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.
> “Read the Highway Code – that is not a safe pass”: Police say post advising drivers to give cyclists “an arm’s length” of space while overtaking was published “in error”
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.
> “The day cyclists took over the roads”: The Times, Darren Grimes and TikTok react as new Highway Code revisions come into force this weekend
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.
Add new comment
50 comments
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 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.
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!
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 allowed. It does make cyclists safer and that's from a cyclist.
No one drives hugging the kerb or in the door zone.
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?
Yeah "as a cyclist myself.. ". , 😂
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.
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.
So they were asked what the HC says and answered with what they thought that it OUGHT to say?![](/sites/all/themes/rcc/images/smilies/39.gif)
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.
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.
Too many idiots out there.
One car length from a layby, so park on the pavement on double yellows.
Just how ???
BOLAS tho...
and they work on a BMW !!!
What do you expect it's a BMW
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 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 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 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 dangerous. I have submitted loads of video footage to the police and for what? Not even a reply.
FTFY
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 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.
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?
In any case, everyone knows that the perfect bike is the next one you'll buy.
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% 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 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.
Pages