- 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
news
Angry driver (CC licensed by John Greenfield via Flickr)Government updates response to petition calling for public awareness campaign to address driver aggression against cyclists
The Department for Transport (DfT) has updated its response to a petition calling for a public awareness campaign to address driver aggression towards cyclists. While a paragraph has been added to the top to say the DfT "doesn’t consider that a campaign along the lines specifically requested by this petition is necessary", it does now say that the department's THINK! campaign will be developing a behavioural change campaign.
The petition, started by Helen-Louise Smith, said: "The attitude that cyclists should not be on the roads needs to end."
It called for motorists to be educated about 'dangerous, inappropriate and aggressive behaviours that can lead to the injury and even death of cyclists.'
After the petition reached 10,000 signatures last month, the government responded; however the Petitions Committee requested "a response which more directly addressed the request of the petition", after which this update was added on 13 July: "The Department for Transport is already reviewing The Highway Code to improve cyclist safety and doesn’t consider that a campaign along the lines specifically requested by this petition is necessary."
The rest of the response, published here, says: "The Government is focused on making cycling and walking safer and easier.
"To that end the Department for Transport undertook a major cycling and walking safety review in 2018.
"Following an extensive public consultation, the Department published its full response and a detailed two-year action plan on 22 November 2018.
"One of the actions identified was to review The Highway Code to create a new and improved Highway Code, to keep vulnerable road users - including cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders - safe on the roads and make sure they are at the forefront of motorists’ minds when they are travelling.
"For example, the proposed changes highlight how to avoid the dangers of close passing, and encourage people to adopt the ‘Dutch reach’, a method of opening a car door with the hand furthest from the handle, to force drivers to look over their shoulder for passing traffic.
"On the 28 July 2020, the Prime Minister launched ambitious plans to boost cycling and walking and the consultation on changes to The Highway Code was published at the same time as part of a much broader plan into Cycling and Walking.
"The proposed changes should lead to a new and improved Highway Code, to keep vulnerable road users safe on the roads.
"The consultation closed on 28 October 2020; over 20,000 responses were received, and we are currently undertaking a full analysis of all replies."
The DfT say that a summary of responses to the consultation on the changes, including the 'next steps' will be published 'shortly'.
The department went on to say it 'recognised the important role education has in keeping vulnerable road users safe'.
The updated final paragraphs referring to the Department's THINK! campaign now says: "The Department for Transport recognises the important role education has in keeping vulnerable road users safe on the roads and the Department’s THINK! campaign aims to change the attitudes and behaviours behind key road safety issues, via marketing campaigns, online resources and THINK! social media channels.
"THINK! will be developing a behavioural change campaign to support implementation of these changes to The Highway Code and the overarching aims of these changes."
The petition now has 19,382 signatures and if it reaches 100,000 signatures before 16 December 2021, it will be considered for debate in parliament.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 22 min 11 sec ago
David9694 - you were right! These new autonomous vehicles really are conspiring to run out of control!...
- andystow 22 min 59 sec ago
At least it's not as long-range as the review I read yesterday that said it was 240 km! They since corrected it.
- Bigtwin 30 min 15 sec ago
That clamp is clearly not suitable for a carbon post. Many aren't - the ones on some Whytes for example - because they concentrate the pressure on...
- dubwise 30 min 40 sec ago
I simply can't comprend how he has got off virtually scott-free. Why bother taking these morons to court, as nothing happens to them....
- don simon fbpe 33 min 19 sec ago
Why should governments be told "to hold their nerve", the democratic process was followed, in Wales, with a 2 year consultation period. These...
- HoarseMann 53 min 33 sec ago
Decathlon have the Garmin Varia RTL515 on offer at the moment for £129.99: https://www.decathlon.co.uk/p/rearview-radar-varia-rtl515-65-lumens/_/R-...
- galibiervelo 1 hour 26 min ago
Love kona. Really hope they can escape the overstocking and progress into profitable sales.
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 3 min ago
So when you said "all Jews" you didn't actually mean all Jews, just religious ones. However even that distinction is erroneous, as you must surely...
- Dnnnnnn 2 hours 57 min ago
Almost - but apparently not quite. There are in Northern Ireland.
Add new comment
42 comments
Pretty depressing really. It seems that the government feel that PROPOSED changes to the highway code and the THINK web site are all that's needed. I did follow the link to the THINK website which I'd never heard of before. I then looked at the cycle safety advice. It starts off with advice to cyclists, not motorists, implying, to me at least, that cyclists should do more to look after themselves as opposed to motorists being more considerate. I fear that the one or two non cycling motorists who look at the site will reach the same conclusion.
https://www.think.gov.uk/cycle-safety/
Lots of fine words and hot air, but no promises, no committments, no money. Given that the government has just broken a manifesto commitment (a Boris promise as we call it in my house) on foreign aid, to save money, the chances of active travel actually getting a fair slice of the cake are only visible with an electron microscope.
It all boils down to money, and if they spend all the money on roads, which is the current plan, even if it is being challenged in the courts, then nothing will change. "Oh yes it will" I hear you cry; yes, it'll get worse.
They didn't do it to save money - it's almost a rounding error in the overall budget. They did it to placate a certain section of their support base that thinks international development funding is a communist plot.
Quite. Tory govts in spite of their mantra of saving, are pretty expensive things to keep.
Updating the HWC is all well and good, but doesn't address the problem/issue; most motorists are ignorant, and don't look at the HWC, so they won't change their behaviour.
This is exactly the problem. A change to the Highway code without advising all existing drivers of the change and testing them on the change is like a software company changing their EULA ...... no one reads it, everyone just skips to the end and clicks accept then goes merrily on their way.
The only consolation is that ignorance of a law is not a defence in court.
The only consolation is that ignorance of a law is not a defence in court
The close pass cases we're interested in don't get to court because of the malevolent influence of the major factor in risk of injury to cyclists: the police. It's the established belief of the police that if you don't hit and kill/ seriously injure the cyclist then you weren't too close- I know this philosophy is fully entrenched at Lancashire Police and it was actually declared on here by Staffordshire Police, before they tried to weasel out of it. We have seen Northumbria Police trying to keep cyclists off the road 'at busy periods' and South Wales Police discouraging cyclists 'riding at night'- policies designed to facilitate blaming the cyclist for his own injuries. I know people are tired of hearing this, but the evidence is that The Police Are The Enemy!
Oh well it's been changed in the highway code, all drivers will immediately obtain a copy of the revised guidance and review the changes.
Pretty sure we will all be safer soon.
Except it hasn't even been changed yet. The changes are only "proposed".
For example, the proposed changes highlight how to avoid the dangers of close passing
Even if the government was sincere, which it obviously isn't given that a large part of their support comes from knuckle-dragging Mail, Express and Sun readers, the police are determined to ensure that it remains 'business as usual'- in Lancashire this means 'pass cyclists as close and as fast as you like'. The driver of Toyota C-HR DC68 VDG is not about to be troubled by the police- Lancashire don't like to bother them
Well, this is an interesting development. Email received this morning -
You recently signed the petition “Run a public awareness campaign to address driver aggression toward cyclists”:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/588492
The Petitions Committee (the group of MPs who oversee the petitions system) have considered the Government’s response to this petition. They felt that the response did not directly address the request of petition and have therefore written back to the Government to ask them to provide a revised response.
When the Committee have received a revised response from the Government, this will be published on the website and you will receive an email. If you would not like to receive further updates about this petition, you can unsubscribe below.
Another small step in the right direction but there have still only been 19,121 signatures. It needs to get to 100,000 before it's debated in parliament. Please sign it if you haven't already and get your friends and family to as well.
In the mean time the Ryans law (hit and run) petition has been waiting 59 days for a debate.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/575620
You beat me to it! Just checked my email and I'd got this notice.
So the Govt committee thinks the Govt response was dodging the actual issue, too...
Revised government response: "driver aggression? Nah!"
The Department for Transport is already reviewing The Highway Code to improve cyclist safety and doesn’t consider that a campaign along the lines specifically requested by this petition is necessary.
Definitely a minimum effort revision.
To meet the spirit of the reponses required for petitions you would have thouht the Government would have to explain why, but it doesn't do that. Just regurgitates the original response.
We need an awareness campaign with regards to 'road tax'. I expect most non-cyclists don't understand it and simply use it as a reason to expect cyclists to not be allowed on the road.
Presumably along with horses, electric cars, and historic vehicles (none of which pay VED either).
And pedestrians.
Isn't there a better photo of driving aggression to use? Maybe one which is a screen grab from a video? Perhaps a cafe owner from Putney?
Is this going to go the way of letters in to private eye making excuses for showing that photo of Andrew Neil in a baseball cap and a vest...?
I don't see how a revised HWC is going to do anything to tackle driver aggression. We were shouted at by TWO drivers at separate points on our group ride this morning, each yelling "single file!" (one was by an oncoming driver travelling in the opposite lane, the other by someone who overtook us easily on a wide B-road).
So if the fuckwits don't know what the CURRENT HWC says, how is a new HWC supposed to change anything?
Yes, at the discretion of the rider. It's not for drivers to decide...
'busy' is subjective and it's difficult for drivers to judge. As a cyclist I know if I'm being overtaken regularly I will drop into single file. If the road is empty and you're the only car then I would suggest it's not a busy road.
Bearing in mind that dropping into single file may not allow safe overtaking (depending on width of road and oncoming traffic) but may facilitate a dangerous close (squeeze) pass.
but it makes drivers feel better, so I'm sure Nigel would advocate it.
One road was quiet, two full-width lanes in each direction, and the driver was going the OPPOSITE way. Just wanted to bellow his ignorance for the world to hear (remind you of anyone?).
The other road was ALSO two lanes wide, with no other cars around in i nether direction.
We did however cross several bridges. Was one of them yours?
He said, overtaking, and therefore going into 3 abreast (which of course you "should never" do - HWC) albeit briefly.
It's almost as if you've just demonstrated how ridiculous the ant-cyclists weird obsession with 2 abreast actually is.....
Personally, I think they have abreast fixation.....
Do you ask drivers to travel single file, or is it OK for them to sit side by side with their imaginary friend, occupying the whole lane even though they are only one person?
Does it?
If a driver is going to overtake you in accordance with HWC rule 163, they should be (at bare minimum) straddling the centre white line, on most roads in the UK. That means it cannot reasonably be done while there is oncoming traffic.
That being the case (as has been pointed out on Twitter on multiple occasions bym I think, SurreyRoadCops) it makes no difference to the driver whether you are single file or two abreast ... with two abreast making for a shorter, quicker and safer overtake for all concerned.
I have no interest in being polite and courteous if that politeness and courtesy encourages drivers to try and squeeze through between me and the central white line while there is traffic coming in the opposite direction.
And, if the country lane is "quiet" (your description), I don't get why it is even an issue.
doesn't sound that busy if the driver passed them easily.
The problem is too much aggression full stop. I had a driver accelerate towards me crossing a road. 30mph speed limit which he clearly exceeded just to be intimidating.
It's not even just roads it's aggression towards women, Members of the LGBTQ & BAME communities etc.. in fact anybody that doesn't look like them.
The police will only do something if you're a high profile mate of the PM, like Chris Whitty
Pages