A survey by the AA returned the concerning statistic that 61 per cent of motorists asked admitted they had not read the recent updates to the Highway Code, including advice for protecting vulnerable road users and giving cyclists and pedestrians priority at junctions.

The motoring association surveyed 13,327 members, with 8,090 (61 per cent) saying they had not read the changes made in January. Of the 8,090 not to have read the new rules, 6,972 (52 per cent) said they were aware of the changes but had not read them, while 1,118 (8 per cent) were completely unaware of them.

The managing director of AA Accident Assist, Tim Rankin, said the group is "concerned that so many still haven't read the rules".

"While we are pleased that many of the changes can be successfully recalled, we'd like more drivers to know the rules outright so they can keep themselves and others safe," he said.

"It is in everyone's interest to take every measure that helps avoid collisions and remove confusion from the road, so we urge those that still haven't read the updated code to do so as soon as possible."

In January, a wide update of the Highway Code came into force, including guidance on safely overtaking cyclists, encouraging vehicle occupants to use the Dutch Reach technique to avoid dooring riders, and giving cyclists and pedestrians priority at junctions without traffic signals.

The new rules also established a hierarchy of road users aimed at making the roads safer for the most vulnerable, with those road users with the most potential to do harm told to protect those more vulnerable.
The AA survey follows a June study which estimated more than 50 per cent of motorists were unable to even name one new rule. Weeks after that, and six months since the rules came into effect, the government finally launched a THINK! road safety campaign — titled 'Travel Like You Know Them' — to promote the changes.

One of the major criticisms of the government roll-out of the new rules was that they were not properly communicated to the public. Back in January a shadow minister said they will be "totally meaningless" if people are unaware, while the AA's head of roads policy Jack Cousens warned "too many drivers are unaware of the new rules of the road".

At the time, Cycling UK called for a long-term public awareness campaign to help produce a "mindset shift" on British roads.

https://road.cc/content/news/61-drivers-have-not-read-new-highway-code-295709

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> A survey by the AA returned the concerning statistic that 61 per cent of
> motorists asked admitted they had not read the recent updates to the
> Highway Code, including advice for protecting vulnerable road users and
> giving cyclists and pedestrians priority at junctions.

> At the time, Cycling UK called for a long-term public awareness campaign
> to help produce a "mindset shift" on British roads.
>
> https://road.cc/content/news/61-drivers-have-not-read-new-highway-code-295709

⚠️Sleight of Hand Warning ⚠️

Other road users such as pedestrians were not polled, so there is no basis
for comparison.

PS: Cycling UK may well get its wish about a ‘mindset shift’, but it might
not go the way they want…😀

--
Spike

In the sense that responsibility shouldn't be governed by vulnerability. Everyone should be responsible for their personal safety, rather than throwing caution to the wind and outsourcing it to larger vehicles. You see this kind of behaviour over and over again in Near Miss of the Day.

Creating an unfair multitier system without enforcement is always going to end badly.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the sense that responsibility shouldn't be governed by vulnerability.
> Everyone should be responsible for their personal safety, rather than
> throwing caution to the wind and outsourcing it to larger vehicles. You
> see this kind of behaviour over and over again in Near Miss of the Day.
>
> Creating an unfair multitier system without enforcement is always going to end badly.

Glad to see someone recognising that the current system is unfair, and that
everyone should have a hand in their own safety.

--
Spike

There are occasions when those who purport to be new users reveal their true colours- colours distinguished by the holder's tendency to make things up to justify trolling assertions. The distinct uptick in dangerous driving incidents since the new rules came into effect indicates one such occasion. There has been no such 'uptick' because nobody, epecially the police, has paid any attention at all to the 'changes.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are occasions when those who purport to be new users reveal their
> true colours- colours distinguished by the holder's tendency to make
> things up to justify trolling assertions. The distinct uptick in
> dangerous driving incidents since the new rules came into effect
> indicates one such occasion. There has been no such 'uptick' because
> nobody, epecially the police, has paid any attention at all to the 'changes.
That’s not true at all. See the story of the young lady, who appears to
have known what she thought were her rights were under ‘the changes’, and
who pulled out into the path of a faster vehicle - an act which appears not
to be supported in law.

--
Spike

Good of you to do a poll on every time you saw a dangerous driving incident to confirm what caused them to suddenly be a danger on the roads. Very conscientious of you. Did you tell them that you yourself are angry about the changes and fully understand them suddently being dangerous on the roads, even though there is nothing in the new rules that changes how a driver should drive? Did you commiserate that they are not allowed to run over pedestrians who might have been crossing in the side roads. Those bloody pedestrians making changes to the HC for their own safety.

As a follow up question, did you ask them when the last time they read the HC was after passing their tests. After all between 2015 and 2021, (before these changes) there had been 15 changes to the Highway Code.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good of you to do a poll on every time you saw a dangerous driving
> incident to confirm what caused them to suddenly be a danger on the
> roads. Very conscientious of you. Did you tell them that you yourself are
> angry about the changes and fully understand them suddently being
> dangerous on the roads, even though there is nothing in the new rules
> that changes how a driver should drive? Did you commiserate that they are
> not allowed to run over pedestrians who might have been crossing in the
> side roads. Those bloody pedestrians making changes to the HC for their own safety.
>
> As a follow up question, did you ask them when the last time they read
> the HC was after passing their tests. After all between 2015 and 2021,
> (before these changes) there had been 15 changes to the Highway Code.
As a follow up question, ask cyclists when they last read the HC.

--
Spike

Had a wonderful chat* with a taxi driver the other day. Walking into Broadmead in Bristol I went to cross a side road. Could see a car approaching, two or even three car lengths away, so I walked out.

Except the car then halted rather abruptly, practically touching me as I was halfway across.

I knew exactly what had happened - the main road is one way, so the driver had approached the junction only looking to his right (to see if there was any oncoming motor traffic) and I had been approaching the road from his left (although I was in the middle of the road by the time he got to the actual give way line).

I shook my head in a disappointed fashion and he shouted at me, said what did I think I was doing? I said that I'd been crossing before he got there, and anyone crossing or waiting to cross has priority over him. He denied this. I said it was in the Highway Code. No it isn't. Yes it is, you know it was updated recently? No it wasn't.

I suggested in future he check for other road users, particularly pedestrians, rather than just checking for other cars. He said something unprintable and put his foot to the floor as I walked away.

On 05/09/2022 05:26 pm, Spike wrote:
> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Good of you to do a poll on every time you saw a dangerous driving
>> incident to confirm what caused them to suddenly be a danger on the
>> roads. Very conscientious of you. Did you tell them that you yourself are
>> angry about the changes and fully understand them suddently being
>> dangerous on the roads, even though there is nothing in the new rules
>> that changes how a driver should drive? Did you commiserate that they are
>> not allowed to run over pedestrians who might have been crossing in the
>> side roads. Those bloody pedestrians making changes to the HC for their own safety.
>>
>> As a follow up question, did you ask them when the last time they read
>> the HC was after passing their tests. After all between 2015 and 2021,
>> (before these changes) there had been 15 changes to the Highway Code.
>
> As a follow up question, ask cyclists when they last read the HC.

Do fairy-cyclists *have* to be able to read at all?

I think you got this the worng way around.

You may not agree with the new highway code, and I assume that you responded to the consultation accordingly. I am sure that they will be reviewed again in future and you will once again be able to put your thoughts forward as to why they should be changed back. Until that happens they are what they are and all road user have a responsibility to follow them.

So to be clear, if a third party sets the rules then anyone following those rules is entitled to do so. Anyone choosing not to follow the HC is being self-entitled.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Had a wonderful chat* with a taxi driver the other day. Walking into
> Broadmead in Bristol I went to cross a side road. Could see a car
> approaching, two or even three car lengths away, so I walked out.
>
> Except the car then halted rather abruptly, practically touching me as I
> was halfway across.
>
> I knew exactly what had happened - the main road is one way, so the
> driver had approached the junction only looking to his right (to see if
> there was any oncoming motor traffic) and I had been approaching the road
> from his left (although I was in the middle of the road by the time he
> got to the actual give way line).
>
> I shook my head in a disappointed fashion and he shouted at me, said what
> did I think I was doing? I said that I'd been crossing before he got
> there, and anyone crossing or waiting to cross has priority over him. He
> denied this. I said it was in the Highway Code. No it isn't. Yes it
> is, you know it was updated recently? No it wasn't.
>
> I suggested in future he check for other road users, particularly
> pedestrians, rather than just checking for other cars. He said something
> unprintable and put his foot to the floor as I walked away.

Here lies the body of William Hay,
Who died maintaining his right of way.
He was right, dead right as he walked along,
But now he’s as dead as if he was wrong.

--
Spike

You should give them a read. There's really nothing in the revised HC that will confuse or enrage any reasonably competent driver.

Simon Mason <swldxer2022@gmail.com> wrote:

> You should give them a read. There's really nothing in the revised HC
> that will confuse or enrage any reasonably competent driver.

The issue is perhaps less what the HC says, as the way some parties act as
if it entitles them.

--
Spike

On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 18:47:54 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
> QUOTE: You should give them a read. There's really nothing in the revised HC that will confuse or enrage any reasonably competent driver. ENDS

Can anyone see the snag in this theory?

On 05/09/2022 05:42 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> I think you got this the worng way around.
>
> You may not agree with the new highway code, and I assume that you responded to the consultation accordingly. I am sure that they will be reviewed again in future and you will once again be able to put your thoughts forward as to why they should be changed back. Until that happens they are what they are and all road user have a responsibility to follow them.
>
> So to be clear, if a third party sets the rules then anyone following those rules is entitled to do so. Anyone choosing not to follow the HC is being self-entitled.

Does it say that fairy-cyclists should fairy-cycle along footways on
their fairy-bikes?

Does it say that fairy-cyclists should fairy-cycle straight through red
traffic lights?

Does it say that fairy-cyclists should fairy-cycle the wrong way along
one-way streets?

I had someone beep their horn at me on my commute home last week. I was turning into the road that leads to mine on my motorbike and then I stopped, as someone was crossing the road. The driver behind me meanwhile couldn't understand why I'd stopped and came very close to hitting the back of my motorbike.

Simon Mason <swldxer2022@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 18:47:54 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
>> QUOTE: You should give them a read. There's really nothing in the
>> revised HC that will confuse or enrage any reasonably competent driver. ENDS
8 > Can anyone see the snag in this theory?
It relies on reasonably competent cyclists?

--
Spike

Only 61% haven't read the new HC? Those are AA members, so much more likely to have done so; the figure for the general population of drivers is probably more like 95%.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Only 61% haven't read the new HC? Those are AA members, so much more
> likely to have done so; the figure for the general population of drivers
> is probably more like 95%.

You’re piling supposition upon supposition, so your statement is worthless.

--
Spike

I bet that 98% of drivers haven't read the Highway Code since the day they passed their theory test (or for those of us who discarded our L-plates in the days before a separate theory test existed and your knowledge was 'tested' in the most perfunctory way by the examiner asking you a handful of random Qs).

I have to admit that I didn't really bother until my son started his driving lessons, although through cycling websites and forums I have read about the changes, learnt new things and been reminded of some rules and the less commonly used signs I had forgotten about.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> I bet that 98% of drivers haven't read the Highway Code since the day
> they passed their theory test (or for those of us who discarded our
> L-plates in the days before a separate theory test existed and your
> knowledge was 'tested' in the most perfunctory way by the examiner asking
> you a handful of random Qs).
>
> I have to admit that I didn't really bother until my son started his
> driving lessons, although through cycling websites and forums I have read
> about the changes, learnt new things and been reminded of some rules and
> the less commonly used signs I had forgotten about.

“I bet that 98% of drivers…” roughly means that someone is making things
up, and therefore the rest isn’t worth reading. 🙄

--
Spike

So 61% of drivers self report as incapable of complying with licencing requirements to keep up with changes to HW code...

Edit: And 11% don't read or watch any major news source given every single one had an article about how people couldn't possibly know the HW code had changed... (Making it impossible to tell them about changes short of sending every single driver a reminder letter on every HW code change...)

On 06/09/2022 12:04 pm, Spike wrote:
> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I bet that 98% of drivers haven't read the Highway Code since the day
>> they passed their theory test (or for those of us who discarded our
>> L-plates in the days before a separate theory test existed and your
>> knowledge was 'tested' in the most perfunctory way by the examiner asking
>> you a handful of random Qs).
>>
>> I have to admit that I didn't really bother until my son started his
>> driving lessons, although through cycling websites and forums I have read
>> about the changes, learnt new things and been reminded of some rules and
>> the less commonly used signs I had forgotten about.
>
> “I bet that 98% of drivers…” roughly means that someone is making things
> up, and therefore the rest isn’t worth reading. 🙄

One is almost willing to take him up on the bet.

Since he could not possibly prove what he says (and the person accepting
the bet doesn't have to prove anything in order to win), Del Boy would lose.

But he'd welch on it.

Is the world going completely crazy? The other week Jim Davidson said something sensible about roads...
...and now Nick "Loopy" Freeman does too.
I think I need a lie down.
I know, one swallow does not a summer make...

see:
https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/main_width/public/JimDav.png