“Many drivers believe: might is right.” Lords Debate the Highway Code Amendments

It’s unlikely to come as much surprise to readers of this publication that there have been updates to the UK’s Highway Code.

Yesterday (27 January) I (Sean Meager), tuned in to witness Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Jenny Jones), raise a ‘motion of regret’ in the House of Lords to trigger a debate among our Noble Lords. In attendance was Baroness Vere of Norbiton, Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Department for Transport and lead minister for roads, poised to set out the Government’s position. Jones is an ardent advocate for safer active travel and CI.N has a separate interview with her here.

Jones takes the proverbial stand with hopes of an ‘exciting’ debate, marked by opposition. Though almost immediately a stern Jones was forced to issue a sharp ‘shh’ to the exodus of Lords clearly not convinced a lively debate on the comms messaging of the Highway Code update was about to ensue. But a few hardy Lords and Ladies stuck it out, along with us.

Opening Remarks

From the outset, Jones is clear that despite having tabled a regret motion, she is in fact “fully in favour of these changes and congratulates the Government on bringing these in to make our roads safer.” Here, here!

It seems difficult to argue with the Baroness about the newly defined pecking order, that those more likely to cause harm to other road users assume greater responsibility than those more vulnerable. As Jones eloquently puts it “many drivers believe: might is right. The bigger your vehicle, the more right of way you have.” That being said, as we watch we are certain some of those Lords and Ladies have stuck around to do just that. *Spoiler alert: not all the Lords are whole heartedly pleased with the updates. *

The Baroness applauds the increased safety of car vehicles but points out this increase in safety has only been felt by drivers. Deaths of car drivers has fallen, while pedestrian deaths has plateaued. “We made safer vehicles, but we didn’t create safer roads” she says. From 2016 to 2019, pedestrian deaths on British roads have ranged from 448 to 470 per year. Whereas in vehicles deaths have decreased each year from 816 to 736 over the same period.

If Highway Code updates are made in a forest, with no one around to hear them, do they make a sound?

Jones primary issue with the proposed changes is “many drivers will pay as much attention to these changes in the Highway Code as Boris Johnson did to the Covid rules” #Burn. “Our only hope is a massive publicity campaign to convince the majority of people that being a responsible driver, responsible cyclist or even pedestrian, is a matter of courtesy, caring and common sense. We need the same energy that went into the Green Cross Code and drink driving campaigns. Without that … these changes will escalate injuries on the road.”

During her response Minister Vere clarifies that £500,000 has been allocated to a public campaign, beginning February and the Government also intends to utilise free media such as press releases. In her closing remarks, Jones claims dismisses this amount as being “nowhere near enough and recommends government ministers get out there and talk about it instead of about cake.” #bakingbasedburn

Among the Lords this figure is considered insufficient, and it’s hard to disagree. In 2018 the smallest automotive spend on advertising was Nissan at just over £17 million for the year. Ford, the largest spender, spent £28 million. Indeed, Lord Young of Cookham is concerned that not only “has [there] been an inadequate public awareness campaign” but the issue has been exacerbated by “some inaccurate press reporting.”

The Most Noble of Response

Predictably, among the supportive comments, several of our noble Lords missed the point in at least some of the key areas and take the opportunity to air some of the usual cyclist related grievances.

While applauding the update, Baroness McIntosh of Pickering feels that “one of the difficulties is that cyclists can on occasion display insufficient regard to other road users.” To rectify this the Baroness is behind a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to introduce offences for Causing Death by Dangerous Cycling, Causing Injury by Dangerous Cycling, and Causing Death by Careless or Inconsiderate Cycling. A waste of time and energy, Baroness Jones later reminds the Lords that ‘cyclists hardly ever kill other road users’ and 99% of pedestrian deaths are from motor vehicles.

Of course, the usual suggestions that “serious thought ought to be given to bike owners being registered and therefore identifiable.” This will deter ‘getaway-cyclists’. As well as calls for “where there are bike lanes … bikes ought to stay in them.”

On the Roads Less Travelled

As “a rural road dweller, who travels the lanes by car rather than by bicycle. What concerns [Baroness McIntosh] is that if cyclists are going to be asked to cycle in the middle of a country lane it is going to be impossible for other road users to pass them safely.” This is of concern too, for Baroness Hodgson of Abinger, who questions whether it’s “realistic” to recommend motorists pass cyclists with at least 1.5m of space. It is, of course, quite simply “impossible“, as “anyone who has been on single track country lane knows”, says Hodgson.

The refreshingly frank Minister – Baroness Vere – displays little interest in entertaining such nonsense rebuts this quite ably. One of the things she is “astounded by is the speed people travel … They are some of our most dangerous roads in the country.” She certainly has no time for those impatient motorists that have equally little time for vulnerable road users, going on to say “if you cannot overtake a horse because it is on that rural road … you’ll just have to wait behind the horse. It’s OK. Nothing bad will happen. But trying to squeeze your way past and hare off into the distance on a very dangerous rural road, no. We have to calm down on those roads. They are incredibly dangerous.”

Indeed, as reported by the BBC between 2018 and 2020, there were 3,115 fatalities on rural roads in England, and 1,880 on urban ones. During the same two-year period, almost 30,000 people were seriously injured on rural roads. In 2018, 48 of those killed on rural roads were cyclists.

Road-Tension

Baroness Hodgson of Abinger, concerned by increased tension on the road, quoted some a frightening statistic: “71% of IAM RoadSmart members feel that [the updated Highway Code] will increase conflict.” This seems plausible, however, the IAM’s vision is “A world where all motorists can safely, sustainably and socially take advantage of the road.” This makes you question if that is a balanced viewed.

Hodgson is also critical of cyclists perfectly legally filtering on either side of a vehicle. The Minister Vere is again strong in her rebuttal taking “issue with [her] noble friend Baroness Hodgson, who unfortunately is unable to see cyclists whizzing up the inside. They have been allowed to travel up the inside of a car for quite some time and that is why the left-hand wing mirror is there (#burn) to enable you to check your mirror before you make the left turn.”

For Vere, it is quite simple: “Don’t cut in front of [cyclists]. Wait for them pass. Wait for it to be safe. And don’t whizz round corners at 30mph”

The Government Stands

Vere states in response to the claims of too little fanfare from the Government on the proposed changes is due to the need to follow parliamentary process. “[She] notes at the outset that changes to the Highway Code don’t always attract a debate and it isn’t always re-published … There is a parliamentary process to follow. We issued a press note yesterday to the media to kick off the process.” She states that the government wouldn’t have embarked on a massive publicity campaign prior to the parliamentary process being completed.

Vere makes some reassuring points, albeit somewhat expected/you would hope. “Keeping our roads safe for everyone and particularly those most at risk is one of [her] key priorities. It’s not only about obeying the rules – that’s a very harsh way of looking at it – it’s also about respect and consideration for other people travelling on the roads.”

“At the heart of these changes is active travel. Everybody has the right to use the road. One of the biggest barriers to people choosing to walk or cycle is safety, or the perception of safety. These proposed changes to the Highway Code seek to improve safety for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders and make active travel an alternative to using a car.”

“Now it is for the government to set out what exactly those changes are. We have set out some myth-busting summaries on what is and what is not changing. For example, we are not saying that cyclists should cycle down the middle of the lane. That is not what the rules say. The rules say you might consider if it is safer to do so on quiet roads, or approaching a junction. Same with riding two abreast.”

“We will use the free channels as much as possible. Via press notices. We will use the THINK! [starting February].”

The Final Word

To conclude, Baroness Jones, commends the noble lady Minister and finds “it wonderful to agree with a Minister” on something.

“We always have to remember that car drivers are subsidised by the rest of us. They are subsidised by cyclists, by pedestrians and other drivers. So please don’t think that car drivers have the right to do what they like on our roads.”

It feels hard to disagree, with the Baroness, and also reassured by some Minister Vere’s remarks.