- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
OPINION
Highway Code changes one year on: Confusion in communication has created the perfect storm and done little to improve safety for cyclists
Thu, Mar 02, 2023 18:43
54
london cyclistsThe communication of the purpose behind the Highway Code changes has been poorly communicated. Historically, there has been tension between cyclists and vehicle drivers and large amounts of that tension is a lack of understanding by both types of road users.
The purpose behind the changes in relation to cyclists was to improve cycle safety and reduce casualties by allowing cyclists to adopt positions that would encourage safer driving by other vehicles. A good example of this was in relation to the position a cyclist is expected to take on the road. Traditionally this was never included within the Highway Code, but drivers expected them to adopt a position alongside the kerb.
A combination of poor road surfaces and the desire to dissuade vehicles to overtake cyclists led to the Highway Code adopting the position that cyclists can in fact ride in the centre of the road/lane.
Crucially this was intended to apply on quieter roads and in slow-moving traffic, or on the approach to junctions.
Poor media representation
But a combination of poor communication and misreporting by the media led to headlines such as:
“Driver's fury as bike riders take to the middle of the road”: Daily Mail
“New Highway Code rule that tells cyclists to pedal in the middle of the lane takes effect today.”: The Sun
The fact that the Government had failed to adequately publicise the changes in the months leading up to the new Highway Code created the perfect storm.
In anything, our experience when handling Road Traffic Claims on behalf of both cyclists and other road users is that the tension between the various road users has been exacerbated.
The new hierarchy
The very nature of the content of the Highway Code has done nothing to assist this by referring to the “Hierarchy of Road Users.”
Disputes between the various road users have often led to claims that one or the other feel as though they own the road. The creation of a “hierarchy” underscores this tension by validating the principle that some road users are more important than others.
The principle behind the “hierarchy” is actually spot on. The more vulnerable the road user the more protection they need.
But in the same way, they failed to publicise the reasons for the changes and the important safety benefits of the changes. They have also failed to really educated road users on why some need greater protection.
I would argue a greater focus on publicising the urgent need to address the safety issues and the reasons behind the changes - in particular a better briefing of the media – may have tempered some of the misconceptions that have only inflamed tensions on the road.
We haven’t noticed any significant change in the nature of the incidents we see. There is very little evidence to suggest the changes have been adopted by motorists, and whilst cyclists may feel more emboldened to adopt more dominant positions when using the road there is little evidence to suggest this is translating into fewer collisions.
The changes themselves are positive – but they must be followed up with clearer publicity. Even now more can be done to improve the understanding of the changes.
There are huge plans in place within many local councils to adopt longer-term transport strategies to encourage cycling within and around our towns and cities.
My view is that in comparison to structural changes in the way our road network operates the changes to the Highway Code are unlikely to be the catalyst for safer cycling.
But they offer a glimpse into a change in perspective when local authorities plan through transport strategy – with cycling and walking at the forefront of development. In that sense, motorists may be disgruntled to note that the hierarchy of road users is pivotal in those longer-term plans.
We are seeing the adoption of lower speed limits, and within those local transport strategies were are seeing purposeful moves to dissuade motoring in and around residential areas.
Stuart Snape is a cycling safety expert and Managing Partner at Graham Coffey & Co. Solicitors.
Stuart Snape has more than 20 years’ experience in the legal sector, with extensive experience in all aspects of civil litigation. During this time, he has helped thousands of individuals to claim damages after suffering that was caused by the negligence of another party. His experience in cycling regulations has helped countless cyclists understand their rights and claim compensation for suffering injuries from road incidents.
His passion for helping people who are involved in civil litigation cases culminated in him being appointed as Managing Partner in 2011.
More Opinion
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 2 sec ago
Saw them both in their pomp, Viv Richards batting would, as the saying goes at cricket, empty the bars; Boycott batting could fill them.
- John Chisholm 25 min 16 sec ago
Only freed ones!!
- marmotte27 57 min 48 sec ago
The part about cars wasn't the conspiracy theory...
- cmedred 6 hours 48 min ago
Instead of hiring 20 new parking enforcement officers, wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to write a law exempting people from the crime of...
- S.E. 9 hours 14 min ago
I'm riding with 26 mm in front, 28 mm rear...they are really 28 mm and 30 mm when mounted on 22c and 19c internal width rims. Only minor issue is...
- stonojnr 11 hours 48 min ago
It can happen with just walkers,cyclists too, cows can be unpredictable, they arent domesticated, yes they can react more aggressively when there...
- Hirsute 14 hours 41 min ago
There will be an option to stand by traffic lights and arrest red lights jumping cyclists instead of joining up....
- Velophaart_95 16 hours 20 min ago
I thought so to; but the cycling industry, helped by the majority of the cycling media won't let that happen; aero, lighweight, electronic, etc are...
- Simon E 18 hours 35 min ago
But no-one says "inside of" (except Groucho Marx) or "on of". It's intensely irritating and so very sloppy.
- KDee 18 hours 55 min ago
I suspect the adapter for Presta/Dunlop valves is really only for Woods/Dunlop. For such a small diameter, there isn't much stem length for the...
Add new comment
54 comments
Australia does seem a bit backward in regulation generally. Give it 15-20 years.
In my field,we help Australia a lot because they will adopt our regulations eventually but slowly.
Roundabouts are technically junctions. If people used the roundabout correctly and not as a sling shot, then stopping to allow a pedestrian to cross is not an issue. I've been able to do it with no issue while using both bicycle and car.
Ive made less police reports, for lots of reasons, and similarly I resent wasting my time with them,and its not that Im necessarily experiencing less proportionately numbers of incidents due to the changes either. I think post covid traffic patterns have changed, or I feel the change more on certain days, which is odd, but so I find myself in less conflict.
that said there was a ride last month Id got into double figures of reportable close passes within only an hour on "quiet" country back roads.
I'm definitely getting less but also I'm only reporting the worst ones now.
Sorry to hear that, sounds like a nightmare ride. I've had 3 reports in a day a couple of times although I could have got into double figures just from red light jumpers the other day. Sadly they were all at night coming from the left or in the other direction so the plates were not readable.
My personal view is that the H1-H3 Highway Code rules have been divisive.
Most drivers are not aware of them, or at least the details and the thinking behind them.
Some drivers have taken them on board and are giving vulnerable road users more space.
The remainder have taken the new rules as an assault on their entitlement to drive how they want and have become more aggressive.
This is reflected in my riding experience - Maybe fewer incidents, but the ones I do get are nastier.
Possibly also reflected on the Road CC blog. I remember we we had only one tame Troll, now we have lots.
"Crucially this was intended to apply on quieter roads and in slow-moving traffic or on the approach to junctions."
No, it includes those places, but applies to any situation where it is not safe to be overtaken by a motor vehicle.
I think the point being made is that the HWC changes prescribe specific situations in which cyclists should cycle in the middle of the lane, but media removed the nuance and reduced it to the inflammatory "cyclists told to ride in middle of road".
The minority of drivers, who through lack of skill, bad attitude or frequently both, those who struggle to drive sensibly around other road users and for some reason find cyclists particularly difficult to navigate had already replaced the HC that they were taught with a set of personal rules that favoured their style of incompetent driving.
The updates were just fine. The concept of a hierarchy of responsibility is hardly contentious to any road user who actually gives a crap about others and clarification of recommended road positioning and clearance distances remove uncertainty. However, certain MSM started a disinformation campaign under the general heading of "war on the motorist" and an active community of shit stirrers on social media sites everywhere (including every road.cc thread at the moment) started posting ludicrous nonsense that panders to the ego of the sub par motorist with a persecution complex who still cannot be arsed to actually reacquaint themselves with any published version of the HC.
I've noticed a number of drivers giving more space when overtaking since the change however there are always those 'special' cases who will drive at you on purpose or have such limited visibility that they don't see anything past their satnav. All the law changes in the world won't effect those people.
It's really really really simple. All this "hierarchy of vulnerability" is divisive nonsense, and what does it actual do? What are its instructions? What actions should drivers take? What should cyclists do? All road users should already be doing what the hierarchy blandly states - be safe and considerate on the road. There are already laws in place for driving inconsiderately and dangerously, although there is an argument to strengthen the law around dangerous cycling.
All the new highway code changes needed to say to motorists was "You must give cyclists 1.5 metres of passing room if it is available. If there isn't enough space, wait for a safe passing place." Then an amended rule to cyclists "When riding in a group or on a narrow carriageway, where available you must allow motorists to pass at a safe 1.5m distance."
This would have been simple to communicate and advertise to all road users, everyone could have agreed on their necessity, and it would have been a fair and equitable win-win outcome for competing forms of transport, instead of what we have - rules which don't actually achieve anything, but which have interpreted as unfairly bludgeoning motorists.
A missed opportunity.
Then an amended rule to cyclists "When riding in a group or on a narrow carriageway, where available you must allow motorists to pass at a safe 1.5m distance."
Maybe that needs a bit more thought.
You're quite correct, but any response direct to Nigel reinforces the trollery cycle
Ah, it's a Nigel account.
seems fine to me, I have always allowed motorists to pass at a safe 1.5m
Shit stirring rags decided to be shit stirring rags rather than communicating the changes with reasoned explanations, like adults might. They chose not to and the shits got stirred.
Isn't the problem that changes were presented as a zero sum solution - that is, any advantage gained means a balancing disadvantage.
The reality is safer cycling is not zero sum - drivers can make cyclists safer by adjusting their behaviour without generally losing anything in return.
Instead, we still have a proportion drivers who get so incensed at the indignity of having to pay attention to their driving, and having to give consideration to other road users that it drives them mad - doing illogical things like stopping to complain about the effects of their own driving on cyclists; or committing driving or public order offences to complain about legal cycling.
The reality is that increasing constraints in motoring are not in response to cyclists, as The Daily Mail might like to suggest, but in response to the inability of a significant proportion of the motoring community to moderate their driving - remember that Highways Departments judge speed limits successful if a mere 20% of drivers don't comply, and currently 20mph areas have about 20% compliance.
As you've correctly pointed out, there are already laws in place for driving and public order offences. Why aren't they being enforced?
What difference does it make to add a bunch of nonsense about hierarchies to existing unenforced laws? It doesn't make any difference whatsoever.
What we need is existing road laws enforced across the board, from driving inconsiderately to cycling through red lights. Slapping down the cash-cows of the road - motorists - with silly unworkable regulations simply increases animosity. Good news for provocateurs like Vine and Mikey, bad news for genuine cyclists like you and I.
Long walk, short pier for you, Nigel.
Always depressing when he returns
Hello again
RogerNigeI agree - but it's pretty much "when you're accustomed to priveledge equality seems like oppression".
Or rather:
- people driving may already feel put-upon because driving in many places is nothing like the dream of "going for a spin" that the adverts present. AND it costs quite a bit of money.
- some deep psychological systems get triggered in the driver / cyclist situation. A majority being expected to look out / defer to a minority, and the "fairness / cheating" system.
Because cyclists are using the same spaces instinctively people expect the same rules to apply - that's fair? But these people on bikes are not - they don't use the roads in the same way, they get in the way, they AREN'T PAYING rOaD tAx. They look weird (lycra, hi-vis, funny shoes - probably they are weird), are not infrequently opinionated men (sorry, but currently more likely). For most of us, they're not our friends or family or role models.
We're not saying they shouldn't be on the roads (well, not all roads) but it's their look-out, fair's fair. But it's bonkers to expect us to have to wait behind them or get out of *their* way. Why don't they get a car?
Worst of all some people on bikes seem to be having a better time.
"Not a zero sum game" - in a sense this is not quite the whole truth. For this current change I agree. However people may be wondering about the "direction of travel". I hope they're right to do so.
If we're serious about changing our urban areas for the better (and pollution / climate change / health / local resiliance etc.) we have too many journeys being driven. If we want to change things by encouraging more short trips by active travel we have too much space devoted to motor vehicles - parking, convenient and high-speed access everywhere.
Something's got to give *. That something will be lots of people's current car journeys.
Nihil desperandum though - look at NL now - there are still plenty of cars. People drive long distances. Arguably it's better to drive there. There are just lots of short trips being made without cars, and the bike - public-transport combo for some longer ones.
* barring fundamental social change, new technology changing the landscape, return of deities / aliens, us waking up and finding it was all a dream etc.
I've noticed a lot of motorists giving people on bikes more room and care. I've also seen some appalling driving and hateful media reporting. I guess government forgot to think about how to make the angry, dangerous drivers less angry and dangerous.
I'd say the appalling driving has got more appalling, in Surrey at least, and enforcement has got a lot less frequent. And when drivers are pulled up for their dangerous behaviour behind the wheel, the sentences have got more and more lenient it seems and the mitigation provided and accepted more laughable.
Pages