High Way to Compliance Hell

What can new traffic regulations teach us about Compliance??

Last weekend, the UK government introduced changes to The Highway Code, a document that’s a combination of legal requirements and advisory guidance for road users.

Most of the changes are (whisper it) fairly sensible. They establish a hierarchy that reflects the vulnerability of different road users. If you’re a pedestrian the rules offer you greater protection than it does to cyclists, who in turn are offered greater protection than drivers of motorised vehicles.?

Equally, there are changes that make the Code clearer on certain matters. The substance of the rules haven’t changed, they’re just a bit clearer.

Having recently rediscovered the joys of cycling — thanks to spending time in a bike-friendly city & the delightful Van Moof e-bike —?I think the changes are intelligent and long overdue.?But I recognise that not all road users —?particularly those using what Harley Davidson refer to as ’cages’ — will feel the same way.?

That’s often the challenge when you’re making changes to rulebooks.?Many people dislike change, particularly if it feels like they’re having their freedom curtailed — even if those freedoms are things they don’t actually ever exercise —?or they’re being told to behave differently from the way they’ve always behaved.?It’s worth remembering that we like to think of ourselves as being responsible, so when new rules come in that impact us, we’re more likely to see them as being there to mitigate the risks posed by other people,

From a societal perspective, I would argue that makes sense to have rules that protect vulnerable road users and make environmentally friendly travel safer and therefore more attractive. But from a car driver’s perspective, these changes could easily feel restrictive and designed to make their lives more difficult.?As ever with safety rules, there is a need to make a risk/reward tradeoff, so it is also worth considering that the rules might have unintended consequences.

There’s also a fairness angle here. Car drivers have to pass a test, be insured, pay road tax and have number plates to allow them to be held accountable for their behaviours. Cyclists do not and so when (a minority of) cyclists break the law, it also creates resentment on the part of the drivers who feel like there’s one law for them and another for those on bikes. There are, of course, good reasons for treating bicycles differently to cars, but equally, some cyclists do behave as if they are above the law.

None of this was unpredictable. Yet the UK government opted to introduce the rules without a proper communications plan. There is a helpful summary of the rules available online, but that’s not something the average driver is going to go and read of their own volition.?

I’m told there’s an awareness campaign on the way, but that’s a bit too late when the changes already apply. This matters, because without ensuing ghat people are likely to know of the rule changes, you risk a situation where some road users are genuinely or willfully ignorant of the changes, while others abide by them.?

More importantly, it has also allowed certain media outlets —?you can guess which ones — to present the changes as being an attack on car drivers.?This risks undermining the regime, as the narrative becomes less about safety and more about discrimination.

There are a few lessons here for Compliance professionals:

1. Communicate — if you’re changing your rules, you need to tell people about the changes in advance. The average driver won’t make a point of keeping up to date with the Highway Code — they read it when they’re about to be tested on it, not on a daily basis. Don’t assume your employees will have any interest in reading updated policy documents of their own accord. It’s your job to communicate the changes to them in language they can understand.
2. Understand — recognise that people might legitimately have concerns or objections to your rules and work to minimise these where possible, ideally before you introduce any changes. This is particularly important where the rules have a qualitative element or compliance isn’t a visible activity.?If people think your rules are dumb, they’re more likely to find ways around them.
3. Logic —just because something is logical from an organisational perspective, doesn’t mean that your employees will understand this or agree with you.?The more they feel constrained by changes, the more you need to explain why the changes are necessary. If they think you’re making their life harder for no good reason, then you undermine your regime and risk greater levels of non-compliance.
4. Fairness matters— Not what is fair, but what feels fair to the target audience.?If a subset of your population thinks as if there are different rules for them than others for no good reason, then they’ll react accordingly.?That’s why you need to get proactively communicate and not wait for them to make their minds up.

What have I missed?