- 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
news
Cyclist in traffic (copyright Simon MacMichael)Two in three drivers unaware of forthcoming changes to Highway Code, says AA
Two in three drivers – at the very least – are unaware of new Highway Code rules due to come into effect at the end of next month and which are aimed at protecting vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians, says the AA, which polled 13,000 of its members on the subject.
Telegraph.co.uk reports that the motoring organisation has said the new rules could lead to “confusion and dangerous situations.”
As we have previously reported, major changes to guidance include the establishment of a Hierarchy of Road Users aimed at protecting the most vulnerable, as well as drivers being told to leave at least 1.5 metres’ room when overtaking cyclists.
> Highway Code changes aimed at protecting cyclists to become law next month
The AA is urging the government to conduct an awareness campaign ahead of the changes coming in to ensure that drivers are aware of them – a concern that we are aware is shared by many road.cc readers who have responded to our articles on the subject.
Of the 13,000 AA members polled, only one in three – 33 per cent – were aware that the Highway Code is being changed.
Worryingly, one in five respondents– 20 per cent – believed that the news was false. Such are the times in which we live.
What is particularly concerning is that we suspect that AA members would on average be more engaged with motoring issues than drivers who do not belong to such an organisation – not least because they would have received email or other communications keeping them abreast of the latest developments.
With that in mind, we don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to estimate that levels of awareness of the forthcoming changes among the general population are well below the one in three that the AA found among its members.
AA president Edmund King said: “With such fundamental changes to the Highway Code taking place to make our roads safer, we need to ensure road users understand the new rules ahead of time.
“Getting the message out now would help avoid dangerous situations and remove any confusion on the roads before the new rules are adopted.”
Telegraph.co.uk quoted a spokesman for the Department for Transport (DfT) as saying: “The proposed upcoming changes to The Highway Code will improve safety for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders and were widely reported when they were announced earlier this year.”
We are contacting the DfT to try and establish if an awareness campaign will be carried out ahead of the changes to the Highway Code coming into effect at the end of January.
> Highway Code changes: ‘What about cyclists, or do the rules not apply to them?’
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- mattw 4 min 2 sec ago
That's what they all say....
- Johnny Rags 23 min 30 sec ago
Wouldn't generalisations about generations be, I don't know, "generationalisations"?
- ErnieC 1 hour 27 min ago
No chance of that ever being a human being.
- Rome73 2 hours 11 min ago
I'm sorry I don't accept that the majority of cyclists are 'psychopaths'. There are some 'nutters' out there - but I would hazard a guess that most...
- Rik Mayals underpants 17 hours 41 min ago
Here's my cycling related Christmas gift. Beautiful enamel garage sign to go above my Campagnolo Super Record RS equipped Colnago.
- Rendel Harris 21 hours 49 min ago
No idea if Cancellara was using a motor or not, I hope not as I greatly enjoyed him as a rider, but the tech was certainly available, I can...
- SecretSam 1 day 38 min ago
Usual ugly Pinarello, bumps and curves where they aren't needed. And, according to Mapdec, not well built.
- Spangly Shiny 1 day 23 hours ago
I had the pleasure of owning two of the featured builders here, in my history. When I joined the Army in 1971, I took with me my curly Hetchins:...
Add new comment
31 comments
There are no rule changes, exactly as was always intended. All mouth, no trousers!
My biggest problem with this whole discussion is what rule changes.
Hierarchy was previously rule 204 (so main changes don't affect drivers, as everyone higher up was above them per rule 204 previously).
Give way 'changes' are rules 170 and 184 (pedestrians crossing, cycling infra)
So I can't see why new rules should change how a driver is behaving on the roads. The changes are either tweaks or clarifications of rules, so the likelihood is anyone breaking them (and causing accidents as a result) wasn't following the old rules anyway...
I would like to know about other minor rule changes where Gov has done major public information campaigns rather than expecting people to find out what the law says (and allowing news coverage to give some basic idea that people need to do research)...
I'd have said 2/3 drivers are unaware of the highway code period.
Just send the info about the changes as a text/twatter/insta message.
Then they can read it as they're driving 😀
Communication of the Highway Code changes (plus busting a few myths of what is not changed) is necessary; and I am far from convinced that appropriate marketing will be made.
But, while we can call for that communication to be effective, it is early to criticise them for not starting it. The changes are before Parliament (both Houses). It could be challenged if either House resolves to do so, at which point the changes cannot be made. So any campaign to highlight the changes are unlikely to be committed before the Code is changed.
Agreed I dont think any kind of ad campaign would cut through this side of Christmas anyway, what with all thats going on too at the moment.
And let's face it the changes arent earth shattering, any careful & considerate person should be broadly complying with them already. The non careful & considerate ones arent going to pay the blindest bit of attention to an ad campaign however prominent it is.
Why does the AA need DfT to publicise it? Edmund King seems to be able to get on telly even when he has nothing useful to say and the AA marketing budget seems massive. By helping their members comply with the law and avoid accidents they will truly be helping them rather than pandering to them.
Bit of a fail.
The AA marketing budget is a fraction of the governments and would only likely reach a fraction of the intended audience. Why should a private organisation perform a public service only slightly aligned to their membership who joined for breakdown cover?
His comments are making it out into the Right wing press so it can be misreported. But atleast it might mean that it gets more coverage.
e.g. and sorry for succumbing to clickbait but GB News are rallying the troops
This is where this type of reporting is so dangerous, it fails to mention that cyclists on Shared Paths/Segregated lanes should be given right of way as they have happily reported about Pedestrians.
If I am on the road and I am going straight on, I would not expect a motorist in front of me to wait to turn left if I am in the traffic flow in the same way i would not expect a car to wait for a motor bike. Same for a car turning right, if it will cross my lane then I have the right of way as any other vehicle has.
Motorists who left hook or turn across moving traffic are going to do it anyway no matter what mode of transport I am using.
There are few significant changes, it's mainly clarification. This will not result in dangerous situations, (although I agree with teh AA that there should be a marketing campaign)
The overwhelming cause of danger on the roads is incompetent or negligent drivers - this will be the case anyway, and in addition competent drivers will not need to significantly change their driving style with these amendments.
As a motoring organisation you'd think the AA would run a campaign to at least inform their members of the changes. Similarly the RAC. Perhaps they could work together anddo someting instead of complaining.
I'd think the majority of drivers don't belong to either. I think this is a government thing.
I'm a member of british triathlon but I don't read all of their emails to me.
Agree with Fenix. Whereas it would make sense for the AA/RAC/motoring organisation of your choice to make efforts within their organisational scope, the updates themselves were only one part of the wider govermnetal programme.
Will the new Hierarchy of Road Users make all those stupid "do not pass this vehicle on the inside (or at all!)" stickers illegal, or at least redundant?
Why should it ? It doesn't make cyclists magically visible or invulnerable ?
They are there for a reason.
The only reason they're there is so that when an LGV driver left hooks and kills someone they can say "well I satisfied my duty of care by putting a sticker on the back of my wagon"......
In the same way that not all drivers are great - not all cyclists are either.
I'm sure those signs must have saved a few.
This does not relieve drivers of their responsibility to turn safely, and a sticker doesn't change this either.
Citation please.
I think the end of the sentence is missing:
I'm sure those signs must have saved a few jobs in the sign-printing factory.
Agree. When those stickers [SOA?] have even appeared on Fiesta vans, it is quite clear that they are there to absolve the driver of the responsibility of adjusting his door mirror, rather than any actual safety achievement.
[Having sat in a HGV seat] I don't accept that HGVs have "blind spots" (with the possible exception of the spot immediately behind the trailer), only badly adjusted mirrors and drivers who are not prepared to move within their seat. So I don't accept that a Fiesta has a blind spot.
There were two of them on the Amazon delivery van stopped and blocking the mandatory cycle lane as I made my way into Reading this afternoon to get my Booster. Of course it was facing in the wrong direction so any cyclist would have been oblivious to the extreme hazard.
I predict that absolutely nothing will change.
Since most drivers aren't aware of or refuse to acknowledge the rules in the HC as it exists, changing the rules isn't going to do much, and not running a publicity campaign will only increase the number of entitled drivers and road rage incidents when they are enraged by cyclists obeying the HC.
I'm pretty sure that most of the drivers who've read and understood the changes are cyclists.
I think you have it wrong. They acknowledge they exist but only seem to know a few, one of which is to point to the riding two abreast guidance which seems to have even flummoxed a "Top PoopHole" and legal dickspurt who thinks it means the act is illegal.
I think the comment about them being like Space Corps Directives about sums that up.
Totally agree but as I was reading another question occured to me; when did the word entitlement become a pejorative? In this case we are using the definition "the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment". However, when drivers think they are using it in the same way I'm actually thinking that they are using it in what must be the original definition "the fact of having a right to something."
As a cyclist I am entitled to cycle in the middle of the lane if I believe that that offers me the most safety! That is a fact and not a belief.
Just a very confusing word given it's modern ironic (?) usage. So a lot of what a drivist sees as Cyclists entitlement is in fact cyclists entitlement
Anyone else read
Glad they're letting everybody know, anyway.
I don't believe those statistics - it implies 1/3 of drivers are aware of the HC personal experience would put that number much lower.
"Telegraph.co.uk quoted a spokesman for the Department for Transport (DfT) as saying: “The proposed upcoming changes to The Highway Code will improve safety for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders and were widely reported when they were announced earlier this year.""
Well, it'll only improve safety if drivers are aware of the changes and respect them.
Why the hell are we expecting drivers to be aware of changes? If I didn't read the drivel here I wouldn't know. It hasn't been exactly widely advertised has it? Ultimately of course the only way things will change is if the conseqeunces of poor driving are heavily publicised as being stringent in the extreme. That won't happen without the manpower to do so.
Pages