaking."

Ben Bradshaw, MP for Exeter and patron of the All Party Parliamentary Cycling and Walking Group added: "It is not realistic for government to expect decades of entrenched driving behaviour to change overnight.

"It took years for attitudes and habits to change over seatbelts, but they did in part thanks to a long-term public awareness campaign. We need a similar campaign to communicate the changes to the Highway Code, if we're to make our roads safer and get more people cycling and walking."

Cycling UK's YouGov poll comes just days after a study found that just 18 per cent of cyclists believe that the Highway Code changes have made a positive difference to road safety.

Worse still, 12 per cent of cyclists believe conditions on the road have worsened in the past year, while only one in ten reckon the government takes cycle safety seriously enough.

Dan joined road.cc in 2020, and spent most of his first year (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. At the start of 2022 he took on the role of news editor. Before joining road.cc, Dan wrote about various sports, including football and boxing for the Daily Express, and covered the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Part of the generation inspired by the 2012 Olympics, Dan has been 'enjoying' life on two wheels ever since and spends his weekends making bonk-induced trips to the petrol stations of the south of England.

Add new comment

59 comments

Avatar
Capt Sisko | 1 year ago
1 like

"Most drivers still don't know Highway Code changes, poll shows"

Okay, let's put the boot on the other foot. How many cyclist know the changes. And I don't mean us lot. The very fact we're reading websites and articles like this means we're keen cyclists and take an interest. Throw the same question to people for whom cycling is just a method of transport, it's a Sunday ride in the park with the kids, take the bike on the car to go on a nice safe off road trail;  i.e. the none enthusiast and I wonder if a poll would give a similar result.

Avatar
ShutTheFrontDawes replied to Capt Sisko | 1 year ago
4 likes
Capt Sisko wrote:

"Most drivers still don't know Highway Code changes, poll shows"

Okay, let's put the boot on the other foot. How many cyclist know the changes. And I don't mean us lot. The very fact we're reading websites and articles like this means we're keen cyclists and take an interest. Throw the same question to people for whom cycling is just a method of transport, it's a Sunday ride in the park with the kids, take the bike on the car to go on a nice safe off road trail;  i.e. the none enthusiast and I wonder if a poll would give a similar result.

That's precisely the point though. Despite the highway code being self-considered "essential reading for all road users" (which is a quote directly from the first paragraph in www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code), it is really nothing of the sort.

In practice, it is a document that learner drivers use to help pass their test and then the vast majority never look at again. Surveys such as these make that evident.

And I'm not aware of a survey or suchlike, but I agree with you and think that the vast majority of other road users (including cyclists) have never read the highway code.

None of us are required to, and in my opinion, that's a big problem.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Capt Sisko | 1 year ago
0 likes

Aren't the 'non-enthusiasts', who use their bike as an off-road toy at weekends, far more likely to be counted as 'motorists'?

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Capt Sisko | 1 year ago
2 likes

The issue you run into is that "cyclist" vs. "people who cycle" distinction.  The  UK / other countries with minimal cycling are very different from places where cycling is a mainstream mode of transport.

UK - our roads put off most possible "casual cyclists" because it doesn't feel safe, convenient or pleasant/normal to them - at least not compared with driving.  So many - of the few people left who do cycle regularly for transport - are "cyclists".  That is people with an active interest in cycling who might well read cycling publications.  (Also in the UK - many cyclists [ either sense ] are also drivers, few drivers are regular cyclists).

In places where cycling is a normal transport mode simply because it's often the most convenient the vast majority of people aren't "cyclists".  It's just like most people wouldn't declare themselves to be "walkers" because they walk to the shops, or "runners" even though they occasionally break into a trot if they're in a hurry or even go for a weekly jog.

As ShutTheFrontDawes says our UK system is mostly predicated on "it's your personal responsibility to know the rules and follow them".  That is problematic because of human nature - most people don't read manuals or rule books, and fewer remember them.  There's also the asymmetry in the burdens of training and responsibility e.g. that required for people to safely use motor vehicles vs. that reasonable for a 10-year-old using a bicycle.

Compare and contrast a system which tries to make spaces for travelling (cycling, walking or driving) more "intuitive" or "self-explanatory and consistent" [1] [2]. (Note that system still has training though - in that case integrated into the education system).

Avatar
ShutTheFrontDawes replied to chrisonabike | 1 year ago
3 likes
chrisonatrike wrote:

As ShutTheFrontDawes says our UK system is mostly predicated on "it's your personal responsibility to know the rules and follow them"

That's not what I said, what I meant, or the reality in the UK.

It would be far more true to say "it is not your responsibility (personal or otherwise) to know the rules and follow them. There is no requirement on you whatsoever to be aware of the highway code. The only thing we can hold you, accountable to is The Road Traffic Act, but even then we don't really enforce it, and the Highway Code is not at all relevant to our enforcement of the RTA."

That's the problem.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to ShutTheFrontDawes | 1 year ago
1 like

Ah - OK.  Yes, you're right - the HC is less important than it's maybe made out to be.  As you say it is in the driving test.  Much of it isn't directly law.  I think it does enter into legal cases if you're acting contrary to the "should" guidance - that can indicate e.g. lack of care / responsibility (so even "without due care / consideration")?

However - given that no-one is *required* to read the law, at school or as a learner driver (and who has worked through the RTA?) BUT ignorance is no defense - in practice the Highway Code is de-facto how people get the rules.  I think the HC covers most if not all of the RTA as far as road users need, but as you say goes beyond it with "should" and other "guidance" etc.

What I meant by "your personal responsibilty to know the rules" is the law is "ignorance of the law is no defence".  I'm not required to know any law - but if I break any there may be consequences.  I can't dodge those by saying "nobody told me..." so it's in my interest to do so.  Most people aren't pointed in the direction of the RTA legislation but they are told about the Highway Code.

My point was that in our system essentially all mistakes are on the user.  That hampers safety improvements in my view as there's a law of diminishing returns in getting people to improve their behaviour.  Plus systematic issues get a pass because it's always some individual's mistake.

Avatar
ShutTheFrontDawes replied to chrisonabike | 1 year ago
1 like
chrisonatrike wrote:

I think we're mostly on the same page though?  My point was that in our system essentially all mistakes are on the user.

Yes I mostly agree with your view regarding personal responsibility, but in actual fact, the mistakes aren't on the user. The only road users that feel the effects of contravention of the highway code (through ignorance or otherwise) are through collisions, and a truly minute proportion might get some action in court if it contributes to careless/dangerous driving, or in a civil claim.

You said that "in practice the Highway code is de-facto how people get the rules", but plainly this is not the case. They might have known and understood the rules relevant to their type of road use when they passed their test (where applicable), but as this survey showed and as Capt Sisko (best Capt btw) said, road users (including cyclists) do not know the rules and they are neither required nor incentivised to.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to ShutTheFrontDawes | 1 year ago
1 like

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Yes I mostly agree with your view regarding personal responsibility, but in actual fact, the mistakes aren't on the user. The only road users that feel the effects of contravention of the highway code (through ignorance or otherwise) are through collisions, and a truly minute proportion might get some action in court if it contributes to careless/dangerous driving, or in a civil claim.

We're in agreement then - my "user" was "all users".  I quite agree that as you say it's mostly the non-motorised users are picking up the consequences (physical, monetary, psychological) while the motorised users rarely have legal consequences for not following the rules (and where they do these are often minor or nugatory compared to the effects on others).  Plus vulnerable road users present zero risk to motorists and (thanks to car design AND special infra!) motorists often avoid serious physical consequences from their own crashes / those with other motor vehicles.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

You said that "in practice the Highway code is de-facto how people get the rules", but plainly this is not the case.

Would you settle for "if people passed a driving test, the Highway Code available at the time was how they got their rules (which they likely never looked again) and for anyone else the Highway Code is likely their only encounter with 'rules' outside of e.g. parental instruction / cycle training"?

(Your point that legally it's the RTA that counts is correct but again no-one is ever told to go read that!)

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to chrisonabike | 1 year ago
1 like

Thinking again - you seem to be saying "Highway code not required except once - which is a problem" and I'd agree that's a fair short summary in this context!

I think more people should be aware of the necessary rules, we should be kept up-to-date more effectively (*especially drivers*) AND we should move to a system which places less emphasis on rules in the first place e.g. is more intuitive.  (Our current system is intuitive insofar as it clearly says "if you're not in a motor vehicle keep off the roads and don't think you're going to get around well without one").

Avatar
ShutTheFrontDawes replied to chrisonabike | 1 year ago
1 like
chrisonatrike wrote:

Would you settle for "if people passed a driving test, the Highway Code available at the time was how they got their rules

To be honest, no.

One does not need to demonstrate a knowledge of the highway code to pass one's test. Even now, you do not need to know the entire highway code to pass your test.

One could pass both theory and practical tests without reading the highway code at all, providing that one demonstrated a sufficient knowledge of the rules of the road by answering the questions asked (which does not reflect the full scope of the highway code, or even the scope relevant to the activity being assessed) correctly.

When I passed my test, which was only about 15 years ago, I had never held a copy of the highway code. I had a book called 'the official DVSA Theory Test for Car Drivers'.

I was never asked if I had read the highway code. I was never asked "what does rule 133 of the highway code say?" (Or similar). I had a limited knowledge (with an obvious focus on driving a car) which enabled me to pass my test.

So no, the idea that a car driver must, at some point, have known the content of the highway code is not an idea I subscribe to.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to ShutTheFrontDawes | 1 year ago
0 likes

Good point, and thinking back - from what I can remember - it was probably similar for me.  I think I was aware of HC because of different circumstances.  I had previously done some cycling course at school (RoSPA?) and I think we'd already met the HC via that.  Then my driving instructor happened to be a pedant so I was prompted to dig it out again - although I'm sure I made use of a theory test learning book too.

So yes it's entirely possible that many / most learners never see it (!)

Presumably the DVSA book is drawn from stuff in the Highway code?  I suppose it's not a given that's updated at the same time as the HC although naively one might expect so...

Avatar
Adam Sutton replied to Capt Sisko | 1 year ago
2 likes

I don't know about how many know the changes, but plenty of cyclists in London just don't know, or rather just ignore the highway code.

Cycling back from work in Chiswick to Charing Cross yesterday, the very first junction and a busy one, five cyclists arrive including myself. I was the only one who didn't go through the red light as traffic started to come through. Then there are the numerous ones who ignore both the traffic signals specific to CS9 through Chiswick and the pedestrian crossings. Given the continuing campaign from locals against the new cycle infrastucture through Chiswick these idiots are just going some way to prove them right.

I have pulled people up on this before and to be honest its no wonder people refer to Lycra warriors etc. When someone in head to toe castelli gear just tells you to "f*** of, what's it to you" when you point out the lights were red.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to Adam Sutton | 1 year ago
5 likes

Adam Sutton wrote:

When someone in head to toe castelli gear just tells you to "f*** of, what's it to you" when you point out the lights were red.

My usual response is "I don't want to have to waste my time giving evidence at your inquest, plus as a taxpayer I don't want resources wasted scraping you off the road." They still say fuck off, of course...

Ignoring traffic signals on the superhighways particularly gets my goat too, playing as it does straight into the hands of the "This is why you shouldn't be allowed nice things" drivist lobby.

Avatar
Adam Sutton replied to Rendel Harris | 1 year ago
1 like

Noted that, that is a great response.

It is depressing how genuinely surprised most pedestrians are when I stop at the zebra crossings along CS9. I would hate to see it rolled back due to this behaviour as it has been a godsend on my commute.

Avatar
LeadenSkies replied to Adam Sutton | 1 year ago
3 likes

RLJ is at epidemic proportions and that's for all forms of traffic. And that's proper RED light jumpers, not counting those Amber Gamblers that accelerate through amber lights that they could and should have stopped at. I sat at the lights on the roundabout above J7 of the M11 last night and watched half a dozen cars jump a single red light, some by 3 or 4 seconds and at speed! The last car had a totally and obviously deliberately obscured rear number plate as well and was driving like a complete bellend. What makes this worse? They had all just spent 50 mins stuck behind a major and very serious collision on the M11 so had had plenty of time to reflect on the consequences of bad driving and yet their first thought was to blatantly jump the first red light they came across.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to LeadenSkies | 1 year ago
2 likes

"but I had just been stuck for 50 mins, I didn't want to be held up any further" 

Avatar
Adam Sutton replied to LeadenSkies | 1 year ago
0 likes

There is a junction in Dartford where you can guarantee at least three cars will just go through on red. I have been moving through on green and had someone force their way in from the right hand road.

One of the stupidest I saw yesterday was a passat on high street kensington that went thrugh a red light with a police car ahead. Sadly the police didn't see him do it.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Adam Sutton | 1 year ago
0 likes

Karma's a sleep? Suspect that's "only if you're doing nothing better / have been given that as your task" offense for the police. It's not a rare thing around Edinburgh. As others said - some folks seem a bit more careful when passing but those with no care / scruples are busier than ever.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to LeadenSkies | 1 year ago
2 likes

LeadenSkies wrote:

RLJ is at epidemic proportions .

Cookham Bridge - single lane, so lights at each end to make the drivers share nicely. Driver still decided he'd waited long enough on red and decided to go, then had second thoughts and started backing up, by which time the lights were green, but having passed them the driver couldn't see that.

Avatar
LeadenSkies replied to wycombewheeler | 1 year ago
0 likes

Sounds about right for that kind of driver.

Avatar
Awavey | 1 year ago
2 likes

I dont know that its ignorance of the rules thats fully the problem and I dont put much store in these kinds of surveys anyway

I look at the issues Ive encountered with drivers just the past week, none of them came about as ignorance of any new rules, we werent going to stop roadside and debate that they left me as much room as passing a car instead of 1.5metres, or that trying to undertake me as I exited a roundabout didnt meet giving me priority or follow the hierachy of road users.

They were being done in the full knowledge they broke the highway code, law etc etc but done because well who's going to stop them ? Im just a cyclist on a bike, theyre in a car and know they can bully me out of their way because I dont want to become a KSI, not the police because theyre virtually invisible on the roads, not the smiley face cameras because they dont even record number plates, consequently knowledge of the rules is irrelevant, theres no-one around enforcing any of them.

there was a report in the press this week a driver had been fined via cctv for driving into a bus lane, to get out of the way of a police van on an emergency call, who otherwise would have been blocked behind.

how outrageous you think, as surely thats the one time a bus lane fine needs to be overturned, then the council told their side of the story, the driver moved into the bus lane to let the police van through,which they said would have overturned the fine had the driver then not continued to drive along the whole length of the bus lane. Basically even though they knew the rule about not driving in a bus lane, theyd figured moving out of the police vans way was enough to give them a free pass and jump the queue of traffic not using the bus lane.

Avatar
Global Nomad | 1 year ago
0 likes

I'm wondering if getting a copy of the HC or having to do a short test everytime you bought a car/ or insured it/ or did the MOT and perhaps similar for cycles would 'force' people to be aware of it a little more. It seems that most of us cannot be bothered - I've read a lot about the changes but I can hold my hand up and say after passing my driving test in 1985, I dont think i've ever read the whole thing. I've been cycling in London since before then and although traffic is worse I do think most drivers have become much more aware of cyclists over the last ten years, partly becuase of the huge increase in number of riders. 

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to Global Nomad | 1 year ago
1 like

I love reading manuals and instruction books (usually after I've worked out how things work!) so reading the HWC is a natural extension of that.

One aspect of re-reading things is that you keep discovering new things and things you've misunderstood from previous times.

As it is readily accessible online, drivists have little excuse for avoiding keeping up to date.

Avatar
Hirsute | 1 year ago
5 likes

Went for a walk yesterday. Involved country lanes at times. Not many drivers slow enough or give space.
Audi driver thought it was fine to do 40 past us.
Many appear to think it's the Peds job to get out of the way regardless of the road, lack of pavement.

I doubt many are aware of the H rules.

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to Hirsute | 1 year ago
1 like

Indeed, more space than to be given to a cyclist. Not diving into a muddy verge earned me the threat of assault and being declared a f*cking idiot.

Avatar
IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
6 likes

Forget about cycling, the majority of drivers are incapable of driving socially and cooperatively, they are not prepared to abide by the rules of the road, or consider how to minimise nuisance, e.g. using a car park rather than blocking the road to save 30 seconds of walking.

I simply could not park on a zig-zag, and would have major angst dropping someone off on a yellow even where there was no obstruction, yet so many drivers are happy to cause chaos and danger for their own convenience.

Fill in your own list, but UK driving is very poor. Put it this way, if the majority of drivers could drive to road conditions, why have so many speed limits been reduced? Why should we even need them?

Avatar
giff77 replied to IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
1 like

IanMSpencer wrote:

....

 Fill in your own list, but UK driving is very poor. Put it this way, if the majority of drivers could drive to road conditions, why have so many speed limits been reduced? Why should we even need them?

Be careful now. There's a certain individual who will challenge that point

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
0 likes

IanMSpencer wrote:

UK driving is very poor.

Actually I think by and large, it's very good. It's just that there is near zero policing of bad driving. So we have the majority who do generally drive well and treat others with respect, then we have a minority who are not interested in doing so, because there are no consequences to them of driving like arseholes.

I did 200km yesterday, must have passed/been passed by hundreds of drivers, only a few incidents. 

In many other countries the general standards are lower.

Avatar
IanMK | 1 year ago
1 like

The question was theoretical, given the amount of negative press in the tabloids and the, albeit limited, campaign from THINK! It hard to believe that 70% completely missed the messaging. If they did miss the message then it's difficult to know what else could be done. More likely they've already forgotten and it's less than a year. It's going to cost a fortune and run continuous messaging. There was far more advertising around seatbelts and mobile phones but that was years ago and may have short term effect but even those campaigns are forgotten. The only real solution is enforcement, ignorance is no excuse, get bad drivers off the road.

Avatar
wtjs replied to IanMK | 1 year ago
2 likes

The only real solution is enforcement

Sadly, not a solution which is even contemplated by police forces like Lancashire

https://upride.cc/incident/ce13uod_trafic_uwlcross/

 

Pages

Latest Comments