Cycling in the UK

nation

I'd like to see these used more often

If you think about what these are, it's actually quite interesting. All they consist of is a lane marking, which is a bit of white paint and could be acomodated by any council's budget.

There's no change to the road layout, so drivers don't get defensive about it being taken away from them and they don't require additional space.
The point is forcefully made (to drivers of the "get on the pavement" brigade and newbie cyclists who haven't acquired road confidence yet) that this is where bikes should be, so discouraging the attitude that cyclists shouldn't be on the road or that it's dangerous for them to be there.
Drivers are incidentally reminded to be aware of cyclists when maneouvering.

I can't really see a downside to them. In all honestly I'd rather see these than crap 50cm wide "cycle lanes" that consist of gutter and pavement.

AndyManc

vorsprung wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

I'm not too keen on this "presumption of fault / no fault" thing. I see cyclists do the most ridiculous things on a daily basis and as somebody who also drives a car, I don't see why I should be presumed to be at fault where some idiot has effectively ridden into me. I see what you're saying about the proficiency tests, which might help, but the whole presumption thing sets a dangerous precedent.

The way that the word "dangerous" fits into this is "cars are more dangerous than bikes"

If a bike is ridden carelessly then the rider themselves will be injured
If a car is driven without due caution then the driver is unlikely to be hurt but if he meets a bicycle then the cyclist could well end up as an ex-cyclist.

We might all drive cars regularly but this doesn't make them less deadly.
Cars are an everyday experience but also extremely dangerous

The idea behind the presumption is to force car drivers ( like me, I have a driving license ) that safety of other road users is their #1 priority and not getting to their destination 30 seconds earlier.

The Dutch experience is that they had a campaign in the 70s called "stop killing our children" which brought in the idea that car drivers should be really really careful when encounting bikes, as if anything goes wrong they could well get the blame

Spot on :!:

bigmat

I take your point, I'm just not very comfortable of there being a presumption of fault aimed at one party over another - it gets a bit too political. Its not a concept I'd like to see introduced into our society. What happens if there is a collision involving a cyclist and a car with no witnesses? Could be completely the fault of teh cyclist but the driver would end up taking the rap.

I'd prefer to see some / all of the following:

a) campaign aimed at drivers to pay more attention / give more space to cyclists.
b) campaign aimed at cyclists to cycle safely
c) inclusion in driving test (theory test?) of questions relating to cyclists
d) a more consistent aproach from the police in dealing with incidents involving cyclists / complaints from cyclists about dangerous driving
e) better road planning to avoid dangerous junctions / consideration to cycle paths where appropriate

If these (and potentially other) measures were brought in as part of a concerted attempt to make cycling safer then I think that would do the job.

Feltup

MatHammond wrote:

I'd prefer to see some / all of the following:

a) campaign aimed at drivers to pay more attention / give more space to cyclists.
b) campaign aimed at cyclists to cycle safely
c) inclusion in driving test (theory test?) of questions relating to cyclists
d) a more consistent aproach from the police in dealing with incidents involving cyclists / complaints from cyclists about dangerous driving
e) better road planning to avoid dangerous junctions / consideration to cycle paths where appropriate
f) cycling proficiency/ road awareness taught at primary school level. (it should be the parents that do this but since very few ride bikes it is unlikely to happen)

If these (and potentially other) measures were brought in as part of a concerted attempt to make cycling safer then I think that would do the job.

+1 and added an extra. Kids on mobile phones have been a big problem for me as a cyclist and a driver. A large proportion of kids assume cars will miss them and just step out.

sarajoy

Feltup wrote:

f) cycling proficiency/ road awareness taught at primary school level. (it should be the parents that do this but since very few ride bikes it is unlikely to happen)

+1 and added an extra. Kids on mobile phones have been a big problem for me as a cyclist and a driver. A large proportion of kids assume cars will miss them and just step out.

Umm, I did exactly that. We had a week or two where we brought bikes to school and had them locked up there in a store room for the week (if we didn't use them to get to/from school anyway).

There was a practical test, checking we could ride slowly and faster, without wobbling (along a line set out of two ropes which seemed REALLY close together at the time), indicating when needed, weaving between cones, etc. Then a written test, highway code based, and a road-sign recognition test.

It was pretty good, we had a load of cycling-related lessons in other subjects to go with it too, maths was probably based in the bike shop for a week, art/design involved designing new safety signs, etc.

Does this not happen any more? This was... 1991,1992? Sometime around then.

dilemna

MatHammond wrote:

I take your point, I'm just not very comfortable of there being a presumption of fault aimed at one party over another - it gets a bit too political. Its not a concept I'd like to see introduced into our society. What happens if there is a collision involving a cyclist and a car with no witnesses? Could be completely the fault of teh cyclist but the driver would end up taking the rap.

That's not the case at all. It has already been explained that it would be a rebuttable presumption. So rather than a claimant having to establish that a driver was negligent as is the case currently, the presumption will be that the defendant driver was negligent unless they can on the balance of probabilities show otherwise. If they adduce evidence that shows they were not or took all reasonable care that the other party themselves were negligent then it is unlikely the driver would be liable as is the current situation. It would act as an incentive for aggressive drivers to drive more considerately for if they didn't and caused a collision to avoid liability they would have to show they had indeed been exercising sufficient care and anticipation. I guess each case would turn on the available evidence and witness statements.

This would be the single biggest thing that the Government could put to Parliament to improve protection for cyclists and other non motorised road users such as pedestrians.

bratboy

sarajoy wrote:

Feltup wrote:

f) cycling proficiency/ road awareness taught at primary school level. (it should be the parents that do this but since very few ride bikes it is unlikely to happen)

+1 and added an extra. Kids on mobile phones have been a big problem for me as a cyclist and a driver. A large proportion of kids assume cars will miss them and just step out.

Umm, I did exactly that. We had a week or two where we brought bikes to school and had them locked up there in a store room for the week (if we didn't use them to get to/from school anyway).

There was a practical test, checking we could ride slowly and faster, without wobbling (along a line set out of two ropes which seemed REALLY close together at the time), indicating when needed, weaving between cones, etc. Then a written test, highway code based, and a road-sign recognition test.

It was pretty good, we had a load of cycling-related lessons in other subjects to go with it too, maths was probably based in the bike shop for a week, art/design involved designing new safety signs, etc.

Does this not happen any more? This was... 1991,1992? Sometime around then.

that was probably Cycling Proficiency and has recently been re-introduced under the new name of Bikeability for year 5s and above (that's junior 3s in old money) if you LEA has a cycling plan.

dilemna

Feltup wrote:

Kids on mobile phones have been a big problem for me as a cyclist and a driver. A large proportion of kids assume cars will miss them and just step out.

Adults using phones in cars whilst driving has been a real problem for me both as a cyclist and as a car driver. A large proportion of these people assume that they are not going to cause an accident and that they will be able to control their vehicle around everything and everyone .

Feltup

Good to know some LEA's have this in place. Shame it isn't a national initiative.

dilemna

Feltup wrote:

Good to know some LEA's have this in place. Shame it isn't a national initiative.

Was when I was a kid. It was called the cycling proficiency test. Later I took a proper bike test and got my full motorcycle license. But when I was a kid you also saw 'orses and carts on the road .

lost_in_thought

dilemna wrote:

Feltup wrote:

Good to know some LEA's have this in place. Shame it isn't a national initiative.

Was when I was a kid. It was called the cycling proficiency test. Later I took a proper bike test and got my full motorcycle license. But when I was a kid you also saw 'orses and carts on the road .

Yep, me too - it was dead easy in rural Suffolk though!

bigmat

dilemna wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

I take your point, I'm just not very comfortable of there being a presumption of fault aimed at one party over another - it gets a bit too political. Its not a concept I'd like to see introduced into our society. What happens if there is a collision involving a cyclist and a car with no witnesses? Could be completely the fault of teh cyclist but the driver would end up taking the rap.

That's not the case at all. It has already been explained that it would be a rebuttable presumption. So rather than a claimant having to establish that a driver was negligent as is the case currently, the presumption will be that the defendant driver was negligent unless they can on the balance of probabilities show otherwise. If they adduce evidence that shows they were not or took all reasonable care that the other party themselves were negligent then it is unlikely the driver would be liable as is the current situation. It would act as an incentive for aggressive drivers to drive more considerately for if they didn't and caused a collision to avoid liability they would have to show they had indeed been exercising sufficient care and anticipation. I guess each case would turn on the available evidence and witness statements.

This would be the single biggest thing that the Government could put to Parliament to improve protection for cyclists and other non motorised road users such as pedestrians.

Its just basics though, you want to bring a case against somebody arguing that they have been negligent / criminal then you have to prove your case. The accused is presumed innocent until you do so. I think its actually quite a big deal to change that. If the driver is up on a criminal charge, you're basically saying that he is guilty until proven innocent. That's a pretty major change in our approach to justice and I'm not convinced that increased cycling safety (or anything else) justifies that change - particularly when there are less radical things that could be done that potentially would have the same end result.

greg66_tri_v2.0

MatHammond wrote:

Its just basics though, you want to bring a case against somebody arguing that they have been negligent / criminal then you have to prove your case. The accused is presumed innocent until you do so. I think its actually quite a big deal to change that. If the driver is up on a criminal charge, you're basically saying that he is guilty until proven innocent. That's a pretty major change in our approach to justice and I'm not convinced that increased cycling safety (or anything else) justifies that change - particularly when there are less radical things that could be done that potentially would have the same end result.

My suggestion was aimed at civil, rather than criminal liability.

The presumption of innocence went long ago, with speed cameras, IIRC. If you're the registered keeper of the vehicle, you're presumed to have been the driver and so presumed to be guilty of the charge unless you prove otherwise.

dilemna

MatHammond wrote:

dilemna wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

I take your point, I'm just not very comfortable of there being a presumption of fault aimed at one party over another - it gets a bit too political. Its not a concept I'd like to see introduced into our society. What happens if there is a collision involving a cyclist and a car with no witnesses? Could be completely the fault of teh cyclist but the driver would end up taking the rap.

That's not the case at all. It has already been explained that it would be a rebuttable presumption. So rather than a claimant having to establish that a driver was negligent as is the case currently, the presumption will be that the defendant driver was negligent unless they can on the balance of probabilities show otherwise. If they adduce evidence that shows they were not or took all reasonable care that the other party themselves were negligent then it is unlikely the driver would be liable as is the current situation. It would act as an incentive for aggressive drivers to drive more considerately for if they didn't and caused a collision to avoid liability they would have to show they had indeed been exercising sufficient care and anticipation. I guess each case would turn on the available evidence and witness statements.

This would be the single biggest thing that the Government could put to Parliament to improve protection for cyclists and other non motorised road users such as pedestrians.

Its just basics though, you want to bring a case against somebody arguing that they have been negligent / criminal then you have to prove your case. The accused is presumed innocent until you do so. I think its actually quite a big deal to change that. If the driver is up on a criminal charge, you're basically saying that he is guilty until proven innocent. That's a pretty major change in our approach to justice and I'm not convinced that increased cycling safety (or anything else) justifies that change - particularly when there are less radical things that could be done that potentially would have the same end result.

I was just referring to civil law of the tort of negligence where the burden of proof is not so strict. But I suppose as your are indicating that you cannot really change one without the other then I would still opt for a change to the criminal law as well. Your assertion that some one would then be guilty before they are innocent is not correct. In a criminal case a jury or magistrate decides on the guilt of the defendant as per the evidence and whether the components of the alleged offence have been met. A defendant could still adduce evidence to cast doubt such that the burden proof beyond all reasonable doubt was not satisfied and thus presumably the defendant being found not guilty.

I think there is a wider public interest here for road safety. Approx 10 people will have died in an RTA today and ten more tomorrow and then 10 again will die the next and so on. That's not to mention those seriously injured and the cost of damaged property. So I feel there is a real need to adopt a system similar to the Dutch or Belgium models with respect to cyclists and pedestrians as stated above.

bigmat

OK, well I guess its worth looking into. I'm all for safer roads.

dilemna

Greg66 wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

Its just basics though, you want to bring a case against somebody arguing that they have been negligent / criminal then you have to prove your case. The accused is presumed innocent until you do so. I think its actually quite a big deal to change that. If the driver is up on a criminal charge, you're basically saying that he is guilty until proven innocent. That's a pretty major change in our approach to justice and I'm not convinced that increased cycling safety (or anything else) justifies that change - particularly when there are less radical things that could be done that potentially would have the same end result.

My suggestion was aimed at civil, rather than criminal liability.

The presumption of innocence went long ago, with speed cameras, IIRC. If you're the registered keeper of the vehicle, you're presumed to have been the driver and so presumed to be guilty of the charge unless you prove otherwise.

Hey......pipped to the post. +1. How many high profile fatalities have we seen in the last week? Gareth Evans TT killed on the A1 and the 11 year old boy knocked down in Westbury where the woman driver fled the scene....... . Being in or on anything other than a car on or near the roads is now a dangerous past time or a serious occupational hazard.

Eau Rouge

MatHammond wrote:

Its just basics though, you want to bring a case against somebody arguing that they have been negligent / criminal then you have to prove your case. The accused is presumed innocent until you do so. I think its actually quite a big deal to change that. If the driver is up on a criminal charge, you're basically saying that he is guilty until proven innocent. That's a pretty major change in our approach to justice and I'm not convinced that increased cycling safety (or anything else) justifies that change - particularly when there are less radical things that could be done that potentially would have the same end result.

How so.
If it were a criminal offence to be culpably involved in a collision with a cyclist while operating a motorised vehicle....

All you need to prove is that the accused was indeed involved in an accident with a cyclist, and that they were not wholly innocent in the accident.
Their defence would be that they were not in any way responsible.

Breaking the speed limit -> guilty
No license/insurance -> guilty
Passing too close-> guilty
etc etc

There is no change in presumtion of innocence. They are still assumed innocent of the crime of being involved in a collision until the court is satisfied otherwise.
The only real change here is from "responsible for" to "involved".

sarajoy

They've skewed it more towards the kiddies here, but they were reporting it on the (terribly simplified) Radio 1 Newsbeat bulletin as well this morning: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8038661.stm

They included a soundbyte from the mother of a cyclist who died after an accident with a lorry - and she was commenting on how it seems that cyclists are perceived as taking their life into their own hands just by getting on a bicycle in this country.

Finally, a bit of media pick-up.

sarajoy

Ah, the sister, not the mother - here it is in text: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8039289.stm