Government response to the review of The Highway Code
Updated 1 December 2021
© Crown copyright 2021
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-to-improve-road-safety-for-cyclists-pedestrians-and-horse-riders/outcome/government-response-to-the-review-of-the-highway-code
Introduction
Keeping our roads safe for everyone, and in particular vulnerable road users, is a main priority for government. Everyone has an equal right to use the road, and they should do so in a safe, considerate and responsible manner. It is therefore important that The Highway Code keeps pace with change and reflects the safety needs of the most vulnerable road user groups. This was a priority identified in the outcome of the Cycling and walking investment strategy safety review: call for evidence.
With a focus on responsibility and junctions, we worked closely with expert stakeholder groups representing different users of the road to review the rules in The Highway Code and how they could be amended to improve safety for pedestrians, particularly children, older adults and disabled people, cyclists and horse riders.
We then launched a consultation on 28 July 2020 to gather views on the effectiveness of the proposed changes for improving safety for vulnerable road users.
The consultation document posed a series of questions about our proposals, which covered the following 3 changes:
- introducing a hierarchy of road users to ensure those who can do the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they may pose to others
- clarifying existing rules on pedestrian priority on pavements and that drivers and riders should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross the road
- establishing guidance on safe passing distances and speeds when overtaking cyclists or horse riders, and ensuring they have priority at junctions when travelling straight ahead
The consultation ran for 12 weeks before closing on 27 October 2020. It generated a huge response with nearly 21,000 responses received from a range of respondents including government, public and business.
We have undertaken a thorough analysis of the consultation responses. This will be used to determine the final changes to The Highway Code. Annex A sets out the high-level detail of the feedback received, along with agree and disagree percentages for each question asked. Comments were only prompted if a respondent disagreed with the proposed amendments, so this feedback is reflected in the annex. A summary of the outcomes is in the executive summary.
Executive summary
The majority of respondents to the consultation were in favour of all the changes proposed, believing that they would improve safety for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders. They welcomed the timing of the changes as more people embrace alternative modes of transport, with cycling and walking on the increase. Feedback also emphasised the importance of offering greater protection to those road users.
Overall, percentages of those respondents agreeing with the changes ranged from 68% to 96% agree. Statistical analysis suggests that all the changes proposed should therefore be implemented. However, we have carefully considered the disagree comments and note there are some valid points raised that need to be considered. As a result, we will be seeking to introduce all the amendments as outlined in the consultation, but with changes to the text where a significant concern has been identified.
The proposed introduction of the hierarchy of road users on responsibility (new Rule H1) was widely supported with 79% agreeing with its introduction. There were concerns raised, particularly from road haulage and freight companies, that larger vehicles would automatically be held liable in the event of a road collision with a road user higher up the hierarchy. However, the introduction of this rule does not detract from the requirements for everyone to behave responsibly. We will ensure this is clearly recognised and emphasised by amending the text of this rule.
The introduction of new Rule H2 on pedestrian right of way was supported by 75% of respondents, and 89% agreed with the introduction of new Rule H3 on cyclist priority. There were concerns raised that the changes could lead to cyclists and pedestrians taking greater risks when using the roads, believing that the onus for their safety rests with others. We will consider whether any changes are required to these proposals to clarify that cyclists and pedestrians have a responsibility for their own safety, and need to be respectful and considerate of other road users to ensure a culture of safe and effective road use.
The proposed changes to the rules for pedestrians were widely supported overall. The proposed change to give way to pedestrians waiting at a zebra crossing was supported by 95% of respondents, with many already believing that this was already the cultural norm.
More concerns were raised about the proposal to give way to pedestrians waiting at a junction with worries that the proposed change could be confusing and could lead to an increased risk of road collisions. We will review the wording to ensure these concerns are addressed.
There were considerable changes proposed in the rules for cyclists chapter of The Highway Code, but once again respondents were in broad agreement that all the changes should be implemented with percentages ranging from 76% to 91% in agreement with all the changes proposed. Disagree comments mainly reflected on the notion that cyclists would take greater risks due to having priority in certain circumstances. There were also concerns about cyclists passing road traffic on the left. As before, where valid concerns have been identified, we will amend the text to address these points.
Given the large number of changes proposed in the rules for cyclists, there was a considerable amount of feedback to analyse. Of significance were comments on Rule 66 on riding 2 abreast, recognition of disabled cyclists and emphasised safety messaging for cyclists passing to the left of larger vehicles. We will consider the points raised and seek to amend the wording along with educational and awareness campaigns.
In the chapter on using the road, we consulted on the introduction of safe passing distances and speeds. These were widely supported with agreement of over 80% for all the changes proposed. However, there were some concerns that the passing distances were too complex and would benefit from a standard distance (such as 2 metres in all cases) and some disagreement that the speeds proposed were either too fast or too slow. We will review these proposed amendments to consider how we can simplify the wording.
A strong theme in many of the consultation responses was the need to ensure that all road users know about the changes and can act on them. Many respondents highlighted the need for a publicity campaign to raise awareness of the amendments and to achieve the changes in behaviour that will lead to safer roads for all road users.
In conjunction with the consultation, we commissioned research on sharing our roads, including seeking views on some of the proposed changes. This has provided valuable insights on how to effectively communicate the changes. We will be launching an awareness-raising campaign alongside the publication of the updated highway code. And led by THINK!, we will develop behaviour change communications aimed at both motorists and vulnerable road users to support the aims of the review. Research will be used to identify priority audiences for communications to achieve the greatest impact.
Along with asking explicit questions about specific rule changes, the consultation sought general views on the other changes proposed within each chapter of The Highway Code. There have been many valid and helpful comments received. We would like to thank all those who took the time to respond to the questions and to those who provided further views.
However, many of the comments received were out-of-scope of the consultation and general views on the government’s policy position. For example, the consultation did not seek opinions on the use of cycle helmets, insurance, infrastructure improvements, shared space and so on. Many of the issues raised have already been considered in-depth as part of the initial ‘Cycling and walking investment strategy safety review’. We will not be reporting on any feedback we received on those topics which were not within the range of the consultation, but we have noted wider concerns for future policy considerations.
Next steps
We have carried out full analysis of all consultation responses received and, given the feedback received, we will be seeking to introduce all the proposed changes. We will now look at all the proposed changes afresh to consider what amendments are needed to the proposed wording to take account of the valid comments received. In discussion with relevant stakeholders, we will finalise the text and produce a revised version of The Highway Code that will improve the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.
In accordance with section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, we will lay the revised version of The Highway Code before both House of Parliament for a period of 40 days. If Parliament agrees to the proposed changes being made, we will work with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) to update The Highway Code online and to produce a new hard copy edition in time for the next print run.
Annex A: responses by question
Rules H1, H2 and H3
Do you agree with the introduction of new Rule H1 (hierarchy of road users)?
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 78.96% |
| Disagree | 18.22% |
| Don’t know | 2.82% |
If you do not agree with the introduction of new Rule H1 (hierarchy of road users), what are your reasons?
Disagree feedback indicated that some respondents thought the hierarchy of road users will lead to vulnerable road users, particularly cyclists, believing they can do as they please without any consequences and acting in a more irresponsible manner. We will seek to introduce Rule H1 with amendments to the wording to emphasise that all road users have a responsibility for their own safety.
Others thought that, in the event of a collision, the new hierarchy would not result in an automatic or disproportionate liability based on the road user hierarchy, as that would detract from the requirement for every road user to behave responsibly.
Do you agree with the introduction of new Rule H2 (stronger priorities for pedestrians)?
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 74.80% |
| Disagree | 21.11% |
| Don’t know | 4.08% |
If you do not agree with the introduction of new Rule H2 (stronger priorities for pedestrians), what are your reasons?
A number of respondents thought that Rule H2 puts the onus on drivers and riders to predict pedestrian behaviour and it could be that the pedestrian has no intention of crossing. Further disagree comments thought that Rule H2 may facilitate a false sense of security that could put pedestrians at risk, particularly when crossing a side road.
Other comments suggested that Rule H2 needs to emphasise that pedestrians should be aware of their responsibility to find a safe place to cross the road, be clear about their intentions and take responsibility to ensure they are clearly visible to other road users. Safety of all road users is paramount so we will consider the wording in light of this feedback to ensure that pedestrians are not putting themselves at risk.
Do you agree with the introduction of new Rule H3 (cyclist’s priorities and right of way)?
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 88.60% |
| Disagree | 9.00% |
| Don’t know | 2.40% |
If you do not agree with the introduction of new Rule H3 (cyclist’s priorities and right of way), what are your reasons?
Some respondents felt that Rule H3 will put the lives of cyclists at risk as it gives priority to cyclists passing on the inside of a vehicle waiting to turn left, or to overtake a vehicle waiting to turn right on the outside.
Further analysis indicated that Rule H3 could put too much burden on the drivers of vehicles to spot cyclists, who do not always wear hi-viz clothing or accessories. They felt that cyclists could be easy to miss when checking mirrors, particularly if they were in a blind spot, especially of larger vehicles. This is a particular concern for cyclists passing on the inside of larger vehicles.
Safety of all road users is a priority for us, but given the overwhelming number of comments regarding cyclists passing on the left, we will evaluate the wording of Rule H3 and other rule amendments related to this. We will also consider how education and communications can play a part in ensuring the safety of cyclists passing to the left.
Do you agree with the proposed change to give way to pedestrians waiting at a:
- junction
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 68.1% |
| Disagree | 26.1% |
| Don’t know | 5.7% |
- zebra crossing
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 95.1% |
| Disagree | 4.0% |
| Don’t know | 0.9% |
If you do not agree with the proposed change to give way to pedestrians waiting at a junction or zebra crossing, what are your reasons?
A very high percentage of respondents agreed that drivers and riders should give way to pedestrians waiting at a zebra crossing. However, the proposed change to include waiting to cross at a junction raised considerable concern. Respondents who disagreed with the proposal thought there is a risk that pedestrians will assume it’s safe to cross and not check that it is actually safe. It was felt that there should be a provision dealing with the pedestrian’s duty of care for their own safety and encouragement for them to use existing crossings.
Others who disagreed felt that the rule change could lead to an increase in collisions and conflict between road users as a vehicle may have to stop suddenly if they see a pedestrian approaching a junction. It was also felt that the term ‘junction’ was too broad and that there should be greater clarification on the specific circumstances of when to give way.
The percentage of respondents who disagreed with the proposed change to give way to pedestrians waiting at a junction is one of the highest at 26% disagree. Given the considerable concern over this proposal, we will work closely with relevant stakeholders and road safety experts to amend the wording prior to implementation.
Rules about animals
Do you agree to the proposed change to rule 52 (riding a horse on the road)?
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 76.78% |
| Disagree | 11.07% |
| Don’t know | 12.15% |
If you do not agree to the proposed change to rule 52, what are your reasons?
Some respondents felt that this discriminates against horse riders by putting the onus on them to undertake training when it is other road users that are the problem and the cause of accidents.
Those who disagreed with the change were concerned that lack of training may be used as a driver’s defence in the event of collisions or used unfavourably in any insurance claim, particularly as horses can be unpredictable and training won’t necessarily prevent this.
Rules for cyclists
Do you agree with proposed change to Rule 63 (guidance for cyclists using shared spaces)?
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 90.13% |
| Disagree | 8.35% |
| Don’t know | 1.52% |
If you do not agree with proposed change to Rule 63, what are your reasons?
There were some comments that clearer instruction is needed for cyclists as some of the terminology used in the proposed change is subjective.
Others felt that pedestrians need to be more aware of their surroundings and should walk on the left to facilitate safe overtaking.
Do you agree with the proposed change to Rule 72 to ride:
- in the centre lane of your lane on quiet roads
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 81.3% |
| Disagree | 15.1% |
| Don’t know | 3.6% |
- in the centre lane of your lane in slower moving traffic
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 76.2% |
| Disagree | 18.7% |
| Don’t know | 5.1% |
- in the centre of your lane when approaching junctions
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 84.0% |
| Disagree | 11.9% |
| Don’t know | 4.1% |
- at least 0.5 metres away from the kerb on busy roads
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 82.8% |
| Disagree | 12.8% |
| Don’t know | 4.5% |
If you do not agree with the proposed change to Rule 72 mentioned above, what are your reasons?
Some respondents who disagreed with the proposed wording felt that this change would encourage cyclists to hog the road and that they should stay on the left for their own safety. Others felt that a cyclist has the right to adopt whatever position is necessary to ensure their safety.
Further feedback indicated that it is vital that the changes are communicated to drivers so cyclists do not face intimidation and aggression from drivers who wrongly perceive them as impeding traffic flow or being obstructive. Effective communication of the changes was a common theme throughout the consultation responses.
Do you agree with the proposed change to Rule 73 at junctions with:
- special cyclist facilities
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 91.3% |
| Disagree | 4.8% |
| Don’t know | 3.9% |
- no separate cyclist facilities
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 82.8% |
| Disagree | 11.3% |
| Don’t know | 5.8% |
If you do not agree with the proposed change to Rule 73 at junctions with or without separate cyclist facilities, what are your reasons?
While some respondents said that the use of such cyclist facilities at junctions should be mandatory where they exist, others said that cyclists should choose when it is safe to use them. However, some respondents thought that special cycle facilities encourage poor behaviour and set a precedent of priority entitlement. There was concern they cause conflict between drivers and cyclists and could lead to unsafe overtaking.
Do you agree with the proposed change to Rule 76 (clarifies priorities when cyclists are travelling straight ahead)?
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 87.02% |
| Disagree | 8.22% |
| Don’t know | 4.76% |
If you do not agree with the proposed change to Rule 76 (clarifies priorities when cyclists are travelling straight ahead), what are your reasons?
There were strong views that the proposed wording would lead to cyclists being held to account in the event of a collision and that it could reinforce a culture that blames cyclists for the dangerous behaviour of drivers
Whereas other respondents thought that the rule should be more explicit in its warnings that being alongside lorries and long vehicles is dangerous and should be avoided. There was general concern that undertaking puts cyclists in blind spots and could lead to injuries and fatalities. This is being considered as part of a wider education and behaviour change campaign.
Do you have any further comments about other changes to the rules for cyclists?
There was a particular concern that Rule 66 places too much emphasis on cycling in single file and not 2 abreast which can be safer. It was felt that the wording needs to be clarified to emphasise that cycling side-by-side is not dangerous or wrong and can be an important part of building confidence for people new to cycling. It was also pointed out that it can often be quicker and easier for vehicles to pass a compact group of cyclists riding 2 abreast, rather than a long line of cyclists in single file.
There were further comments on Rule 67 with specific reference to passing parked vehicles or to the left of large vehicles. It was felt that the safety messaging should be reinforced and make reference to trailers or other projectiles. Other feedback stated there should be more emphasis on the dangers when approaching commercial vehicles, where cyclists should proceed with caution. There was also concern that leaving a door’s width when passing a parked car isn’t sufficient.
All rule changes will be implemented to take account of feedback. We will work in close collaboration with road safety experts and relevant stakeholders to finalise the wording prior to laying the changes before Parliament for approval.
Rules for drivers and motorcyclists
Do you have any comments about the proposed change to Rule 97 (before setting off)?
There was some disagreement with the proposed change to Rule 97 as the additional checks being proposed before setting off in your vehicle are outside the scope of the MOT test. Others wanted clarity over the type of warning and alert systems being checked, and also on the legality to drive if a device was not working. This also led to concerns around liability.
We note that since the publication of this consultation, Highways England is also consulting on changes to Rule 97 through their Review of The Highway Code to improve safety on motorways and high-speed roads. We will work with Highways England to ensure any changes to Rule 97 are consistent and are taken forward through their process.
General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders
Is the proposed wording in Rule 123 (speed limits) easy to understand?
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Yes | 95.7% |
| No | 2.7% |
| Don’t know | 1.6% |
Is the proposed wording in Rule 124 (speed limits) easy to understand?
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Yes | 94.6% |
| No | 3.6% |
| Don’t know | 1.8% |
Comments on Rules 123 and 124
While the percentages are high for those who agreed that the wording of both Rules 123 and 124 is easy to understand, feedback suggested that there needs to be consistency in the wording of both rules. For example, the current proposed text says both ‘in some local authority regions’ and ‘across a region’. Other comments suggested there should be a more robust emphasis on complying with the local speed limits.
We recognise there could be some conflict with the changes proposed to Rule 124 as, since the publication of this consultation, Highways England is also proposing amendments to this rule through their review of The Highway Code to improve safety on motorways and high-speed roads. We will work with Highways England to ensure any changes are consistent and coherent and are taken forward through their process.
Do you agree with the proposed changes to Rule 140 on giving way to cyclists using a cycle lane?
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 82.0% |
| Disagree | 13.8% |
| Don’t know | 4.1% |
Do you agree with the proposed changes to Rule 140 on giving way to cyclists using a track?
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 81.2% |
| Disagree | 14.1% |
| Don’t know | 4.6% |
If you do not agree with the proposed changes to Rule 140 on giving way to cyclists using a cycle lane or track, what are your reasons?
Feedback indicated some concern in giving priority to cyclists when turning across a cycle lane or cycle track. Those who disagreed with the change felt that it could be difficult for a driver to predict the speed of a cyclist and that it would be safer for cyclists approaching from behind a vehicle to give way to the turning vehicle by slowing down and waiting as necessary.
It was noted there was no mention of routes shared with pedestrians. Given this and the wider concern this proposed change could endanger cyclists, as they would expect a vehicle crossing their path to give way, we will reconsider the wording.
Do you have any further comments about the changes to the general rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders?
The nature of the proposed changes being consulted upon elicited many comments that were out of scope of the consultation, particularly around cyclist behaviour. As indicated in the executive summary, we will not be commenting on unrelated feedback. However, analysis of the comments indicated a need to reinforce the message around mutual respect with greater emphasis on vulnerable road users taking responsibility for their own safety. This will be considered as a core message as part of our communications campaign.
Feedback also raised concerns that the rules are not relevant to rural roads where there is no pavement or kerb. There should be recognition of these types of roads, particularly on narrow roads without pavements where motorised vehicles should take extra care. We will review the wording to ensure important safety messages are considered.
Using the road
Do you agree that cyclists may pass slower-moving traffic on their right or left as detailed in Rule 163?
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 69.46% |
| Disagree | 27.27% |
| Don’t know | 3.28% |
If you do not agree that cyclists may pass slower-moving traffic on their right or left as detailed in Rule 163, what are your reasons?
This question attained the highest disagree percentage of the consultation at 27% disagree. We will therefore carefully review this proposed rule change based on feedback received.
Of those respondents who disagreed with the amendment, their main concern was that cyclists passing moving vehicles on the left is undertaking and dangerous. If they are in the blind spot of long vehicles this could lead to accidents. It was felt that clarity is needed to explain that cyclists should only pass on the left if they are in a cycle lane or if traffic is stationary.
Further feedback indicated that horses and horse-drawn vehicles could be startled by a cyclist passing on their left. The expectation is that vehicles always pass horses and horse-drawn vehicles on the right-hand side, particularly as the gap to the left would normally be insufficient for safe passing.
Do you agree with the proposed speed limits detailed at Rule 163 for overtaking:
- motorcyclists
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 86.6% |
| Disagree | 5.5% |
| Don’t know | 7.9% |
- cyclists
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 86.5% |
| Disagree | 7.3% |
| Don’t know | 6.3% |
- horse riders
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 82.7% |
| Disagree | 10.1% |
| Don’t know | 7.2% |
- horse-drawn vehicles
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 82.6% |
| Disagree | 9.6% |
| Don’t know | 7.9% |
If you do not agree with the proposed speed limits detailed at Rule 163 for overtaking motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles, what are your reasons?
There were some concerns that the rule is too complicated and that the proposed speeds are too fast, especially when passing horses and pedestrians. Disagree feedback also suggested that trying to set specific passing speeds for traffic is unrealistic due to the varying nature of road environments and would be impossible to enforce.
It was suggested that The Highway Code should clarify that overtaking should only be performed when safe to do so and drivers should be prepared to slow down when overtaking more vulnerable users and avoid aggressive acceleration. Given the complex nature of this rule, we will consider simplifying the text.
Do you agree with the proposed passing distances detailed at Rule 163 for overtaking:
- motorcyclists
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 87.1% |
| Disagree | 6.5% |
| Don’t know | 6.4% |
- cyclists
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 86.0% |
| Disagree | 9.2% |
| Don’t know | 4.7% |
- horse riders
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 83.2% |
| Disagree | 10.5% |
| Don’t know | 6.3% |
- horse-drawn vehicles
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 83.3% |
| Disagree | 9.7% |
| Don’t know | 7.0% |
If you do not agree with the proposed passing distances detailed at Rule 163 for overtaking motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles, what are your reasons?
Those who disagreed felt that the introduction of specific passing distances was unrealistic as they are unenforceable and not practical on all roads, especially narrow rural roads. Others thought that 2 metres is too large a gap for overtaking cyclists or horse riders and would prevent drivers from overtaking on many country roads, leading to frustration and non-compliance.
Conversely, feedback also suggested that 2 metres is not a sufficient passing distance and space should be allowed in case a cyclist were to fall off their bike. Generally, it was viewed that the rule is complicated and a safe passing distance of 2 metres in all cases would avoid confusion. Given the complex nature of this rule, we will consider simplifying the text.
Do you agree with the proposed changes to Rule 186 that:
- you do not overtake cyclists within their lane?
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 91.9% |
| Disagree | 5.5% |
| Don’t know | 2.7% |
- you allow cyclists to move across your path?
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 85.0% |
| Disagree | 10.7% |
| Don’t know | 4.3% |
- cyclists may stay in the left lane when continuing across or around the roundabout?
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 85.8% |
| Disagree | 9.8% |
| Don’t know | 4.4% |
- horse riders may stay in the left lane when continuing across or around the roundabout?
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 89.1% |
| Disagree | 6.1% |
| Don’t know | 4.9% |
- horse-drawn vehicles may stay in the left lane when continuing across or around the roundabout?
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 87.9% |
| Disagree | 6.8% |
| Don’t know | 5.2% |
If you do not agree with the proposed changes to Rule 186 mentioned above, what are your reasons?
Analysis of the feedback demonstrated some safety concerns around giving cyclists priority on roundabouts. There was concern that this goes against the established rules underpinning the use of roundabouts, and the speed differences between cyclists and horses, and motorised vehicles on large roundabouts makes this rule impractical.
Other disagree respondents thought that cyclists and horses should not be allowed on roundabouts, and that cyclists should dismount and cross roundabouts as pedestrians use crossings. Others commented that where cyclists must use roundabouts, they should follow the same rule as cars, be in the correct lane and signal their intended manoeuvres.
Do you agree with the proposed change to Rule 195 to give way to pedestrians and cyclists waiting to cross at a parallel crossing?
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 92.86% |
| Disagree | 5.16% |
| Don’t know | 1.98% |
If you do not agree with the proposed change to Rule 195 to give way to pedestrians and cyclists waiting to cross at a parallel crossing, what are your reasons?
There was strong agreement with the introduction of this rule change. Analysis indicated a view that drivers should be more considerate of pedestrians and should not intimidate pedestrians, for example, by revving their engines. Feedback suggested a strengthening of pedestrian priority and that there should be greater reference to the penalties for failing to stop at crossings.
Those who disagreed thought that pedestrians need to make their intention to cross clear by waiting close to the kerb, facing the road and actively looking to cross, and not on a handheld device or engaged in another activity that is distracting their attention.
Do you have any further comments about the changes to the rules on using the road?
Feedback suggested that there should be more emphasis on the extra care required when overtaking horses and horse-drawn vehicles, and at junctions. There was a general feeling that too much priority is being given to cyclists and not enough emphasis on cyclist responsibility for their own safety. We will consider the balance and address these concerns.
Further analysis of the comments indicated some hesitation as to the introduction of passing distances and speeds as indicated. There was a strong view that education and awareness-raising would be more effective methods for ensuring the safe passing of more vulnerable road users.
Road users requiring extra care
Do you agree with the proposed changes to Rule 213 (cyclists may ride in the centre of the lane for their safety)?
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 83.85% |
| Disagree | 12.89% |
| Don’t know | 3.27% |
If you do not agree with the proposed changes to Rule 213 (cyclists may ride in the centre of the lane for their safety), what are your reasons?
There was a view from those who disagreed that this proposed change would endanger cyclists and that they should only ride in the centre of the lane over short distances and move back to the left-hand side of the road as soon as possible. This would also allow faster moving vehicles to overtake.
Other respondents thought this proposed change does not adequately reinforce that cyclists may, at any time and for any reason, choose to ride in the centre of their lane, and that it is their right, and often safer, for them to do so.
Feedback also indicated a discrepancy with Rule 72 which also references cyclist road position and refers to ‘quiet roads’. We will review to ensure that wording is consistent throughout.
Do you have any further comments about other changes proposed in the chapter on road users requiring extra care?
Feedback from cyclist organisations suggested amendments to the rules to reinforce that cyclists are advised to ride at least a door’s width or 0.5 metres from parked cars for their own safety. They also agreed with the advice to ride in the centre of the lane (rather than towards the side of the road), for their safety, to ensure they can be seen, and to avoid being overtaken where this could be dangerous. Although other feedback suggested that 0.5 metres is not enough space to pass parked cars as people often swing doors open widely and at speed.
Further analysis indicated that the word ‘allow’ in Rule 213 suggests that it is within the driver’s power to determine where cyclists should ride and this should be changed to reinforce that cyclists are advised to ride in the centre of the lane for their own safety.
It was also questioned why feral ponies are mentioned in this chapter and not other wild animals, such as deer.
Waiting and parking
Do you agree with the proposed change to Rule 239 (Dutch Reach)?
| Answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agree | 80.81% |
| Disagree | 12.58% |
| Don’t know | 6.62% |
If you do not agree with the proposed change to Rule 239 (Dutch Reach), what are your reasons?
Those who disagreed with the introduction of the Dutch Reach stated that this rule change discriminates against those with reduced mobility, who may not be able to twist their body to look over their shoulder. It was felt that the change is too complicated, and it would be better to reinforce use of mirrors and checking blind spots before opening the car door. It was also pointed out that this change assumes the traffic is approaching from behind.
Others felt that, although the Dutch Reach is a good idea, it would be difficult to enforce. The Highway Code already includes advice to check for cyclists before opening the door of a vehicle so there was a general view from those who disagreed that this change is unnecessary.
Do you have any further comments about the other change proposed to Rule 239 on waiting and parking?
There were considerable comments around personal responsibility when charging vehicles due to the trip hazard created by cables crossing pavements. Some respondents thought that The Highway Code should advise that warning signs are displayed. We will consider this point.
There were also many comments on pavement parking outside of the scope of this review. However, we recently consulted on management of pavement parking with proposed options to tackle pavement parking at a local authority or national level. The consultation closed on 22 November 2020 and feedback is being analysed.
Annexes and final comments
Do you have any comments about the changes proposed to annex 1?
There were many comments around mandatory cycle training, testing and insurance. These issues are outside of the scope of the consultation. Other comments suggested that inexperienced cyclists take unnecessary risks and, if accidents occur, those without training who are at fault should be penalised.
Some respondents thought that the recommendation for cycle training should be removed as it could be used in civil proceedings to assign blame to cyclists. Instead, safety risks on our streets and roads should be reduced and mutual courtesy promoted to allow cyclists to build up their experience and confidence to use them.
Do you have any comments about the changes proposed to annex 6?
Some respondents thought The Highway Code should suggest weekly checks for all vehicles. Although it was also raised that many drivers may not know how to undertake these checks and they should be taught and tested as part of the practical driving test.
Some respondents thought that this annex needs to be updated to take into account Automated Vehicles and Advanced Driver Assistance Systems. This is not within the remit of this consultation.
Do you have any further comments regarding the proposed amendments to The Highway Code that focus on safety improvements for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders? Any other comments?
Analysis of final comments highlighted a range of issues, although many were comments on the government’s policy position, which was not being questioned as part of this consultation. The main points raised are:
- there is too much emphasis in The Highway Code about making sure drivers can see you
- the onus shouldn’t be on the most vulnerable road users to ensure that they can be seen
- too much of The Highway Code is advisory only and not supported by traffic laws or enforcement
- the proposed hierarchy of road users will only improve safety of vulnerable road users if they are supplemented by appropriate infrastructure such as segregated facilities
- the hierarchy of road users could introduce a presumption of liability, regardless of individual circumstances of any incident
- for the aims to be achieved, it should be led by changes in law (for example, strengthening the new hierarchy of road users with presumed liability) and backed up with enforcement
- any reference that allows cyclists to pass to the left of large vehicles should be removed
- disappointment that there were no proposed amendments to Rule 59 that people ‘should’ use cycle helmets and wear light-coloured or fluorescent clothing while walking and cycling
- Rule 59 ought to replace ‘should’ with ‘may’, as it’s personal choice what to wear when cycling
- The Highway Code and highway design are interconnected
- highways and street design can support or undermine The Highway Code
- existing legislation, which currently prohibits children cycling on pavements, should be reviewed
- there may be a perception among pedestrians that they are not road users or The Highway Code is a document for motorists
- define ‘road users’ and include images of pedestrians on front cover or throughout to emphasise the rules are for pedestrians as well as drivers
- cyclist shouldn’t have to dismount to be safe when crossing a busy road
- the review has not considered motorcyclists
- it’s important to incentivise training
- we need some rules around floating bus stops and bus borders
- clarity on the priority of pedestrians around floating bus stops would help with navigating these environments, which we know are causing difficulties for blind pedestrians
- there should be a rule insisting that cyclists slow down, with the intention to stop, when approaching the pedestrian crossing point on a floating bus stop
- all conditions for cyclists should apply for users of mobility scooters when using a highway
- motor vehicles should pass mobility scooters at a comfortable width, as they can travel with flow of traffic on country lanes (absent of footways) or against the flow
- given the increased usage of electric vehicles and new forms of mobility such as e-scooters, rules need to assess the impact of impending changes to the types of vehicles on roads
- agricultural vehicles and rural road settings have not been fully considered
- we must run well-resourced information and behaviour change campaigns to raise public awareness of the changes being introduced
- communications must extend beyond those learning to drive
- improvements could be made to The Highway Code by providing additional pictorial or animated explanations to the online version of the code
- a video or animation outlining the changes could be emailed to all motorists within the DVLA database
We received many helpful comments and would like to thank respondents for their time in completing our survey. This feedback will be carefully considered as we finalise the changes to The Highway Code to improve safety for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders.