News
Major changes to Highway Code come into force today
FROM today (Jan 29), the biggest update to the Highway Code in four years takes place in an effort to improve the safety of the most vulnerable road users.
The changes will have implications for anyone that uses the roads – such as cyclists, motorists and pedestrians.
A hierarchy of road-users will be introduced, ensuring quicker or heavier modes of travel have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they may pose to others on the road.
Cyclists will also receive fresh guidance to ride in the centre of a lane on quieter roads, in slower-moving traffic and at the approach to junctions in order to make themselves as clearly visible as possible.
They’ll also be reminded they can ride 2 abreast – as has always been the case and which can be safer in large groups or with children – but they must be aware of drivers behind them and allow them to overtake if it is safe to do so.
Meanwhile, motorists will be encouraged to adopt the so-called ‘Dutch Reach’ (as shown below), opening the door next to them with the opposite hand so they look over their shoulder, meaning they’re less likely to injure passing cyclists and pedestrians.
RAC head of roads policy Nicholas Lyes told The Herald: “These changes to the Highway Code are substantial, so it’s vitally important they are communicated clearly.”
“In theory, they should make our roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, but unless everyone is aware of them, there’s a risk of angry clashes and, worse still, unnecessary collisions.”
“Nobody wants to be on the right side of the Highway Code changes but in the back of an ambulance because of confusion on the part of a driver or any other road user.”
What’s changed and why?
The revised Highway Code comes into effect from 29 January 2022, following calls to protect vulnerable road users. There are a significant number of changes but, from a driver’s perspective, some of the biggest are:
- creation of a new ‘hierarchy of road users’ that ensures those who can do the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they may pose to others
- clarify existing rules on pedestrian priority on pavements and when crossing the road
- provide guidance on safe passing distances and ensuring cyclists and horse riders have priority when travelling straight ahead at junctions
‘Hierarchy of road users’

The ‘hierarchy of road users’ is a concept that places road users most at risk in the event of a collision at the top of the hierarchy. The system is used to create a special set of rules numbered H1, H2 and H3 but importantly doesn’t remove the need for everyone to behave responsibly.
The hierarchy places road users in order from most to least at risk of being injured, like so:
- Pedestrians – children, older adults and disabled people being more at risk
- Cyclists, horse riders and drivers of horse-drawn vehicles
- Drivers of large goods and passenger vehicles, vans/minibuses, cars/taxis, and motorcycles
Rule H1 applies to all road users and says that it’s important that everyone is aware of the Highway Code and their responsibility for the safety of others. The rule reminds us that it may not be obvious that other road users may have impaired sight, hearing or mobility.
Pedestrian priority

Rule H2 applies to drivers, motorcyclists horse-drawn vehicles, horse riders and cyclists. It reads:
“At a junction you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning.”
From January 2022 a pedestrian waiting to cross should be given priority. Previously, drivers were told to give way to pedestrians if they ‘have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road’. The change also appears in the revised Rule 170.
Rule H2 also advises drivers on pedestrian priority at zebra crossings. Rule 195 goes into more detail and tells us that drivers:
- MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing
- SHOULD give way when a pedestrian is waiting to cross
Although drivers are asked to give way more often, pedestrians still have a responsibility to cross safely. A new addition to Rule 8 makes it clear that pedestrians should ‘cross at a place where drivers can see you.’
- The Highway Code – UK road signs and what they mean
- 17 things your driving instructor never taught you
- Roundabouts – how to deal with them and pass your test
Safe passing distances

Rule 163 previously said: “Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake.” The revised rules go into more detail about what ‘too close’ means.
The following advice has been added:
- When overtaking a cyclist: Drivers should leave 1.5 metres distance when overtaking at speeds of up to 30mph. Drivers should leave at least 2 metres’ of space at higher speeds.
- When overtaking horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles: Reduce your speed under 10mph and allow 2 metres of space.
- When overtaking a pedestrian walking in the road (where there is no pavement): Allow 2 metres of space.
The guide distances should be increased in bad weather and at night. If you’re unable to overtake motorcyclists or other road users using the distances mentioned above, you should wait behind them until it’s safe to do so.
Other rules

Many of the other significant changes relate to Rule H3, which applies to drivers and motorcyclists:
“You should not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse-drawn vehicles going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle.”
The rule applies when a cyclist is using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road. And it can also be seen in the amended Rule 160.
Also, you shouldn’t turn at a junction if it would cause a cyclist or horse to stop or swerve out of danger’s way.
Rule 72 is new for 2022 and instructs cyclists about their position in the road. There are two basic positions which cyclists should adopt depending on driving conditions.
Cyclists should ride in the centre of their lane:
- on quiet roads and streets
- in slower-moving traffic
- when approaching junctions or narrow roads
Cyclists should keep 0.5 metres away from other vehicles and allow them to overtake if:
- vehicles are moving faster than the cyclist
- traffic starts to flow more freely
Another change to the Highway Code influenced by ‘The hierarchy of road users’ is Rule 140, which now asks drivers:
- to give way to any cyclists in a cycle lane, including when they are approaching from behind
- do not cut across cyclists when you are turning or changing lane
The updated rule reminds road users that cycle tracks can be shared with pedestrians and that cyclists are not obliged to use them.
Crime
Lamphey parent fined over child’s school attendance record
A PARENT from the Lamphey area has been fined after failing to ensure their child attended school regularly, magistrates heard.
The case was dealt with in the defendant’s absence at Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday (Dec 11) following proceedings brought by Pembrokeshire County Council.
The court heard that between Wednesday (April 30) and Friday (May 23), the parent failed to secure regular school attendance for their child, who was of compulsory school age at the time.
The offence was brought under section 444 of the Education Act 1996, which places a legal duty on parents to ensure their children attend school regularly.
The case was proved in absence, and magistrates imposed a fine of £220. The parent was also ordered to pay an £88 victim services surcharge and £100 in prosecution costs.
A collection order was made, with the total balance of £408 to be paid by Thursday (Jan 9).
Magistrates imposed reporting restrictions under section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. These prohibit the publication of any information that could identify the child involved, including names, addresses, schools, workplaces or images. The restrictions remain in force until the child reaches the age of eighteen.
Crime
Haverfordwest couple fined over child’s school attendance
A COUPLE from the Haverfordwest school area have been fined after failing to ensure their child attended school regularly, a magistrates’ court has heard.
The pair were dealt with at Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday (Dec 11) in separate but linked cases brought by Pembrokeshire County Council.
The court heard that over a period in May, the couple failed to secure regular attendance at school for their child, who was of compulsory school age at the time.
Both cases were brought under section 444 of the Education Act 1996, which places a legal duty on parents to ensure their children attend school regularly.
One parent admitted the offence, with the guilty plea taken into account during sentencing. They were fined £40 and ordered to pay a £16 victim services surcharge and £128 in prosecution costs.
The second parent did not attend court and the case was proved in absence. Magistrates imposed a £60 fine, along with a £24 victim services surcharge and £100 in costs.
Collection orders were made in both cases, with payments set at £24 per month starting in January.
Magistrates imposed strict reporting restrictions under section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. These prohibit the publication of any information that could identify the child involved, including names, addresses, schools, workplaces or images.
The restrictions remain in place until the child reaches the age of eighteen.
Crime
Trefin dog case ends in forfeiture order after protection notice breach
Village protest followed months of complaints about barking
A WOMAN from north Pembrokeshire has been fined £1,000 and ordered to forfeit four dogs after repeatedly breaching a Community Protection Notice issued following complaints and protests in her village.

Julia Goodgame, aged fifty-eight, of Bryn Y Derwydd, Trefin, appeared before Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday (Dec 11), where she admitted failing to comply with the terms of a notice served by Pembrokeshire County Council.
The court heard that on Friday (June 20) Goodgame failed to secure control of her dogs just three days after a Community Protection Notice was issued on Tuesday (June 17). The notice was served under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
The case followed months of complaints from residents in Trefin relating to dog noise and control. Earlier this year, the dispute escalated into a public protest in the village, with a number of residents gathering to raise concerns about constant barking and its impact on daily life.
Goodgame had previously denied breaching the notice when she first appeared before magistrates in September. At that hearing, the council alleged multiple breaches across June and July and said enforcement action had been taken only after informal measures failed. A trial was later listed for Monday (Nov 10), with several witnesses expected to give evidence.

However, at the November hearing, Goodgame changed her plea from not guilty to guilty to one offence, with the remaining allegations not proceeded with.
As part of Wednesday’s sentence, magistrates ordered the immediate forfeiture and seizure of four Border Collie dogs, which Goodgame told the court were the only dogs in her possession.
Authorised officers from Pembrokeshire County Council are permitted to seize the dogs, with custody transferred to the council or an approved animal welfare organisation to ensure their humane handling and care. The court granted the council powers to rehome the dogs through reputable animal welfare organisations, or to destroy them if deemed necessary.
Goodgame was also ordered to pay the reasonable costs of seizure, transport, detention and any veterinary treatment required, along with additional enforcement costs.
A Criminal Behaviour Order was imposed until further order of the court. The order prohibits Goodgame from allowing her dogs to create unreasonable noise, leaving dogs outdoors while she is absent from the property, or allowing dog faeces to accumulate at the address. Any waste stored on the premises must be kept in secured bins away from boundary fences.
In addition to the £1,000 fine, she was ordered to pay a £400 victim services surcharge and £1,200 in prosecution costs. A collection order was made, allowing deductions to be taken directly from benefits if necessary.
The forfeiture order was made under section 50 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
-
Crime5 days agoPhillips found guilty of raping baby in “worst case” judge has ever dealt with
-
Crime4 days agoKilgetty scaffolder sentenced after driving with cocaine and in system
-
Crime4 days agoHousing site director sentenced after failing to provide breath sample following crash
-
Crime4 days agoMotorist banned for three years after driving with cannabis in system
-
Education3 days agoTeaching assistant struck off after asking pupil for photos of her body
-
News6 days agoJury retires tomorrow in harrowing Baby C rape trial
-
Crime4 days agoMilford Haven pensioner denies exposure charges
-
Crime17 hours agoMan spared jail after baseball bat incident in Milford Haven








