"So you are stating that ALL cyclists, pedestrians"
Only the ones who seem to believe that walk-ways and side-walks are for lurching out from into the paths of horseless carriageways who have no right to be on the carriage-way, which those pedestrians and cyclists seem to think that they (the pedestrians and cyclists) paid for.
Are you stating that ALL:
> pedestrians and cyclists .............. not only ....... have over a dozen [highway codes] from different times and countries, and not only ............ read them: but .. actually understand them and use them ?!
"and a substantial number of motorists don't read or haven't read the highway code."
> certain motorists (who shall remain Anonymous),
and who seem to have the same problem reading plain English as they do the Highway Code !!
"Do you also mean using it as a weapon to attack groups of road users in the same way that you used it to attack cyclists?"
For example pointing out that using reflectors is a sensible provision recommended in the Highway Code and that the failure to use same not only puts lives at risk, contravenes the spirit of it, and so can be used in evidence for a criminal charge is hardly the same as pointing out that "pedestrians" have the "right" of way and that if a child runs out under the wheels of a car the car "must" stop.
The former is a way to preserve the lives of children and other pedestrians and cyclists.
The latter is the way to murder little children: a favourite pastime of the so-called and self styled "safety" lobby hypocrites.
Do get mummy to explain all this to you, then you might well survive into maturity, at which point your "contributions" to this debate might be worth broadcasting.
Until then I suggest you concentrate your efforts on the first of the three "R"s. When you have that mastered: graduate to the third, and you might be able to begin grasping the facts behind the government's spin.
Once you have those two firmly under your belt: feel free to return and practice the second "R" here ! ; - )