More than three years since a series of changes were made to the Highway Code to better protect vulnerable road users, prompting hysteria in certain sections of the British press, a recent survey has found that the majority of motorists are still unaware, or do not correctly understand, the rules around cyclists.
Those findings come courtesy of Scrap Car Comparison, who surveyed 2,000 drivers last month on their knowledge of the updated Highway Code and its rules concerning people on bikes, as well as their attitudes and behaviour towards cyclists on the road.
Changes to the Highway Code were implemented in January 2022 to better protect vulnerable road users, and included establishing a hierarchy of road users with those most vulnerable (pedestrians, cyclists, and horse riders) placed at the top.
Other updates included advising cyclists to “ride in the centre of your lane” to increase visibility on quiet roads, in slower-moving traffic, and when approaching junctions, and to stay 0.5m away from the kerb even on busy roads.
The Highway Code also acknowledges that it can often be safer to ride two abreast, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying less experienced cyclists, and while dedicated cycling infrastructure can make journeys “safer and easier”, cyclists “may exercise their judgement and are not obliged to use them”.
> The Highway Code for cyclists — all the rules you need to know for riding on the road explained
However, according to Scrap Car Comparison’s research – which provided drivers with four statements related to the Highway Code and asked them to determine whether they are true or false – it seems the new guidance still hasn’t fully crept into the public consciousness, three years on.
When provided with the statement ‘Cyclists must use a cycle lane is one is available’, 77 per cent of the motorists surveyed incorrectly asserted that this was true, while 65 per cent wrongly agreed that ‘cyclists must stay as close to the left-hand side of the road as possible’.
Meanwhile, half of those surveyed erroneously believed that the statement ‘Cyclists are allowed to take up a full lane of the road’ was false, with just 34 per cent identifying this as true. Meanwhile, over half (53 per cent) incorrectly agreed that cyclists must always ride in single file.
> Highway Code: One-in-four drivers still don’t know correct rule on cyclist priority
“Seeing such a huge number of drivers answer incorrectly to these true and false statements highlights a hole in many people’s knowledge when it comes to the Highway Code,” the valuation site said in a statement.
“Many of the statements reference topics such as group riding and ‘taking the line’ which are common points of tension between cyclists and drivers, highlighting that regardless of whether a particular driver agrees with the rules or not, many conflicts could likely be avoided due to better understanding of the legalities of road cycling, and the responsibilities of drivers in these cases.
“However, it is well worth pointing out that many of the people that answered incorrectly were also cyclists, again demonstrating the importance of everyone, cyclist or not, brushing up on the rules of the road. With so many people heading out on their bikes without a clear understanding of where they stand legally on the road, there’s no wonder that the driver-cyclist relationship is so strained!”
> “Check the Highway Code”: Police officer claims cyclist shouldn’t ride “in the middle of the road”
This “strained” driver-cyclist relationship was explored elsewhere in the survey, with motorists asked about how they feel when sharing the road with people on bikes.
According to the survey, 74 per cent of motorists said they feel “some level” of frustration when driving near cyclists, with less than 10 per cent claiming that they “never” feel frustration.
These levels of frustration were highest among drivers aged between 17 and 24 – with 81 per cent of those in that bracket admitting they get frustrated by cyclists – while women (76 per cent) are more likely to become frustrated than men (71 per cent).
Unsurprisingly, a higher percentage of non-cyclists (76 per cent) experience frustration when driving near people on bikes than cyclists, though a shockingly high 64 per cent of self-described cyclists admitted feeling some frustration when driving their car around those on two wheels.
Meanwhile, 75 per cent of drivers said they always, often, or sometimes feel nervous when around cyclists, with this number highest among women (81 per cent) and young drivers (88 per cent).
And finally, drawing on the kinds of toxic social media debates surrounding cycling, the survey asked its participants: “Do you believe that cyclists have equal rights to use the road as drivers?” In response, 33 per cent stated that cyclists shouldn’t have equal rights, though 60 per cent agreed that they should.
Perhaps more encouragingly, 96 per cent of drivers claimed that they always leave the recommended 1.5m when overtaking cyclists, though 47 per cent said they’d been involved in a near miss with a cyclist at least once on the roads.
> Cyclists wearing helmets seen as “less human” than those without, researchers find
Using the data collected from their survey, the researchers compiled an index of the least bike-friendly cities in the UK, as well as the car brands most associated with negativity towards cycling.
According to their table, Sheffield finished ‘top’ as the least cycle-friendly city in the country, with a ‘cycling negativity’ score of 92.5 – based on knowledge, frustration, attitudes, and overtaking distances – with Newcastle and Leeds rounding off the podium with 84.1 and 82.8 respectively.
Belfast was revealed to be the UK’s most bike-friendly city, with a lowly negativity score of 56 – though, judging by the recent backlash against the Northern Ireland capital’s paltry cycling infrastructure and dangerous road conditions, I’m not sure many of the city’s cyclists would agree with that particular accolade.
When it comes to car brands, Mazda owners topped the table for cycling negativity, with a score of 83.3, while Mercedes-Benz enthusiasts were a close second with 83, with Seat in third at 77.7. Audi, meanwhile, only came tenth, with a score of 73.4.
As noted above, the changes to the Highway Code were brought in three years ago and prompted much discussion and hysteria at the time. Just days before the revisions came into force, two major newspapers misrepresented the rules around the ‘Dutch Reach’ technique, designed to reduce the chances of dooring a cyclist.
A further concern came with the lack of communication of the changes to the public, with Cycling UK at the time calling for a long-term public awareness campaign to help produce a “mindset shift” on British roads.
In fact, it took until July 2022, six months after they came into effect, for the changes to be promoted in a THINK! road safety campaign, though an AA survey from three months later showed that 61 per cent of drivers had not read the new rules – a situation which, judging by this most recent research, has persisted into 2025.
67 thoughts on “Most drivers wrongly believe cyclists must ride single file, stay close to the kerb, and use cycle lanes – and one in three say they shouldn’t have equal rights on the road, new Highway Code survey finds”
So, slightly more
So, slightly more knowledgeable than your average police officer?
As shown by the image you’ve
As shown by the image you’ve used of a cyclist holding a card which is 1.5m wide, it’s not a very realistic expectation.
the fact that most people believe they leave a 1.5m gap shows they are delusional.
after 23 years of commuting regularly by bike it’s certainly feels like 10% do it, 80% dont but leave an acceptable amount of space and 10% clearly are idiots who shouldn’t have a driving license
bruxia wrote:
Indeed, so cars should not be overtaking on that road, which I suspect is the point of the image…
bornslippy wrote:
Exactly: if the motorist is sitting there screaming, “But if I leave 1.5 metres then I can’t fit past!” then the point is surely that they shouldn’t be overtaking there AT ALL.
brooksby wrote:
Oh, there you go, with your commen sense.
For me it feels like 20%
For me it feels like 20% overtake correctly, leaving the required space and at an appropriate speed and about 20% really don’t, some of which are clearly doing it with the aim of intimidating the cyclist.
Since the updates to the Highway Code I would say the numbers of both groups has increased slightly.
The rest drive a bit too close, either through ignorance of the rules or because they are bad at judging distances or the size of their massive vehicles. This is not normally an issue unless other factors, such as potholes are involved, but obviously not ideal.
Sedis wrote:
I’d say this is fair. Even accounting for those who will falsely claim to follow the rules, you have to account for those who are terrible judges of distance. For a lot of people they will only really know what it looks like from the driver’s seat if they have learned with someone in the passenger seat telling them. I hope this will improve over time as I’d like to think driving instructors will have today’s learners praticing just that.
However, it’s all very well learning what a cyclist 1.5m away looks like from a Micra, then putting it into practice from your Range Rover.
Good point. I think it
Good point. I think it mostly comes down to people have a poor idea of just where the edges of their vehicle are generally.
This is rarely a crucial problem for drivers! Why? a) most infra is designed exactly with this in mind e.g. lines marking lane edges for drivers (with appropriate extra allowance – and sometimes “tactile feedback” via e.g. rumble strips / going over cat’s eyes, b) the faster we think people will go the wider we build the lanes* c) when this obviously matters most to drivers e.g. when parking they are trained and naturally tend to drive very slowly d) they have extensive protection!
But it really matters to cyclists. And we do not come with “continuous line markings” to help estimate where we are. And we change speed / move laterally!
I even wonder whether when people assert they give 1.5m they’re sometimes actually calculating the distance from themselves to the cyclist, not from the edge of the vehicle!
That’s why I think instructions to fully cross the centre line when overtaking cyclists are the best approach. No centre line? You’re likely in an environment where there are lots of reasons why overtaking at all is a bad idea (country roads – with poor forward visibility / blind corners, unmarked edges with soft verges and ditches, slippery surfaces…) And at that point some people will “work it out for themselves” regardless of whatever the rules say…
* Which of course feeds back into “wide space – I should go faster!
I would suggest that like
I would suggest that like many things, the number chosen is chosen because it leaves you in no doubt as to how much space you need to give. ie. quite a lot.
Even if you are awful at judging distances you should still end up at least 90cm away lets say if you aim for 150cm which is why close passes should be punished more seriously. Because most of them are about 20-25% of the amount you are required to leave so there is no doubt its bad driving.
As a driver, I often get
As a driver, I often get frustrated with cyclists.
It’s mainly down to their lack of road positioning.
I absolutely hate to see a cyclist hugging the drain line, or sitting a handful of cm away from parked cars.
Get in a position where you can be seen, and have an escape route.
I also get frustrated by the dangerous position that red light jumpers place me in. It becomes expected that a cyclist *will* jump the red light, and as a result, fecking dangerous to us that do stop.
And before the ‘I’m not responsible for another cyclist action’ … no your not. But in this, your opinion is irrelevant; its the opinion of other road users that’s going to get me killed.
Pretty simple: cyclists are
Pretty simple: cyclists are “in the way”.
They’re slow (even if cycling at the speed limit, all drivers know they’re “slower” – e.g. have lower top speeds, slower acelleration etc.)
So drivers “must get in front” – even if there’s a junction / traffic light ahead. Otherwise you might be “stuck behind” the cyclist. Which is a problem – even if you’re OK driving
at or below the speed limitslower than you could, the driver behind you won’t be!The fact that cyclists “undertake” (filter) makes getting ahead even more crucial!
Want cycling to be normal and more people (all those non-cyclists in cars) to cycle? We would have to invert current expectations! Cyclists should not have to cycle single file. With almost every other transport mode people travel “socially” e.g. side-by-side, and usually in clusters.
chrisonabike wrote:
I’ve been hooted at by drivers while going through a narrow section of road on my way home, while roughly following a line where any front seat passengers would be, if they were in cars driving through there (I’m reading that back, and I think it’s clear what I mean?). And yet it’s always the cyclists who are “taking up the road”…
I recommend a good disguise.
I recommend a good disguise.
Also available for undercover
Also available for undercover horsists.
96 per cent of drivers
96 per cent of drivers claimed that they always leave the recommended 1.5m when overtaking cyclists
It’s all junk pseudo-‘research’, but this bit stands out. The only thing that changed when they issued this ‘guidance’, was that close-pass offenders routinely say ‘I gave you 1.5m’ even when they don’t even know which distance is supposed to be 1.5m- we all know that the police don’t! The majority in Lancashire certainly don’t allow 1.5m- maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of drivers do most of the time. It’s pretty much invariable here that when drivers overtake approaching the summit of a blind hill and are astounded to discover that there’s oncoming traffic in the other lane…they carry on overtaking anyway and squeeze much closer to the soft-bodied cyclist than to the hard steel vehicles coming towards them. This is exactly what happened here with Montgomery Distribution 44 tonner KU71 CUK
This one actually stated ‘I
This one actually stated ‘I gave you 1.5m’ before threatening to ‘fucking flatten’ me and knock me off my bike- BMW PK14 HLW
The police/DVLA/DVSA should
The police/DVLA/DVSA should do their own survey like this while requesting each participants personal details.
Anyone who’s results fall below a set standard (ie, enough to fail a theory/practical test) should then immediately have their driver’s licence revoked.
The upside of this would be
The upside of this would be that people would obviously look it up to pass therefore informing themselves. It would also remove any doubt about the rules ie. when the police ask you whether you know X and they can see that you demonstrated that you did on you previous years online driving test update they could say “well you clearly just ignored it therefore there is no excuse”.
Ignorance of the law is no
Ignorance of the law is no excuse … except when it comes to road offences! Then … “but I didn’t mean it” and “I got a bit muddled” and “I was trying to *drive my way out of the dangerous conditions* (which should have indicated slowing to a crawl or possibly not driving at all)” – or just “I can’t remember / but I have 4 ferrets who depend on me” all become valid mitigation or even defenses!
They clearly didn’t interview
They clearly didn’t interview any Range Rover drivers or are they unfrustrated because they just close pass cyclists without any thought?
96% is absolute nonsense, 96% have failed to leave 1.5m when passing a cyclist in their last 10-20(?) cyclist overtakes would be far more accurate.
Guess it’s no surpise. Was
Guess it’s no surpise. Was bound to happen given that the HC changes were left to be communicated to the public (with their usual degree of pragmatism, objectivity & soothing tones) by the Daily Heil & GBeebies.
It is amazing how definitely
It is amazing how definitely clear and specific some drivers can be about what rules other people should be obeying, even though the last time they bothered to blow the dust off their Highway Code (bought at great expense for 25p net) was when they allegedly passed their test several decades ago.
Well, I always give thanks
Well, I always give thanks that I’ve been very lucky in life in a huge number of ways, starting with a perfect wife and ending with some lovely bikes (it’s Valentine’s Day, I’m not allowed to put them the other way round), but in this particular area I must be spectacularly unlucky because 80% of the time I seem to encounter the other 4%. What are the odds?
Rendel Harris wrote:
In any case, everyone knows that the perfect bike is the next one you’ll buy.
I must be spectacularly
I must be spectacularly unlucky because 80% of the time I seem to encounter the other 4%. What are the odds?
This is a Poisson problem, based on the hypothesis that drivers are telling the truth (96 per cent of drivers claimed that they always leave the recommended 1.5m when overtaking cyclists). Therefore, in 1000 interactions with overtaking drivers, we want to know how likely it is that Rendel is ‘close-passed’ 800 times- meaning ‘passed with less than 1.5m clearance’. The probability of this outcome, if drivers are telling the truth and he is as unlucky with close passing as he thinks he is- is:
(exp(-40) x 40^800)/800! which is indistinguishable from zero
Just supposing Rendel is unduly pessimistic, and he’s really only close-passed in 1/3 of overtaking interactions by accidentally happening to come across the supposedly rare ‘close-passing driver’, (this translates as: 33% of the time I seem to encounter the other 4%) and is having a short day, the probablity of 33 close-passes from 100 overtakes is
(exp(-4) x 4^33)/33! which is more manageable and equals 1.45 x 10^-19, which is also essentially zero
Therefore, there is some doubt about the veracity of the claim :96 per cent of drivers claimed that they always leave the recommended 1.5m when overtaking cyclists (which we all don’t believe anyway)
That only holds if the 4%
That only holds if the 4% always pass within 1.5m, though. Given that at least some people will pass wider only some of the time, you’ve overstated the probabilities, and the chances of the statement being correct are less… than, er… zero. Or something.
The easiest and probably best
The easiest and probably best way of incorporating your ‘the 4% of drivers who do not abhor close-passing are not quite as malevolent as they imagine themselves to be’ modification of the model is to suggest that the expected number of close-passes from 100 overtakes is less than 4, say 3.5. In that case the probability of the stated outcome arising, given the stated conditions and statements is 1/50 th of the probability for 4 close-passes. This may mean that the 96% claim is even less credible, although it’s difficult to say.
Quote:
FTFY
TBF I very, very rarely get
TBF I very, very rarely get close passed these days.
That people overtake in batshit places is another matter.
So true. I think it’s to do
So true. I think it’s to do with people only being able to take in information that is repeated over and over again whilst dismissing all the other factors that makes them a reasonable motorist and there seems to have been a big push on the 1.5m minimum pass distance so typical motorists has that, and that only in their mind when overtaking.
Wow. I get close passed every
Wow. I get close passed every day. I’d say it’s around 1/20 overtakes. It would be even more if I commuted on more direct routes as opposed to the longer but less life-ending ones I choose.
A lot of drivers now leave a wide space, well over 1.5m, which is the change I’ve noticed since the HC update.
Agreed – it’s a daily
Agreed – it’s a daily occurrence here, so it’s strange to read a claim that it’s ‘very, very rare’! 44 tonners, double deckers, vans, cars – I’ve shown them all more than often enough on here
Most cars that pass me are
Most cars that pass me are dangerous. I have submitted loads of video footage to the police and for what? Not even a reply.
Quote:
If that question was written as ‘Do you do the right thing?’ (which it sounds like it was) and not as ‘What’s the recommended overtaking margin?’ then whoever designed the survey did a rotten job of it.
nah they just read the
nah they just read the question as do you always not leave the recommended 1.5m when overtaking cyclists. I know people overestimate their abilities as drivers, but thats bullshit that 96% can ever claim to leave 1.5m.
Too many idiots out there.
Too many idiots out there.
One car length from a layby, so park on the pavement on double yellows.
Just how ???
BOLAS tho…
BOLAS tho…
and they work on a BMW !!!
and they work on a BMW !!!
stonojnr wrote:
Yup – they ought to return it as defective
brooksby wrote:
All four together – as BOLAs – work on Beemers. They just don’t work in pairs.
What do you expect it’s a BMW
What do you expect it’s a BMW
About half the car drivers do
About half the car drivers do not have the right to drive a car on our roads because they are drunk and/or drug drivers.
Extraordinary claims require
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. … do share.
Well there’s a surprise, not.
Well there’s a surprise, not. Between close passes and people on the phone while drivving, if I was to submit every offence I see and the cops take action for each of those, I’d be getting points on the licence of a lot of people.
Quote:
So they were asked what the HC says and answered with what they thought that it OUGHT to say?
Cars have to keep left, why
Cars have to keep left, why wouldn’t bikes? And cycling 2 abreast is just plain stupid and putting yourself in harms way. Just because activists got the highway code changed, that doesn’t make it a good thing, or even sensible much less safe. And I speak as a cyclist.
But it is the law so it is
But it is the law so it is allowed. It does make cyclists safer and that’s from a cyclist.
No one drives hugging the
No one drives hugging the kerb or in the door zone.
bikes wrote:
But even if they did, they’d still also be “in the middle of the road” (lane). Even if there was only one person in the vehicle.
But this poster says it’s plain stupid *and* they’re a cyclist, so they must be right…
Presumably they’re beating the drum for separated cycle infra very loudly?
chrisonabike wrote:
Perhaps we could put cycle lanes down the middle of roads, seeing as how all these law-abiding drivers apparently have to drive as close to the kerb as possible? Got to free up some room down the centre…
IIRC some UK schemes have
IIRC some UK schemes have actually done exactly this(!) Truly one of the Good Idea fairy’s post-pub or even post-NL-coffee-shop visits….
Of course what goes down the middle of roads is … the tram! (Although for ease of boarding not having to cross a motor lane might be better. And better have a 20mph speed limit.)
Yeah “as a cyclist myself.. “
Yeah “as a cyclist myself.. “. , 😂
Shame “cars” (drivers) can’t
Shame “cars” (drivers) can’t seem to keep left on the motorway innit? And driving around solo on short journeys in urban environments is just plain stupid.
And I speak as a driver.
Biker george wrote:
Final sentence corrected.
Without activists there wouldn’t be a lot of beneficial, even lifesaving things, so no need to slur them. Idiots like you wouldn’t be able to vote, for a start.
If you don’t like the rules then campaign for them to reversed (although that required you to become an activist so I won’t hold my breath).
In my experience of daily riding I find far more drivers give me a good amount of room on 2-lane roads than I remember 15 or 20 years ago. But I somehow doubt the 1.5 metre rule is one many drivers consider or could quote from memory.
However, on country lanes I find a lot of drivers refuse to slow adequately, whether overtaking or oncoming. It seems the bigger and more expensive the vehicle (i.e. SUVs and Transit-type vans) the more aggressive and greater the degree of bullying by the driver while those in small hatchbacks are generally more cautious and respectful.
“Activists”? What
“Activists”? What activities / protests do you think caused the HC changes? The changes were certainly lobbied for, by groups like Cycling UK, but the lobbyng power of cyclists is miniscule when compared to the motor industry.
Biker george wrote:
Drivers have to drive on the left, and when there is more than one lane (except at junctions) stay in the left lane except when overtaking. There is nothing to say they have to drive on the left of the lane, though, same as with cyclists.
I actually ride like that !
I actually ride like that ! Mind I ride a Pashley and shows my ignorance of the law!
We should all just respect one another!
We should all just respect
We should all just respect one another!
Oh dear, not bloody ‘can’t we all just get along’ from a driving anti-cyclist, again!
Take a look at the big red Montgomery Distribution 44 tonner below. If only I’d respected him.
He clearly spotted you for a
They clearly spotted you for a scofflaw and possible vigilante * from a way off – by the fact you were riding a bike on the road!
If you had been riding the bike on “the pavement” of course you’d also be an easily identified asocial.
* And having posted footage on the internet / attempted to provide it to the police, you’ve proved them right!
Stephankernow wrote:
Alongside that we should respect ourselves, and that means not cringing in the gutter tugging our forelocks to our motoring overlords, thereby putting ourselves in danger.
It’s an interesting survey,
It’s an interesting survey, and useful if it gets people talking. Like others, I take the 96% with a massive grain of salt, and I do wonder the order in which questions were asked. I could see some people saying they are ‘sometimes frustrated’ by cyclists because they are a bit nervous about ensuring they do pass in an appropriate place, and might be wondering where the next appropriate place is, only for there to be cars coming the other way etc. That person is thinking something entirely different from the person letting themselves get angry that they have to share the space.
The findings back up my hunch that a lot of the reason so many drivers get angry with cyclists is because they think we are braking the law, and/or being inconsiderate. The good news is that at least some of that anger will be mitigated if and when more drivers have a better knowledge of the rules, and crucially IMO, an understanding of why cyclists shouldn not hug the kerb and why single file isn’t always easier to overtake etc.
Some time ago I was on a thankfully fairly quiet dual carriageway when I realised my brakes were a bit soft (turns out I was losing brake fluid), so I reduced my speed until I could find a suitable layby to stop in, which took a while, as I wanted a clear view of big space with no-one behind me so I could slow right down. I was shocked at how many drivers would come up behind me and would not overtake for some distance, even though they clearly wanted to go faster than me, and it was an easy overtake. I concluded there are some drivers who dislike or are scared of the easiest of overtaking maneuvres, so become stressed when ‘stuck behind’ a tractor or bike, and at least some of them will blame the person slowing them down. Instead of thinking ‘maybe I should brush up on my driving skills’ they are annoyed they have been subjected to something unfair.
Also good point – possibly
Also good point – possibly there is the known and despised population of MGIFs but also one of “cautious overtakers”.
The latter for good reason – it’s probably the riskiest thing a driver can do (for their own safety).
Hence why at least one country has simply banned overtaking on some classes of road – and even physically blocked it in places.
I also think you’re correct
I also think you’re correct about “but cyclists are breaking rules / being inconsiderate”. I think that’s a deep human psychological thing to do with “detecting cheating” and “respect from lower-ranking humans”. Cyclists are clearly not drivers and generally “go slower” and in fact “can walk around” with their transport – which drivers cannot. So they are at best “in the way and should move aside” but really “shouldn’t be there at all”.
That is a powerful (and useful) human driver and I don’t think anything will really “fix” that – not education etc. Except possibly like e.g. NL have done through creating traffic-reduced and speed-reduced “access only” local areas. And generating general “understanding” / empathy because people see cyclists there all the time (so it’s also “their” space) and maybe cycle there sometimes themselves (as do their children).
Ride single file, stay close
Ride single file, stay close to the curb? Where I live, I get people screaming at cyclists telling them they don’t belong on the road, I was riding in a bike lane and some dope screamed at me saying that bicycles don’t belong on the road!! Good ol America!
I would question whether 96%
I would question whether 96% of drivers have heard of (or understand) the 2022 updates to the highway code, never mind conform to them.
I suspect there may be an
I suspect there may be an element of misunderstanding of the rules going on too, even among those who have read them. I was once close passed by the driver of a cement mixer truck while negotiating a roundabout (that was a fun one). When he got out of his cab to remonstrate with me after I shouted at him, he indicated the gap between the side of his vehicle and the kerb and said “see, I left you a metre and a half”, clearly not understanding that he’s meant to leave 1.5m clearance from the outer-most point of my bike.
**intentional
**intentional misunderstanding**
Its extraordinarily difficult to convince someone of a fact that is detrimental to themselves. People are going to interpret the rules in the way that is most favourable (See every discussion on twitter where they will produce the rule saying move right and single file to let traffic past, ignoring the important bits before that say for example by and aftere that says where safe…)