New research into drivers’ knowledge of changes to the Highway Code has raised concern, a survey estimating that 25 per cent of drivers do not know the correct rules on pedestrian and cyclist priority.
The research comes courtesy of Tier, the world’s largest shared micro-mobility operator, who surveyed motorists ahead of Car-Free Day and have now called for better awareness of the Highway Code changes and hierarchy of road users.
> The Highway Code for cyclists — all the rules you need to know for riding on the road explained
Changes were implemented in January 2022 to better protect vulnerable road users, and include establishing a hierarchy of road users with those most vulnerable (pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders) placed at the top, as well as giving cyclists and those on foot priority in situations such as the ones illustrated below.
However, Tier’s survey found that one-in-four drivers were incorrect or unable to answer on questions of pedestrian and cyclist priority and incorrectly believe that those driving vehicles have priority over cyclists and pedestrians when turning onto a side road.
Furthermore less than half of drivers correctly identified pedestrians as having priority, that despite the two-year anniversary of the Highway Code changes approaching this winter.
The Highway Code states:
You should not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse-drawn vehicles going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane
More than a third of drivers surveyed wrongly believed drivers have priority when turning into a side road, while one-in-five said they were not sure who has priority.
Jessica Murphy, Head of Public Policy UKI at Tier, said the results of the survey were troubling, and demonstrate the need to further raise awareness of the changes to avoid dangerous interactions on Britain’s roads.
She said: “The findings highlight how well-meaning changes to the Highway Code still put the onus on cyclists and other vulnerable road users to be aware of drivers. Currently the majority of drivers should give cyclists their legal right of way, however a quarter will not, which could lead to potentially devastating outcomes.
“We hope that by raising awareness of the changes more drivers will hear about the changes and drive according to the Highway Code, making our roads safer to cycle on, especially in urban areas and reduce conflict between road users.”
The changes to the Highway Code were brought in 20 months 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, Cycling UK at the time calling for a long-term public awareness campaign to help produce a “mindset shift” on British roads. It took until July, six months after they came into effect, for the changes to be promoted in a THINK! road safety campaign.
And Tier’s research is hardly surprising considering the news a year ago that an AA survey showed that 61 per cent of drivers had not read the new rules.
“While we are pleased that many of the changes can be successfully recalled, we’d like more drivers to know the rules outright so they can keep themselves and others safe,” the managing director of AA Accident Assist, Tim Rankin, said.
63 thoughts on “Highway Code: One-in-four drivers still don’t know correct rule on cyclist priority”
“Highway Code: One-in-four
“Highway Code: One-in-four drivers still don’t know correct rule on cyclist priority….”
Just one more reason why everybody should be re-tested every five years. Its over 38 years since I took my test and no one has checked to see if I am still fit and able to drive. That’s total madness.
I agree. It feels like even
I agree. It feels like even if the justice system worked the way it is meant to, it would only be after a driver has done something wrong. A bit late then!
Although I would also like there to be more out there for cyclist training. They pose less risk to other road users than drivers, but poor cycling can put the cyclist at risk.
I am not attempting to blame cyclists for collisions!
Things like the shoulder check before moving out. How far out from parked cars should you cycle. Once you know, they seem obvious, but for someone just starting cycling it isn’t always. I worry that I am doing something dangerous without realising it. I don’t know what I don’t know!
Yeah I can’t believe how many
Yeah I can’t believe how many people on bikes I see not shoulder checking before moving around obstacles or changing their line significantly. To me it’s just a natural reaction to the situation & I often shoulder check just to be aware of my general surroundings, but we’re all wired differently I suppose.
Equally I do see a lot of cars with their wing/door mirrors folded in whilst driving around, so they’re probably not in use much either. People are great!
It’s so hardwired that I
It’s so hardwired that I shoulder check when wheeling a shopping trolley, or overtaking as a pedestrian.
Also agreed, a regular
Also agreed, a regular program of re-testing drivers should be implemented.
That way, we’d have less middle lane hoggers, people might drive more courteously, and the average speed on the roads would hopefully increase as people are more aware and better drivists.
I broadly agree but I think
I broadly agree but I think we should manage people’s expectations.
The roads are already “safe” so it’s likely that this won’t “improve” much for any conceivable intervention (given likely cost / public resistance) – without a major shift in our overall focus / goal.
We should test more than once a lifetime. That will be costly and very unpopular. I think it would weed out a small number of drivers who are utterly incompetent and maybe a larger group who feel they’re not up to passing a test again. Some of whom may not actually be very bad – they’ve just reached the “conscious (of) incompetence” level as opposed to “unconscious incompetence”.
What it will do is give an opportunity to “update” drivers on the numerous changes since some decades ago and hopefully will change the “climate” e.g. people might be very slightly sharper around driving.
On that – we should make more effort to educate all people when things change. It’s not just drivers – their passengers or other observers are important too, never mind other road users. However trying to reach people can get exponentially costly as people don’t want to know. Especially about changes they aren’t interested in / didn’t want!
Another way of providing “feedback” is by making more effort to enforce existing laws. Again through discussions here I now suspect this would not be the quick win many think. We might be able to harness technology and make a greater change but lots of this is down to police / courts – so humans. And (it being the UK and we don’t want a police state) ultimately societal attitudes – what we all consider unacceptable.
I like the bit where she
I like the bit where she suggests that only a quarter of drivers won’t give way to a cyclist because they’re unaware of the rules, as if the other three quarters will despite the fact they do know the rules.
Going a bit off topic here, but leading on from the call for a public awareness campaign to ensure drivers know about the new rules, I think we should go further – 99% of what the average driver “knows” about cyclist and the rules around cycling is myth and fallacy (for example, 86.1% of drivers think we should “also” be subject to a tax that they don’t pay and that hasn’t existed in 86 years). Just about everything that we cyclists do that drivers get annoyed about a) doesn’t inconvenience them at all, and b) we’re supposed to do.
I’ve mentioned this before, and although the consensus seemed to be that “it wasn’t the Government’s job”, I can’t help but think that a lot of the issues we all face (which stem from misinformation-fuelled, anti-cyclist hatred), would be resolved by some form of public information campaign that at least attempted to clear up some myths surrounding issues like:
Really agree on the public
Really agree on the public awareness campaign.
I do kind of miss those public information campaigns we used to get on TV, seemed cheesy at the time, but the messages at least got through & were embedded in your consciousness (the ones about fireworks & not fetching your frisbee from an electricty pylon traumatised me as a kid) .
My favourite was obviously the one on the Young Ones – “Think once, think twice, think don’t drive on the pavement!” (illustrated with a cricket bat & various squidy objects).
Then again, who watches adverts any more? It’s one thing social meeja could actually be useful for maybe.
Quite an interesting article
Quite an interesting article from the guardian the other day, I know how people receive their entertainment is different these days but still a considerable amount of it contains advertising. Just needs to have some will on behalf of the government maybe ?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/sep/16/from-smoking-to-seatbelts-hard-hitting-safety-campaigns-that-made-a-difference
Cyclo1964 wrote:
I think the department that made public information films was closed in 2011, so we’re just going to have to treasure the old favourites
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92xPM7JR2NU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZWD2sDRESk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7EI2cKUPw0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7lo98PcZD4
The sad thing is I remember
The sad thing is I remember most of them and glad to see you got Tufty in
When I was at school as a
When I was at school as a teenager “the Tufty club” was also a put down for the National Front.
hutchdaddy wrote:
Just to be clear, I’ve never supported squirrels in the National Front or any nationalistic political group
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/lifestyle/lifestyle-opinion/denis-kilcommons-huddersfield-squirrel-bombed-10078473
I wondered why I’d never
I wondered why I’d never boiled a kettle on a boat….. It all makes sense now
You can’t have your kayak and
You can’t have your kayak and heat it too
Creakingcrank wrote:
Chapeau!
I agree with most of what you
I agree with most of what you say. The only point of contention for me would be the “storage of private property” comment. In areas such as mine, people on low wages often travel 10 miles each way to do 12 hour shifts of physical work to keep the country fed whilst living in houses of multiple occupancy with no offroad parking. I have no problem with these people “storing their property” on the road as long as it is parked responsibly.
My issue with parking is that having *chosen* to make a journey in their car motorists then believe they have an absolute right to park their car outside their destination, regardless of how this may inconvenience and endanger others.
SimoninSpalding wrote:
Neither do I. As much as I like the Japanese system of “you can’t have a car unless you own off-road parking”, it wouldn’t work here with our terraced houses and awful public transport. My issue is that it’s viewed as an inherent right to park where you want and when you want – there is nobody more selfish than a driver looking to park.
No matter how you frame it, it is public land being used for the storage of private property and that this fact is conveniently forgotten whenever infrastructure that favours anyone other than drivers is being considered (see any proposed bike hanger or cycle lane). I think it might be worth reminding drivers that there is at least* 68,000 acres of the UK that just has cars parked on it for 99% of the day.
*based on 33.27m domestic cars or average size, if parked so close together that they’re touching on all sides – real figure more likely to be in the hundreds of thousands of acres, a large portion of which being public land.
BalladOfStruth wrote:
Because my 60kg weedy frame and dinky two wheeled menace totally causes enough turbulence to blow your two ton wankpanzer on its roof, Janet(!)
(Note, sarcasm is definitely implied here)
Yeah! Just like they don’t
Yeah! Just like they don’t know what that red light on the pole above the yellow and green ones is for, or what those unbroken white lines in the middle of the road mean. It’s because they know that claiming to not be aware of…, or failing to recall that incident (this may only work with ScotRozzer) where they cut straight across a cyclist, or pulled out immediately in front of him on a main road or roundabout will almost always get them off even though there’s FHD video of it happening- just like they get off with 12+++++ points on the licence
I understand the desire to
I understand the desire to use a variety of language in an article, and that the terms are often (mis)used interchangeably – but there is a troubling mix of “right of way” and “priority” here, both from road.cc and the quoted speaker from Tier. They are not the same thing. Right of way describes a legal right to pass over land (it is not limited to the road network); priority is what the Highway Code says about who goes first. I concede though that the HWC does unhelpfully use “right of way” once, to say: The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others”.
seems a liitle odd to only
seems a liitle odd to only ask this of drivers. How about pedestrains and cyclists for comparison. I ‘m sure they haven’t read the highway code either. The current flashing green man is too sophisticated for most.
I see your point although the
I see your point although the most deadly, in terms of societal impact, road user is perhaps good place to start. I don’t remember seeing any advertised HC education programme for any road users, never mind motorists.
Im going to be controversial
Im going to be controversial here and say the “undertaking” part of H3 is a nightmare that needs repealing or re-writing.
Its creates a false sense of expectation from cyclists that drivers will be aware of it and so they put themselves in danger trying to put it into practice in the real world, especially granted its only a “should”.
TBH Im not sure what a better answer is … just that I cant see it ever working welluntil properly segregated cycle lanes are ubiquitous.
I had a 50/50 example of this
I had a 50/50 example of this at the weekend – I was cycling up a cycle filter lane alongside stationary traffic. At the end of the filter is an ASL, with dedicated signals for cyclists, which are green as I approach. I am intending to go straight on at the junction. Before I reach the ASL, the motor traffic lights also go green, and the Range Rover I am alongside starts moving and indicating left. As I am probably in the blind spot, and I can see the passenger window is wide open, I call out “going straight on” while also preparing to brake. To which the driver replies “well don’t go up the inside of a car then”, and continues on his way, forcing me to brake. Slightly irritating, but no major drama as I was prepared for either eventuality, but I agree a less experienced cyclist could have got into bother.
quiff wrote:
That’s the problem with putting cycle lanes on the left hand sidem but really the issue is that drivers should be checking that it’s safe to turn left when the traffic lights turn green.
I usually try to time my approach to a red traffic light if I know the rough timings, so that I can reach the front just as it’s turning green and my momentum gives me a head start on the stationary traffic. I either aim to get across a junction before motor vehicles have a chance to hit me or try to match the flow of traffic and not be by the side of a vehicle.
Traffic lights with a left-turn junction are a good candidate for allowing cyclists to turn left on red (if it’s safe to do so) as that avoids more conflict than forcing cyclists to tangle with left turning drivers.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Actually, the problem is we only focus on what the HC says to drivers, but ignore the advice for cyclists. This (rule 76) says –
“Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road.”
So yes, you have priority, but you still have a responsibility to keep yourself safe.
This issue was recently
This issue was recently covered by Youtube Driving Instructor Ashley Neal. There appears to be a face value contradiction between H3, and rules 74 and 76. Ashley does go on to explain in detail on certain situations, but there are a number of different circumstances which need to be addressed.
Firstly moving traffic, including bicycles, should have priority over static vehicles in this manner. However once all vehicles are moving it is safer to hold position and wait for the vehicle in front to perform their manouvre.
When filtering I am constantly watching lights and signals, and if they change to green I pull up between two cars that are yet to get moving, I don’t try to force through once the first cars are accellerating away from the junction. If anything is obscured or I do not have any room to filter through I move to the Primary position in order to make myself seen. I have never had a problem with this kind of clash in those instances.
Steve K wrote:
The crucial detail is that the driver has to be indicating for you to be able to stop or overtake (unless you suspect them and are watching where their wheels are pointing). The big problem is when drivers suddenly turn left across your path with no warning.
I work in catering and anyone
I work in catering and anyone handling food has to redo level 2 food hygeine training every 3 years. This takes a couple of hours, is done online and requires an 80% pass rate in each section. This acts a reminder of regs and makes sure that everyone is aware of any changes. Considering the potential danger that a motor vehicle presents, and the number of deaths and serious injuries inflicted by them each year, it doesn’t seem at all unreasonable to me that all driving licence holders should be obliged to do an online highway code course at least every 5 years.
it doesn’t seem at all
it doesn’t seem at all unreasonable to me that all driving licence holders should be obliged to do an online highway code course at least every 5 years
Good plan!
And then politics,
And then politics, politicians and the interests of their parties get in the way.
Do I hear “War on motorists”?
Do I hear “War on motorists”?
Mass retesting would probably
Mass retesting would probably be to expensive admin wise but there must be away folks can be made more aware of the rules. Stricter punishments for breaking them would also help folk take conisance of the rules. Is that the way :-/?
HLaB wrote:
Maybe random call ups, for retesting – a bit like jury duty – the prospect of not knowing if/when it will happen will make people keep up to date.
#optimistic
belugabob wrote:
Impromptu roadside tests performed by police. Any driver they think looks suspicious, they pull over, ask a couple of test questions and any failure gets them booked for a full re-test.
“Any driver they [the police]
“Any driver they [the police] think looks suspicious, they pull over, ask a couple of test questions and any failure gets them booked for a full re-test.”
I rather suspect the upshot of that would be every black person in London taking twice-weekly driving tests…
Brauchsel wrote:
Well getting rid of racist cops is definitely something we should do. Maybe it’d be a good way of finding them out, but then again stop and search hasn’t been used that way. It’s almost as if society is set up to be racist.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Impromptu roadside tests performed by police. Any driver they think looks suspicious, they pull over, ask a couple of test questions and any failure gets them booked for a full re-test.— belugabob
What is this “police” you speak of? From memory, I believe they used to operate around here, but haven’t seen one for years. It’s rumoured that they gather in a building known as “a station”, there’s blue & green cars parked outside, but I’ve not seen one enter or leave.
mark1a wrote:
I saw quite a few at a murder scene on my commute the other week. But actually traffic policing?… not so much
What is this “police” you
What is this “police” you speak of? From memory, I believe they used to operate around here, but haven’t seen one for years. It’s rumoured that they gather in a building known as “a station”, there’s blue & green cars parked outside, but I’ve not seen one enter or leave
This is them hiding out at Garstang Police Station (well known crime hotspot) – there were more in the Aldi carpark over the road. This photo should help you spot one
No need to seek them out,
No need to seek them out, just drive down the Great Western Road with a black face…they’ll find you.
belugabob wrote:
How about automatic retesting whenever points are incurred, failure meaning both points and financial penalty are doubled and licence is suspended until successfully re-taken?
If not retesting, just make
If not retesting, just make it compulsory to have a 1 hour ‘refresher’ lesson with a driving instructor once every 5 years. Less bureocratic than a driving test – not pass/fail, but require a sign off from the instructor, which could be witheld, forcing you to do another refresher until you meet the standard.
HLaB wrote:
theory tests are not that expensive, just make it part of the process for applying for replacement licence
Regularly retesting drivers,
Regularly retesting drivers, to ensure that they are qualified to hold a license to operate their dangerous vehicles around other people, is an eminently sensible suggestion, which would be uncontroversial in a rational society. But there’s the rub, we don’t live in a rational society. To start off with, our base primate natures abhor having something we feel we’ve previously won taken away from us. Then there has been decades of propaganda equating driving with freedom. The more that message embeds itself in the receptive minds of the people, the less political will there is to spend money on viable alternatives, creating a vicious circle. And, just in the last 24 hours, the Overton window has been shifted a bit more. With Sunak now mooting a delay to ICE car sales ban (to win back a few thousand Jeremy Clarkson fans in key constituencies) the fight is now to try to stop him doing that, rather than pushing for further positive steps.
The problem is not with
The problem is not with forcing everyone into EVs from ICE cars (which the plan was irrational and badly thought out as the network infrastructure was never going to be upgraded to properly cope) but the fact that the car, no matter the powertrain, is the least efficient method of transport period. There will be times where for certain people it will be necessary. But as long as the big oil and motor industry lobbyists continue to fund the Government that’s never going to happen.
One in four is surprisingly
One in four is surprisingly good imo.
Though I’d frame it as “continuing education” not “retests”.
And heaven knows there’s a huge amount to be done that is simply reasonable and obvious, justifiable from a basic road safety perspective.
Just make it compulsory to
Just make it compulsory to resit the theory test every time you get caught for a motoring offence. You could give say a 8 week grace period, but failure to take and pass the test within that period would result in loosing your driving licence until you had successfully passed.
Just make it compulsory to
Just make it compulsory to resit the theory test every time you get caught for a motoring offence. You could give say a 8 week grace period, but failure to take and pass the test within that period would result in loosing your driving licence until you had successfully passed.
I tried last year to petition
I tried last year to petition for a refresher theory test when photocard licences are due for renewal on Gov’t website, only it got rejected because it “didn’t meet timeframe criteria”. Licences have to be renewed every ten years, how is that not a suitable time frame?
losing
losing
Not if it includes that
Not if it includes that ridiculously ambiguous and misleading picture above. What is it trying to convey?…’Don’t ACTUALLY left hook cyclists, just scare the shit out of them by pulling past and slowing down while indicating left…’ What’s wrong with showing the car patiently waiting behind the cyclist, leaving plenty of space, and turning behind them? I’m not even sure that the Highway Code has anything new to say on this matter, has this not always been the case? I suppose the point does need hammering home as far as it concerns filtering cyclists, but filtering doesn’t appear to be what is going on in the picture. (And what is meant by the car accelerating away from the junction…? ‘If you’ve just ignored common sense and human decency and turned left immediately after passing a cyclist, get the hell out fast lest they catch up with you’…?)
1 in 4 I’m surprised it’s
1 in 4 I’m surprised it’s that high.
1 in 4 I’m surprised it’s
1 in 4 I’m surprised it’s that high.
hutchdaddy wrote:
I’m surprised it’s that low
This ‘priority’ stuff is
This ‘priority’ stuff is fiction, as it was intended to be. There are always people on here determined to preserve the status quo which is: pedestrians and cyclists better look out for motor vehicles, and if they get hit it’s their own fault for not stopping/ braking. It is not infrequent that drivers pull out immediately in front of a cyclist on the main road, or in front of a cyclist coming from the right on a roundabout. I am, indeed, ready for these offences so I live to tell the tale, but I often have video these days. The police are 100% not interested, so this priority will never be enforced or even reinforced by police advice letters. They will always think, but will not even respond formally to the report, that ‘well, you should have braked, weren’t you looking?!
The only way that pedestrians and cyclists can force ‘priority’ into the courts against the will of the police is by getting themselves KSI’d- even then, the authorities and the ‘well, it wouldn’t have happened to me, I would have looked‘ brigade on here would be predisposed against them.
This ‘priority’ stuff is
duplicate post
Most of the problems with
Most of the problems with this rule is the way it disrupts the way that drivers currently (incorrectly) interact with each other. I had one a while back as a ped. I’m approaching a juction. There’s a lorry travelling in the same direction approaching the junction looking to turn right. I am going to get to the juction first so I clearly have priority. The driver coming towards us flashes to let the lorry turn. The lorry driver accepts the invite and drives across. I’m obviously not going to just continue because I have priority but I have already stepped out. I give the driver my best WTF gesticulation and he gives a sort of what was I supposed to do apologetic shrug.
Saw pretty much the same
Saw pretty much the same scenario, this time it was a van and the peds did cross the side street. Van driver gives them a blast on the horn, clearly believing they were in the wrong. Worryingly, he didn’t even seem that concerned over the possibility he could hit them, I guess he just believed they should get out of “his way”, that since they were at fault (in his view) any consequence were on them alone.
100% sure that some –
100% sure that some – potentially many – of those 75% know the new rule perfectly well, they just pretend not to because they don’t like it and have no intention of ever observing it.
Velo-drone wrote:
Precisely this, and it’s rather like the somewhat absurd claim that “many” people in Wales didn’t know about the 20mph limits before they were introduced, it’s just people getting their defence in early so that if they get a ticket they can claim s’not fair, s’not fair ‘cos nobody never told me it was against the law.
Yet another junk survey! As
Yet another junk survey! As correctly stated below- they know the rules but they don’t like them, just as they refuse to pay any attention to close passing distances or red traffic lights or MOTs. Nothing will change while the police display the same opinions