What's happening to the Highway Code - and why it matters

1 Summary

The promotion of cycling, especially utility cycling (any cycling not done primarily for fitness, recreation such as cycle touring, or sport such as cycle racing, but simply as a means of transport), is important for a number of critical public policy objectives over the coming years. The proposed revision of the Highway Code is damaging to cycling generally, and to utility cycling especially. If this draft is adopted, it will have strongly negative consequences on cycling, and on wider public policy objectives including carbon emissions and health.

2 Background

The highway code is reviewed and revised periodically under the terms of the Road Traffic Act 1988. As a routine part of this review and revision process a new draft of the Highway Code was produced by the Driving Standards Agency early in 2006. A public consultation exercise was carried out on this draft by the Driving Standards Agency between February and May of 2006. 70% of all responses to the public consultation process were from cyclists; these overwhelmingly made the same points. A revised, and apparently final, draft has been published in March 2007 which does not remedy the problems for cyclists.

3 What the drafts change

The drafts make many minor changes throughout the document; this document considers only those which have a negative impact on cyclists.

3.2 Use of cycling facilities

The current code (revised 2004) says

47: Use cycle routes when practicable. They can make your journey safer.

The February 2006 draft says

58: Use cycle routes when practicable, and cycle facilities such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings where they are provided, as they can make your journey safer.

The March 2007 draft says

61: Use cycle routes and cycle facilities such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings wherever possible, as they can make your journey safer.

3.3 Roundabouts

The current code (revised 2004) says

62: You may feel safer either keeping to the left on the roundabout or dismounting and walking your cycle round on the pavement or verge. If you decide to keep to the left you should

• be aware that drivers may not easily see you
• take extra care when cycling across exits and you may need to signal right to show you are not leaving the roundabout
• watch out for vehicles crossing your path to leave or join the roundabout.

The February 2006 draft says

74: You may feel safer either keeping to the left on the roundabout or dismounting and walking your cycle round on the pavement or verge. If you decide to keep to the left you should

• be aware that drivers may not easily see you
• take extra care when cycling across exits. You may need to signal right to show you are not leaving the roundabout
• watch out for vehicles crossing your path to leave or join the roundabout.

The March 2007 draft says

77: You may feel safer walking your cycle round on the pavement or verge. If you decide to ride round keeping to the left-hand lane you should

• be aware that drivers may not easily see you
• take extra care when cycling across exits. You may need to signal right to show you are not leaving the roundabout
• watch out for vehicles crossing your path to leave or join the roundabout.

In all cases this is preceded by a paragraph indicating the correct rules for negotiating a roundabout, later in the document.

4 The consultation exercise

A public consultation exercise was carried out by the Driving Standards Agency between February and May of 2006; the report of this exercise is reference 2.

During the public consultation exercise, over 4000 people made a total of 27000 comments. 70% of the responses were from cyclists. The consultation report notes that "the cycling rules proved the most contentious during the public consultation..." [page 7] and goes on to state that the areas of contention were

• The advice on wearing cycle helmets and high visibility clothing
• The advice on negotiating roundabouts
• The wording on the use of cycle facilities

Nevertheless the Driving Standards Agency chose to ignore the comments with regard to helmets and clothing, ignore the comments with regard to roundabouts, and make the wording on the use of cycle facilities worse, not better

5 What is wrong with the draft

5.1 Overall public policy objectives

The Highway Code as it impacts cycling needs to be considered in the context of wider public policy objectives

5.1.2 Carbon emissions

British travellers travel 678 Billion Kilometres (Bn Km) per annum by car, or 85% of all kilometres travelled (2005 figures; Transport Statistics for Great Britain 2006 edition) as against 4Bn Km, or less than 1% by bicycle. Equivalent figures for the Netherlands are 146.1 billion Km (76% of total) by car, 13.9Bn Km (7.28%) by bicycle (2003 figures [1]).

If Britain could achieve the level of utility cycling of the Netherlands, the direct annual saving would be 5.65 Million tons of CO2 equivalent, or 5.8% of our commitment under the Kyoto protocol. [see appendix to this document]

Utility cycling requires that, for the user, the cycle journey is competitively efficient with alternative modes of transport.

5.1.3 Health

The Select Committee on Health's third report of session 2003-04 states that "the total estimated cost of obesity is therefore 3.3-3.7 billion pounds. This is 0.7-1.1 billion pounds (27-42%) more than the NAO estimate for 1998. The difference between the two figures occurs for a number of reasons including higher NHS and drug costs, more accurate data that have been produced recently, the inclusion of more co-morbidities and the increased prevalence of obesity. This figure should still be regarded as an under-estimate. We note that these analyses are for the 20% of the adult population who are already obese. If in crude terms the costs of being overweight are on average only half of those of being obese then, with more than twice as many overweight as obese men and women, these costs would double. This would yield an overall cost estimate for overweight and obesity of 6.6-7.4 billion pounds per year." [2]

A Policy Studies Institute report has shown that, while about 140 people are killed each year while cycling, around 20,000 others die prematurely due to a lack of exercise. The study has estimated that regular cycling provides a net benefit to personal health that outweighs its risk of injury by a factor of 20 to 1. [Hillman, M., Cycling and the promotion of Health, Policy Studies, 1993: 14]

5.2 Cycle facilities

The quality of cycling facilities in the UK is highly variable; the worst are very unsafe and very inconvenient

5.2.1.1 Use of facilities may be unsafe

Overall, many studies in many countries show the risk of serious injury and death to cyclists using cycle paths exceeds the risk of using adjacent roads, primarily because of unsighted conflicts with motorists at junctions between cycle paths and roads[3].

There is a particular problem with advanced stop line cycle boxes with an entry lane on the left, especially where there are railings or barriers on the pavement edge. A very high proportion of urban cycle fatalities involve long vehicles turning left at such junctions. [4]

Another particular area of problem is cycle lanes on roads adjacent to parked cars, where a motorist opening a door will open it into the cycle lane ('the door zone'). Collisions with opening car doors are one of the most significant causes of serious injury to cyclists, accounting for 10% of serious injuries in London. [5; see table 14]

Research by Transport for London shows that 'cycle lanes as such appear to have little impact on road safety targets.' [6; see para 4.2.5]

5.2.1.2 Use of facilities may be inconvenient

Shared use facilities are attractive to planners but effectively limit cyclists to little more than pedestrian speed. Unless they represent very significant short-cuts they are not competitive for utility cyclists with adjacent roads. Requiring the use of shared facilities would have a strong negative impact on utility cycling.

The wording in the current Highway Code makes it clear that cyclists may use facilities, or not, at their own discretion. This is also the law. The wording of the revised draft says that cyclists should use facilities 'wherever possible', implying that they have no such discretion. It may be 'possible' to use a facility which it is either extremely unsafe or extremely inconvenient to use

It is particularly offensive that the wording 'facilities... can make your journey safer' is used when, in many instances, this is the opposite of the truth.

5.3 Roundabouts

The correct rules for negotiating roundabouts are given in all drafts of the Highway Code

Roundabouts can be intimidating for relatively low speed and unprotected road users

The suggestion that cyclists may feel safer if they dismount and walk around is not in itself contentious, although on many roundabouts it would be either impractical or actively dangerous to do so.

Utility cyclists will not dismount and walk around roundabouts, and must not be expected to do so; the promotion of utility cycling requires that cycling be competitively simple and quick with other modes

Moreover, the suggestion that cyclists keep to the left hand lane on roundabouts is actively dangerous, as it puts cyclists in conflict with fast moving traffic at each exit.

Cyclists should follow the normal rules for negotiating roundabouts like any other road user. There should be no special roundabout rule for cyclists.

5.4 Helmets and clothing

The utility of cycle helmets is highly contentious. The evidence is incomplete and unclear, especially with regard to accidents involving motor vehicles. The advice on this both in the current Highway Code and the proposed draft is optimistic as to the benefits of helmets beyond the current evidence, and in any case overemphasises the importance of cycle helmets for safety.

Utility cycling is highest (and the risks of cycling lowest) in countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark where helmet use is lowest [references].

There is evidence from a number of countries that helmet promotion has a negative impact on cycle use, and on the overall safety of cyclists [references].

Promotion of utility cycling requires that people are able to cycle in their ordinary, everyday clothes ��' again, as is normal in the Netherlands and Denmark.

5.5 Why does this matter?

Road Traffic Act says of the Highway Code: "A failure on the part of a person to observe any provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person to criminal proceedings of any kind, but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings." [7]

A cyclist injured in a collision on the road when an alternative facility was available - no matter how dangerous or inconvenient - would find it extremely difficult obtain compensation if the current draft were to become the ruling code

6 What should be done

The section regarding the use of cycle facilities should be replaced with the following wording:

You may use cycle routes and cycle facilities such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings if they will make your journey safer or more convenient.

You should avoid using a left hand entry lane to a cycle box if there is a long vehicle waiting to turn left

The cycling-specific section regarding the use of roundabouts should be removed altogether.

The section regarding the use of high-visibility clothing and helmets should be replaced with the following wording:

You should wear appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights

Light-coloured or fluorescent clothing will help other road users to see you in daylight and poor light

Reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) will help other road users see you in the dark.

Appendix: computation of carbon savings

'UK Household's vehicles' emit 62.8 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtC) per annum, or 9% of total UK emissions (2002 figures; [10])

Under the Kyoto protocol, the UK is committed to cut 12.5% of greenhouse gas emissions against a 1990 baseline of 777.3MtC; this amounts to 97.2 MtC

UK cyclist miles amount to 0.5% of private transport miles (Transport Statistics Great Britain table 1.1)

In the Netherlands cyclist miles amount to 9% of private transport miles (Passenger Transport in the Netherlands 2004 table 1.1)

The difference between the UK and Netherlands figures is 8.5%.

8.5% of 62.8MtC is 5.38MtC, or 5.4% of the Kyoto commitment

The figure of 9% is not impossible to achieve. In 1952, cyclist miles in the UK amounted to 28% of all private transport kilometres travelled.