Most drivers still don't know Highway Code changes, poll shows

Capt Sisko wrote:

"Most drivers still don't know Highway Code changes, poll shows"

Okay, let's put the boot on the other foot. How many cyclist know the changes. And I don't mean us lot. The very fact we're reading websites and articles like this means we're keen cyclists and take an interest. Throw the same question to people for whom cycling is just a method of transport, it's a Sunday ride in the park with the kids, take the bike on the car to go on a nice safe off road trail;  i.e. the none enthusiast and I wonder if a poll would give a similar result.

That's precisely the point though. Despite the highway code being self-considered "essential reading for all road users" (which is a quote directly from the first paragraph in www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code), it is really nothing of the sort.

In practice, it is a document that learner drivers use to help pass their test and then the vast majority never look at again. Surveys such as these make that evident.

And I'm not aware of a survey or suchlike, but I agree with you and think that the vast majority of other road users (including cyclists) have never read the highway code.

None of us are required to, and in my opinion, that's a big problem.

Aren't the 'non-enthusiasts', who use their bike as an off-road toy at weekends, far more likely to be counted as 'motorists'?

The issue you run into is that "cyclist" vs. "people who cycle" distinction.  The  UK / other countries with minimal cycling are very different from places where cycling is a mainstream mode of transport.

UK - our roads put off most possible "casual cyclists" because it doesn't feel safe, convenient or pleasant/normal to them - at least not compared with driving.  So many - of the few people left who do cycle regularly for transport - are "cyclists".  That is people with an active interest in cycling who might well read cycling publications.  (Also in the UK - many cyclists [ either sense ] are also drivers, few drivers are regular cyclists).

In places where cycling is a normal transport mode simply because it's often the most convenient the vast majority of people aren't "cyclists".  It's just like most people wouldn't declare themselves to be "walkers" because they walk to the shops, or "runners" even though they occasionally break into a trot if they're in a hurry or even go for a weekly jog.

As ShutTheFrontDawes says our UK system is mostly predicated on "it's your personal responsibility to know the rules and follow them".  That is problematic because of human nature - most people don't read manuals or rule books, and fewer remember them.  There's also the asymmetry in the burdens of training and responsibility e.g. that required for people to safely use motor vehicles vs. that reasonable for a 10-year-old using a bicycle.

Compare and contrast a system which tries to make spaces for travelling (cycling, walking or driving) more "intuitive" or "self-explanatory and consistent" [1] [2]. (Note that system still has training though - in that case integrated into the education system).

chrisonatrike wrote:

As ShutTheFrontDawes says our UK system is mostly predicated on "it's your personal responsibility to know the rules and follow them"

That's not what I said, what I meant, or the reality in the UK.

It would be far more true to say "it is not your responsibility (personal or otherwise) to know the rules and follow them. There is no requirement on you whatsoever to be aware of the highway code. The only thing we can hold you, accountable to is The Road Traffic Act, but even then we don't really enforce it, and the Highway Code is not at all relevant to our enforcement of the RTA."

That's the problem.

Ah - OK.  Yes, you're right - the HC is less important than it's maybe made out to be.  As you say it is in the driving test.  Much of it isn't directly law.  I think it does enter into legal cases if you're acting contrary to the "should" guidance - that can indicate e.g. lack of care / responsibility (so even "without due care / consideration")?

However - given that no-one is *required* to read the law, at school or as a learner driver (and who has worked through the RTA?) BUT ignorance is no defense - in practice the Highway Code is de-facto how people get the rules.  I think the HC covers most if not all of the RTA as far as road users need, but as you say goes beyond it with "should" and other "guidance" etc.

What I meant by "your personal responsibilty to know the rules" is the law is "ignorance of the law is no defence".  I'm not required to know any law - but if I break any there may be consequences.  I can't dodge those by saying "nobody told me..." so it's in my interest to do so.  Most people aren't pointed in the direction of the RTA legislation but they are told about the Highway Code.

My point was that in our system essentially all mistakes are on the user.  That hampers safety improvements in my view as there's a law of diminishing returns in getting people to improve their behaviour.  Plus systematic issues get a pass because it's always some individual's mistake.

chrisonatrike wrote:

I think we're mostly on the same page though?  My point was that in our system essentially all mistakes are on the user.

Yes I mostly agree with your view regarding personal responsibility, but in actual fact, the mistakes aren't on the user. The only road users that feel the effects of contravention of the highway code (through ignorance or otherwise) are through collisions, and a truly minute proportion might get some action in court if it contributes to careless/dangerous driving, or in a civil claim.

You said that "in practice the Highway code is de-facto how people get the rules", but plainly this is not the case. They might have known and understood the rules relevant to their type of road use when they passed their test (where applicable), but as this survey showed and as Capt Sisko (best Capt btw) said, road users (including cyclists) do not know the rules and they are neither required nor incentivised to.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Yes I mostly agree with your view regarding personal responsibility, but in actual fact, the mistakes aren't on the user. The only road users that feel the effects of contravention of the highway code (through ignorance or otherwise) are through collisions, and a truly minute proportion might get some action in court if it contributes to careless/dangerous driving, or in a civil claim.

We're in agreement then - my "user" was "all users".  I quite agree that as you say it's mostly the non-motorised users are picking up the consequences (physical, monetary, psychological) while the motorised users rarely have legal consequences for not following the rules (and where they do these are often minor or nugatory compared to the effects on others).  Plus vulnerable road users present zero risk to motorists and (thanks to car design AND special infra!) motorists often avoid serious physical consequences from their own crashes / those with other motor vehicles.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

You said that "in practice the Highway code is de-facto how people get the rules", but plainly this is not the case.

Would you settle for "if people passed a driving test, the Highway Code available at the time was how they got their rules (which they likely never looked again) and for anyone else the Highway Code is likely their only encounter with 'rules' outside of e.g. parental instruction / cycle training"?

(Your point that legally it's the RTA that counts is correct but again no-one is ever told to go read that!)

Thinking again - you seem to be saying "Highway code not required except once - which is a problem" and I'd agree that's a fair short summary in this context!

I think more people should be aware of the necessary rules, we should be kept up-to-date more effectively (*especially drivers*) AND we should move to a system which places less emphasis on rules in the first place e.g. is more intuitive.  (Our current system is intuitive insofar as it clearly says "if you're not in a motor vehicle keep off the roads and don't think you're going to get around well without one").

chrisonatrike wrote:

Would you settle for "if people passed a driving test, the Highway Code available at the time was how they got their rules

To be honest, no.

One does not need to demonstrate a knowledge of the highway code to pass one's test. Even now, you do not need to know the entire highway code to pass your test.

One could pass both theory and practical tests without reading the highway code at all, providing that one demonstrated a sufficient knowledge of the rules of the road by answering the questions asked (which does not reflect the full scope of the highway code, or even the scope relevant to the activity being assessed) correctly.

When I passed my test, which was only about 15 years ago, I had never held a copy of the highway code. I had a book called 'the official DVSA Theory Test for Car Drivers'.

I was never asked if I had read the highway code. I was never asked "what does rule 133 of the highway code say?" (Or similar). I had a limited knowledge (with an obvious focus on driving a car) which enabled me to pass my test.

So no, the idea that a car driver must, at some point, have known the content of the highway code is not an idea I subscribe to.

Good point, and thinking back - from what I can remember - it was probably similar for me.  I think I was aware of HC because of different circumstances.  I had previously done some cycling course at school (RoSPA?) and I think we'd already met the HC via that.  Then my driving instructor happened to be a pedant so I was prompted to dig it out again - although I'm sure I made use of a theory test learning book too.

So yes it's entirely possible that many / most learners never see it (!)

Presumably the DVSA book is drawn from stuff in the Highway code?  I suppose it's not a given that's updated at the same time as the HC although naively one might expect so...

I don't know about how many know the changes, but plenty of cyclists in London just don't know, or rather just ignore the highway code.

Cycling back from work in Chiswick to Charing Cross yesterday, the very first junction and a busy one, five cyclists arrive including myself. I was the only one who didn't go through the red light as traffic started to come through. Then there are the numerous ones who ignore both the traffic signals specific to CS9 through Chiswick and the pedestrian crossings. Given the continuing campaign from locals against the new cycle infrastucture through Chiswick these idiots are just going some way to prove them right.

I have pulled people up on this before and to be honest its no wonder people refer to Lycra warriors etc. When someone in head to toe castelli gear just tells you to "f*** of, what's it to you" when you point out the lights were red.

Adam Sutton wrote:

When someone in head to toe castelli gear just tells you to "f*** of, what's it to you" when you point out the lights were red.

My usual response is "I don't want to have to waste my time giving evidence at your inquest, plus as a taxpayer I don't want resources wasted scraping you off the road." They still say fuck off, of course...

Ignoring traffic signals on the superhighways particularly gets my goat too, playing as it does straight into the hands of the "This is why you shouldn't be allowed nice things" drivist lobby.

Noted that, that is a great response.

It is depressing how genuinely surprised most pedestrians are when I stop at the zebra crossings along CS9. I would hate to see it rolled back due to this behaviour as it has been a godsend on my commute.

RLJ is at epidemic proportions and that's for all forms of traffic. And that's proper RED light jumpers, not counting those Amber Gamblers that accelerate through amber lights that they could and should have stopped at. I sat at the lights on the roundabout above J7 of the M11 last night and watched half a dozen cars jump a single red light, some by 3 or 4 seconds and at speed! The last car had a totally and obviously deliberately obscured rear number plate as well and was driving like a complete bellend. What makes this worse? They had all just spent 50 mins stuck behind a major and very serious collision on the M11 so had had plenty of time to reflect on the consequences of bad driving and yet their first thought was to blatantly jump the first red light they came across.

"but I had just been stuck for 50 mins, I didn't want to be held up any further" 

There is a junction in Dartford where you can guarantee at least three cars will just go through on red. I have been moving through on green and had someone force their way in from the right hand road.

One of the stupidest I saw yesterday was a passat on high street kensington that went thrugh a red light with a police car ahead. Sadly the police didn't see him do it.

Karma's a sleep? Suspect that's "only if you're doing nothing better / have been given that as your task" offense for the police. It's not a rare thing around Edinburgh. As others said - some folks seem a bit more careful when passing but those with no care / scruples are busier than ever.

LeadenSkies wrote:

RLJ is at epidemic proportions .

Cookham Bridge - single lane, so lights at each end to make the drivers share nicely. Driver still decided he'd waited long enough on red and decided to go, then had second thoughts and started backing up, by which time the lights were green, but having passed them the driver couldn't see that.

Sounds about right for that kind of driver.

I love reading manuals and instruction books (usually after I've worked out how things work!) so reading the HWC is a natural extension of that.

One aspect of re-reading things is that you keep discovering new things and things you've misunderstood from previous times.

As it is readily accessible online, drivists have little excuse for avoiding keeping up to date.

Indeed, more space than to be given to a cyclist. Not diving into a muddy verge earned me the threat of assault and being declared a f*cking idiot.

IanMSpencer wrote:

....

 Fill in your own list, but UK driving is very poor. Put it this way, if the majority of drivers could drive to road conditions, why have so many speed limits been reduced? Why should we even need them?

Be careful now. There's a certain individual who will challenge that point

IanMSpencer wrote:

UK driving is very poor.

Actually I think by and large, it's very good. It's just that there is near zero policing of bad driving. So we have the majority who do generally drive well and treat others with respect, then we have a minority who are not interested in doing so, because there are no consequences to them of driving like arseholes.

I did 200km yesterday, must have passed/been passed by hundreds of drivers, only a few incidents. 

In many other countries the general standards are lower.

The only real solution is enforcement

Sadly, not a solution which is even contemplated by police forces like Lancashire

https://upride.cc/incident/ce13uod_trafic_uwlcross/