Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to amend the
Highway Code.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport () (Con)
My Lords, following parliamentary approval, the Highway Code was
revised on 29 January 2022 to include alterations to improve
safety for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders. Changes
relating to the use of hand-held mobile phones in vehicles were
laid before Parliament on 1 February. Further changes covering
the use of self-driving vehicles are planned and will be laid
before both Houses of Parliament later this year.
(Con)
My Lords, would it not be a good idea to present all the changes
to the Highway Code and consult on them in one go to prevent a
piecemeal approach? Do I not have the expectation as a pedestrian
to be able to walk safely along a pavement without the risk of
being mown down by e-scooters? For what reason are e-scooters
still excluded from the Highway Code? When do my noble friend and
the department imagine that death and injury caused by cyclists
and e-scooters will be put on the same basis as other motoring
offences?
(Con)
Many questions, to which I hope to give at least some response; I
am grateful to my noble friend. If we could bring everything
together and lay it before Parliament all at once, that would be
marvellous, but the reality is that these things happen over a
period of time. We do not want to delay certain elements that we
can get out of the door. For example, noble Lords will know that
we changed the Highway Code back in 2021, making some alterations
for smart motorways to include red X stoppages. We have changed
and will continue to change the Highway Code, because the
situation on our roads is developing very quickly. My noble
friend raised the issue of e-scooters which, as noble Lords know,
are currently illegal except for the temporary trials. That is
why they are not in the Highway Code.
(Lab)
Could the noble Baroness tell the House to what extent she thinks
motorists understand the new Highway Code?
(Con)
There has been a huge amount of coverage of the new Highway Code,
for which we are extremely grateful, and there will continue to
be coverage. But I am afraid there has been an awful lot of hot
air as well, because the changes are actually not that
significant. If, as a pedestrian, you start to cross the road,
you already have priority; there has been no change in that
regard. There was already guidance as to where cyclists should
ride on the road; we are just clarifying what is reasonable and
what is not. I am content that there is an awful lot of coverage
at the moment. There will be more paid-for coverage by the
department when we launch our campaign.
(LD)
My Lords, it is reported that the Government are considering, as
a so-called Brexit freedom, refusing to implement EU standards on
better sight lines for buses and lorries so that they do not
crush cyclists and pedestrians, and better braking for cars. Did
taking back control mean more dangerous roads and less safe
vehicles? This seems in direct contravention to the alleged
purpose of the changes in the Highway Code.
(Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that matter. I
think what she is talking about—although I suspect there are a
few things muddled up there—is the EU safety package. Of course,
that has not yet been mandated in the EU. Ministers are
considering what we will do, and we will make the right decision
for the safety of everybody on British roads. It has got nothing
to do with Brexit or otherwise, frankly; we will be deciding for
ourselves.
(Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that smart
motorways are one of great oxymorons of the present day?
(Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for raising one of my favourite
topics. He will know that we have done an enormous amount of work
on smart motorways. They are one of the most scrutinised types of
roads in the country, perhaps even the world. We have committed
that we will not continue to construct new smart motorways until
we have all the safety data on those opened before 2020m, which
will be in 2025. At that point, we will consider where we take
smart motorways, but they are as safe, if not safer, in the vast
majority of the metrics we use to look at safety on our
roads.
(Con)
My Lords, the Highway Code has already been amended with a great
deal of criticism from those involved, I regret to comment. Are
further amendments proposed?
(Con)
Absolutely, and I am not sure I agree with my noble friend about
criticism. The reality is that 21,000 people responded, for
example, to the most recent change to the Highway Code and 70% of
those self-identified as motorists. Between 68% and 96% of them
agreed with the various elements that we put in place. I
recognise that concerns have been raised. I am happy to address
those concerns, but I do not think that this change is a poor one
and, to answer my noble friend’s question, there will be more
changes coming, as I have set out.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, can the Minister say why recommendations proposed by
British Cycling to explain reasons for cycling two abreast and to
protect the right to do it, which were rules 66, 154 and 213,
were not adopted in full? Will this omission not lead to many
drivers still questioning the right of people cycling side by
side, which is safer for all road users? Will the Minister agree
to meet representatives of British Cycling and Cycling UK to look
at this again?
(Con)
I am afraid that I will not commit to meet the cycling lobby
again because there was an opportunity for all the stakeholders
to input into the consultation. A correct balance has been met.
The motoring organisations were there as well, and we are content
with how we have resolved the situation around riding two
abreast. We say that you can ride two abreast but be aware of
drivers behind you and let them pass. It is about getting all
people on our roads to act in a very safe and considerate
manner.
(Lab)
My Lords, I am appalled that the Minister finds the criticism of
the Highway Code and particularly how it has been introduced to
be just hot air. I am very sorry that she is content; I believe
she should be deeply dissatisfied. To dismiss the changes in the
Highway Code as not significant is almost as if she has not read
them. It is a very important modification. It requires road users
to do things differently. It means that different people have
different rights of way. The Minister should not shake her
head—that is exactly what it requires. Where two road users both
believe they have the right of way, it is potentially
catastrophic.
The changes to the Highway Code are designed to make the roads
safer but they are completely undermined by the lack of public
awareness. The Department for Transport said it will begin
launching an awareness campaign in February. Has this now been
launched, and why did Minister not begin the campaign prior to
the introduction?
(Con)
My Lords, there is hot air and misinformation around this change
to the Highway Code; I am not going to lie—that is absolutely
true. There are also situations that have existed for decades—as
I have pointed out, these are quite minor changes. Where the
Highway Code says “should”, that does not mean that you are
required to do anything, but, if it says “must”, you are required
to it. There has always been a question, since the start of the
Highway Code earlier in the last century, I believe, whereby
different people will sometimes have to agree who will go
first—that is just life.
The noble Lord will know that we have had quite a lot of coverage
on non-paid-for communications channels, which is what we are
focusing on at the moment. THINK!, a paid-for £500,000 campaign,
will start very shortly, and we will continue over the summer, as
various different modes tick up in their usage.
(Con)
My Lords, what are the Government doing to make it safer for
pedestrians? In particular, how are the Government going to
enforce stopping at red lights for all road users, particularly
cyclists?
(Con)
I agree with my noble friend: some cyclists are absolutely
outrageous when they look at red lights and assume that they are
not compulsory. The Government are of course doing the roads
policing review, which we will publish in due course. But the
whole point about these changes to the Highway Code is that they
make things safer for pedestrians. As I have pointed out, they
already had priority if they had started to cross the road—there
was no change there—but there have been some other minor changes
that will make things clearer and safer for pedestrians.
(CB)
Has a government department considered cyclists riding abreast on
country roads? I live in Devon, where the roads are extremely
narrow and used by cars, a lot of horses and, of course,
vehicles.
(Con)
Many noble Lords will have heard me raise this point before. I am
extremely concerned about rural roads: my view is that,
sometimes, motorists seem to think that they have precedence on
them, but they do not, and that really concerns me. We are very
clear about cyclists: if you are riding on a rural road, or
indeed any road, ride in the centre if it is quiet, if there is
slow-moving traffic or if you are approaching a junction. If you
are on a rural road, of course you would move aside at some
point, if there were a car waiting behind you. But, if you are
travelling in a car at 30 miles per hour behind a cyclist who is
travelling at 15 miles per hour and you are delayed for one mile,
you have lost just two minutes of journey time. I sometimes think
that we need to be more cognisant of the users on rural roads
especially—not only cyclists but horse riders.
