Highway Code changes: Cycling UK calls for long-term public awareness campaign to help produce a “mindset shift” on British roads

The Heil, the lavatory paper beloved of Nigels everywhere, is right on the changes today. Too much putrid filth to bother repeating, but this picture, or rather its caption, did amuse me - I hope these roadhogs feel ashamed of themselves, riding two abreast when there's...a long open clear road for overtaking right by their side...

Hello Kiddiwinks, it Uncle Doom and Gloom here with another update. 

So, we have had a whole load of click bait published. My favorite so far is Gloucester Live (on FB) with the headline "Drivers face £200 fine for skipping songs". This is of course relating to the 'innocent' use of handheld devices to play music, Lithuanian TV or Pornography. The article also goes on to inform us about the other changes to the HC that include, that it is NOW illegal to throw a cigeretette out of the window, that you mustn't cross the solid white line at traffic lights = £100 fine, and having a dirty number plate. Cue comments about fining innocent motorists.

The DM actually had published an accurate article on the changes including debunking some of the myths...but the comments soon made up for that.

Anyway, continuing from my comment on the Grant Shapps annoucement about the "New" Death by Dangerous Cycling bill, (where I warn that this bill will be the price of the HC revisions) there was a Lords debate where we learnt a few things.

You can read the full text of the debate on Hansard, but here is what we learnt.

First of the debate was a move to regret by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, the former Green party MP Jenny Jones. 

The move to regret for the HC was the only way to raise the debate and was withdrawn at the end of that debate. 

It reads

That this House regrets the draft Revision of the Highway Code because, despite making important changes to protect road users from harm, Her Majesty’s Government has failed sufficiently to educate the public on the changes.

Right onto the meat and potatoes of the story.

After the introduction by Jenny our favorite person Barroness McIntosh (what about the cyclist that jump red lights) of Pickering enters the debate. In her speech we learn that she is dead keen to get the Dangerous Cycling Bill through (no surprises there) and that she has submitted a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, to include the offences of causing death by dangerous cycling, causing serious injury by dangerous cycling and causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling.

(Actually I think in principle that amending the RTA1988 is a better method that introducing a new law, but I have not seen her wording. See my comment and explanation under Shapps)

Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Conservative, related her unhappy expeirence of being run down by a "bicyclist" were the police took no action and that serious thought ought to be given to bike owners being registered and therefore identifiable. 

Also a reference to e-scooters to be banned from the highway. responded to by Baroness Randerson Liberal Democrat Lords Spokesperson (Transport) that she was surprised that e-scooters are not mentioned at all in the code. The reason for this was explained later (See Hansard).

Then came the interesting bit about why it seemed that the government has not run an awareness campaign.

Lord Atlee said that he tried to obtain a copy of the new HC, but found that it was not available either in print or on-line.

Now this and the awarness campaign not being started until now is because of two things.

The first is parlimentary proceedure. "for any changes there is a parliamentary process which needs to be gone through. At any time, they could be prayed against, in which case those changes would not happen. I could also imagine, had I started communicating this 40 days ago, noble Lords being very cross with me for communicating something Parliament had not yet agreed."  Baroness Vere of Norbiton Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)

Okay, makes sense and the government could have overidden the 40day period. The question I have is why they didn't. Was someone going to raise a pray?

The second reason why you can't buy a hard copy until at least April....you'll love this...

is because there is an acute paper shortage and because the price is too low for the booksellers to stock it.

Play safe.

Local newspaper FacePlant page is awash with outraged morons. Fighting them off with a shitty stick but the level of malign ignorance is simply astonishing.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158797449053031&id=6134030...

Newspapers are taking great joy in stirring hatred....... take this joyous example from the Sun..... headline

"ROAD RAGE  Cyclists seen in the middle of the road under new Highway Code rules as drivers brand laws a ‘nightmare’"

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/motors/8353369/cyclists-middle-road-new-highway-code-rules/

One of the weird things about 'the changes will cause crashes' hysteria is that the numpties making the argument that the changes are dangerous are pretty much all saying the changes are dangerous because motorists are too angry behind the wheel. On the face of it, that make sense... a crash pretty much can't happen in these circumstances without someone driving like a dick.

However, these geniuses also can't seem to make the following connections:
-For the crash to happen, the motorist can't be following the highway code. So it doesn't matter what's in the highway code or indeed what changes, the motorist wasn't intending on following it anyway.
-The problem they describe is emotional lightweights with anger management issues being behind the wheel of a car.

Anyway, I have a brand new proposal that I'm sure everyone can get behind, and it is scrupulously fair:
If you cycle like a dick, drive like a dick or park like a dick then your chosen vehicle of dick-waddery is crushed.

The roads will be clear in no time meaning there will be far more scope for active travel schemes.

Thank you for coming to my ted talk

I still find it very odd that in all of the msm discussion regarding the changes to the highway code over the last week there’s an Elephant in the room that is not being discussed, climate change.

It is obvious that to meet the climate change targets we need to reduce our reliance in the internal combustion engine. It’s in Gear Change it’s in the COP26 agreement. From what we know about the way the current populist neo-lib administration works they are very keen on nudge tactics rather than straight forward, unambiguous communication.

The change to Highway Code seem like a classic nudge designed to make Active Travel more attractive. If that means making driving less attractive so be it.

However, even when LBC get Shapps in they don’t ask the obvious question “are you trying to make life difficult for drivers because you want to reduce the number of short journeys taken by cars as part of your commitment to net zero?”. Why?  Because it’s already unacceptable to be a climate change denier but being actively pro-environment is a different matter. So rather than being anti the pro-environment agenda they choose to ignore it when issues like this come up. Worse than that they actively engage in all sorts of whataboutery, cry hypocrisy at anybody that tries to reduce their carbon footprint and label activists as deranged woke hippies.

 Let’s be honest you can understand why. They rely on advertising income which only  counts consumers. If they starting to suggest that we should reduce consumption and not buy shit product that nobody needs, then some might realise that the Daily Heil is on top of that list.

To which you must yet add something more substantial through profound changes in our transport systems, driving back individual motorized traffic and making active travel the norm.

quite frankly with the way the media have been covering the HC updates, Im not sure the government needs to bother with much of a publicity campaign, its more like a correction campaign

heres todays Daily Mail offering entitled "Cyclists take to the middle of the road for the first time and drivers are POWERLESS to stop them..."  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10454809/Cyclists-middle-road-d...

and its worth remembering the seatbelt & drink drive campaigns took the best part of 20 years of quite hard hitting adverts (that would almost certainly not be allowed on TVs thesedays for being too graphic as they used to show people actually being crushed by cars or flying through windscreens) to have an effect.