- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Highway Code.PNGMost drivers still don't know Highway Code changes, poll shows
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.
"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 is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- Scot 26 min 41 sec ago
I was the support rider with paddy and we did have 3 other Raleigh Choppers as back-up including a 5-speed and different gears to swap out. The 5...
- Erik Jenster 25 min 14 sec ago
Going with the pricing used for the other bikes, this really ought to cost around £1000-1500, which would make it very competitive. ... or maybe...
- brooksby 39 min 59 sec ago
Well, surely that's obvious, isn't it? Their objections were nothing at all to do with 'protecting nature' - that was just a fig leaf to cover the...
- hawkinspeter 46 min 5 sec ago
Garmin can refuse to transfer data to Strava, but they can't stop you doing so (unless they use a proprietary format that can't be processed easily...
- mdavidford 56 min 48 sec ago
I'm not really clear the relevance of plastering tips in this context.
- brooksby 1 hour 9 min ago
https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/car-left-balancing-on-......
- zweiblumen 1 hour 47 min ago
I do try not to jump on the bandwagon, but this is ludicrous. The problem that they identify is illegally modified bikes: how can banning legal...
- anke2 1 hour 48 min ago
Sure. Like it's interesting to wonder about the driving for driving (track-days), driving for playing golf, driving for a ramble, driving for a pub...
- Jogle 2 hours 13 min ago
And a couple of small plastic bollards will stop the lorries going anywhere near the bridge. ...
- Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells 2 hours 15 min ago
Or completely give up.... and buy a emtb, which will break within 12 months, so you can lounge on the sofa guilt free 👍
Add new comment
59 comments
Most modern cars now have flashy touch screens. Why not have them display a couple of randomly picked multiple-choice questions about the highway code that you have to get correct before the vehicle will start?
Excellent idea - not alcohol lock but ignorance lock!
My car has one of those touch screens a d insists I use it to manage all of the car's various functions. I don't dare while driving - it is a major distraction. How manufacturers are allowed to include something like that (albeit with a small warning that you ought to keep your eyes on the road) I have no idea.
One reason I don't want to change my 20 yo car...
a study found the using the touchscreen takes longer and is more distracting to do almost anything than the bttons it replaced.
But touchscreen is likely cheaper for the manufacturer than 50 buttons
I saw one of the Audi E-trons the other day. It didn't have side mirrors but had cameras. Apparently it has screens in the doors to "replicate" the mirrors inside on two monitors built into either door. So to see in the "mirrors", you have to look lower to see the images and, I imagine, are easily blocked by passengers. It will also be interesting how long they stay on for as could lead to dooring potential.
perfect
this is win win. either buyers deselect the touchscreen option (making everyone else safer) or get constant highway code reinforcement (making everyone else safer)
I was following a Porsche something-or-other this morning which had a dashboard screen significantly bigger than an iPad. It was clearly displaying some sort of camera feed, and I could see red parallel lines, but it wasn't the rear view because I wasn't on it.
You sure it wasn't a Tesla? They've got pretty big touch sensitive displays on their dashboards.
Nope - definitely Porsche. It said so in big shiny letters.
Probably a Tesla driver that's gotten embarrassed about Musk's behaviour and doesn't want to be seen as some kind of right-wing nutter so they've stuck a different logo on.
Porsche Taycan.
£150k wank-panzer
If people like screens maybe just replace the windshield with a large screen? That could actually show a view e.g. behind the door pillars / enhance images at night / in fog / eliminate glare. Or better maybe "augmented reality" displays (mounted in your driving helmet) like a military plane or helicopter?
Pah, only iPad sized, so dated...
https://youtu.be/3tmHJHUsiCI?t=518
Many drivers don't want to know the Highway Code. They develop their own ideas of what the rules should be and expect everyone else to abide by them.
I have observed the driving rules very carefully red - stop, green go, orange go very fast
Seems to be some assumption here that the older version of the HC was widely remembered, understood and followed.
Beat me to it.
Let's be honest, most drivers drivers were blissfully unaware of the old version of the HC. Go and find a driver with a few moons between them and their theory test (35-40+) and give them a little quiz on the HC.
Look at the outrage when the safe passing distance for a cyclist was updated to be a little more descriptive - you'd never have thought that the concept of giving cyclists plenty of room (as well as them being permitted to ride two abreast - something else that caused outrage) have been in the HC since at least 1931.
Look at what happens when there's a merge in turn - and how the drivers will treat the 1-in-500 who actually tries do do what they're supposed to do.
I'd honestly not be suprised to learn that 80% of drivers know less than 20% of the HC.
Of course not. Ask a driver what the Highway Code says about xxx situation, and the most common response is "I don't need to read the Highway Code, I passed my test years ago". I know this because it's part of my job to ask that question.
Until it's complulsory to sit a theory test every 5-10 years nearly all drivers will be completely unaware of any updates.
Agree.
Although I'd go further, and suggest that for things like passing distances, many motorists go with the attitude that the HC says and completely supports any decision that they make...
Closely followed, in my experience, by, "It's all just common sense anyway"; as Mark Twain remarked, “I’ve found that common sense ain’t so common.”
I'd say that most of the Highway Code rules are common sense if you come from the attitude of trying to avoid collisions, but the problem is that the worst drivers have the attitude of maximum forward progress for themselves.
Yes, but hitherto the "common sense" has been that it falls to those with most to lose to prevent motorists from injuring them.
Hence the notion that pedestrians proceeding along a main roadway should look out for and yield to motorists entering or emerging from sidestreets - even though the same logic never applied to motorists travelling the same route as the pedestrians.
Surely the root cause of *that* is that everything about the environment and much in culture tells you that making rapid progress using a car is what all adults do? Indeed we spend lots of time and money doing.
Our road designs reinforce that - because they are designed for maximum (safe) throughput of motor traffic. Heck - we're even considering new legislation around the right to protest because this was slowing down drivers.
If we are in an obeseogenic environment we're certainly in a driveogenic one.
I watched a driver pull out at a mini roundabout and insert his car into a space about one and a half car lengths between two cars driving along the main road (which had priority over him)
when the following driver beeped (undestandably) he amazingly had time to get out, have an argument and offer the other driver a fight. Amazing how much spare time all these maximum forward progress driver have.
The driver who claims they don't need to read the HC is also the same who will lambast cyclists for "not knowing the HC".
Has any study ever been done on which group of road users has a better knowledge of the HC? Non-cycling drivers versus adult cyclists? My money is on cyclists.
My house is on cyclists.
Seems a bit extreme.
Dunno - I've literally got the T-shirt...
Pages