Death of a Cyclist - What can be done??

The Chingford Skinhead

Eau Rouge wrote:

We see the cyclist's lot clearer than most, naturally enough, but things start to look a bit different when you take the larger view those who deal with these issues take.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/da ... esults2008

In 2008 the number of people killed or seriously injured is as follows
killed seriously injured
in a car 1,257 10,711
Pedestrians 527 6,642
cyclists 115 2,450
Motorbike 493 6,049
Children 124 2,807
(children being also counted in the numbers above)

Those are the headline numbers, with little contextual information related to the number of people doing each or the distances they do. Never the less, it's pretty easy to see why cyclists might not be the main target of anyone with a limited road safety budget to spend

Interesting figures, but surely the contextual information related to the number of people doing each and the distances they do is key. If cyclist represent say 4% of traffic then in proportion, they are over twice as likely to be killed as a car driver. If only 2% then it is four times as likely. Consider also that the car distance travelled will include motorways and tunnels where cars cannot come into conflict with vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians.

Any Government serious about modal shift away from polluting and congestion causing motor traffic has to address the real and perceived dangers relating to more sustainable transport methods like cycling and walking. Of course, no Government is actually serious on this front, as seen by the relative attention it gets and the way pavements are so frequently narrowed to allow for even more on street parking.

Terra Nova

Greg, you say "Forgive me if this sounds blunt, but in that case you were always going to be disappointed." I am sure you don't need my forgiveness, but what you saying this is unnecessary and irrelevant. The result of the court case WAS about the exposition of truth. What I mean is it wasn't a matter of me wanting GUILT, it was a matter of the TRUTH, whatever that meant, I was prepared for the truth. You really do not need to go down the route of giving the lessons of how things work in this country to me.

And Greg, you give me explanations as to why someone would not give an apology in such a circumstance as killing someone on the road, again unnecessary. The other explanation is of course that they are not sorry. I am fully aware of why someone who kills someone would not apologise. It doesn't mean that this is right and I express an opinion that it is not right fundamentally. That emotional need for the perpetrator to apologise has passed for me, and despite what you may think about its naivity, it is quite a normal grief response when someone you care about has been killed so suddenly. It remains on the conscience of the perpetrator to deal with in his own time if he ever will. I don't care either way, I move on and try to look at different ways of dealing with this, and ultimately of taking some meaning from my brother's death. Again, not naivity, not unrealisitc, but a mormal thing and a major motivating factor in my being here.

I coudl be wrong but from what you say it seem to me that you have an opinion that people, possibly people like me, could have unrealistic expectations of the outcomes of such tragedies. There is something in your post that says people should just deal with this and get on with it. I am fully aware of the risks I take in my own life, my brother Tony and I took risks together at times, and I accept not only the consequences of all my actions but the responsibility for them as well. Some don't. As you said in an earlier post, the population of this country can be quite intelligent and trusted to know these facts of life.

As for your opnions on "accidents" they are quite strong and vigorously argued, I wonder where the route of these opinions comes from?

I will think more about the accident issue, but you should too, and maybe consider that they are "collisions" first. I am sure there is much we agree on in this respect. I will retire now and come back later.

Thanks for responding.

Eau Rouge

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

Interesting figures, but surely the contextual information related to the number of people doing each and the distances they do is key.

Is it though? It is if you want to compare modes of transport to find the "safest" one, or if your interested in which of them has the biggest safety problems. From that point of view it is apparently motorbikes that would be the priority.
It doesn't work like that though, and I don't think it should either. The aim is to cut the total number of deaths, regardless of their cause, as effectively as possible. The best way to do that is to find the big contributors that are easiest to fix. That isn't cycling, where there a myriad of little things making up the *relatively* small number in terms of the overall total.
In contrast, 560 people were killed as a result of drink driving in 2006. 460 were killed from the same thing in 2007. That reduction is almost as many as all the cycling deaths put together, and yet it's an achievable result. More could clearly be done there alone.
Speed is the other obvious area you can see similar absolute reductions, hence the anti-speed campaigns.
The same money spent on cycling information is only going to save a handful of lives at most. That *is* amazingly callous, but that's how it has to be. The same money can save 100 people, or it can save maybe 10. It's a simple choice, and you don't really need too much contextual information to make it.
[If you really want to be cold hearted about it, some of the 100 lives you save through drink-driving measures could well be cyclists, so you save them anyway, without spending any money on cycling safety campaigns]

It's worth pointing out that this has all been pretty successful. There are more cars on the UK's roads than ever, yet the UK has one of the lowest traffic fatality rates in the world and is pretty much the benchmark the rest of the EU looks to try and emulate.
In the late 90's people in Ireland started to make the comparison. at the time the UK had about 3500 deaths per year, from a 60 million population. If the UK had the same death rate as Ireland had, the UK figure would have been over 8,000. This despite the same weather, topology, cars, culture etc. It was a wake up call for Ireland and things are improving, but still not as good as the UK was even then, and the UK has got better since.

The Chingford Skinhead

I hear (well, see!) what you are saying Eau Rouge and it makes sense. Clearly far more needs to be done on road safety, even given the relatively good position of GB. However, it reminds me a bit of a conversation I once heard relating to industrial accidents when the operator said that safety was excellent as they were only killing 20 people a year in that industry. The inspector replied that while 20 deaths was better than the previous year the industry remained a serial killer - and that was nothing to be proud of. I know it isn't as simple as that but the mindset is important.

If you look at the even bigger picture, there is a recognised need to reduce car dependency due to the pollution and congestion they cause. Less cars would instantlly mean less deaths. But, you are not going to get less cars unless people see that there is a viable and SAFE alternative. Now, for short journeys bikes are a very good alternative - but even with a reduced risk by having less cars on the road they are still comparatively less safe and certainly percieved as being far less safe. Therefore you will not get any modal shift unless the issue of cycle safety is also addressed in a meaningful way.

Wallace1492

number9 wrote:

A much used statistic in Road Safety in that driver error is a factor in 95% of road accidents, whether by failing to notice a hazard, not reacting in time, or simply adopting a dangerous behaviour.

A vehicle can have an influence in many of these situations, whether by informing a driver, assisting a driver, or by ultimately removing the driver’s ability to behave in an antisocial or dangerous manner by taking over some of the control.

http://www.rospa.co.uk/roadsafety/advic ... idents.htm

I am not sure of the valididty of this in relation to cycle accidents. Cycle accidents will only be a very small part of all vehicle accidents, and I am sure that in the case of cycle accidents, the rider, will also be the "driver", as not all cycle accidents involve vehicles. There should be no reason to assume that cyclists will be any less prone to error than vehicle drivers.

Wallace1492

What can we do.... safety is improving and although the number of vehicles and cyclists is increasing the accident toll is decreasing. However, there is much, much more that should be done.

I do think it starts with education. Both for drivers and cyclists. There should be some cycle related information within the driving test (there maybe, but not when I took mine), also cycle training in school would be a start, with do's and don'ts.

I think the sentences for traffic offences are not tough enough, but I don't mean at the top end. For example the 4 years for killing someone for texting while driving does not put me off, the fact you could kill someone does - but if texting gave you a say, 2 week or 1 month ban, then this may have a better effect. I would advocate more driving bans, I think it is too hard to be banned from driving.

Another problem is reporting near misses or bad driving. This should be addressed. I nearly got taken out by a car doing about 70 in a 30 zone going through red lights. I reported but Police said they could do nothing, as was my word against his. There are too many bad drivers getting away with it, there should be a mechanism for them to be brought to justice. Yes, we need to be careful of false accusations, but there must be better protection.

DonDaddyD

Personally I think its too easy to say tougher punishments for motorists. Cyclists also need to be trained and educated and many I've seen on my commute need to better understand their resonsibility to help ensure road safety,

I also think its wrong to increase punishment for motorists and not give them the means, training and education to be more aware of road safety and to better handle the road.

I like the idea of having to retake your driving test every so many years. I like it because cars change, driving has changed, laws have changed and attitudes on the roads have changed over the years. Too many times I've heard too many drivers admit that if they were to take their driving test again they would fail. While I accept that a driving lessons/test doesn't teach you how to drive, truly, it teaches you how to pass the test. Driving lessons do teach you about the rules of the road.

But I think an advert initiative would be a first step at the very least.

Wallace1492

DonDaddyD wrote:

Personally I think its too easy to say tougher punishments for motorists. Cyclists also need to be trained and educated and many I've seen on my commute need to better understand their resonsibility to help ensure road safety,

I also think its wrong to increase punishment for motorists and not give them the means, training and education to be more aware of road safety and to better handle the road.

I like the idea of having to retake your driving test every so many years. I like it because cars change, driving has changed, laws have changed and attitudes on the roads have changed over the years. Too many times I've heard too many drivers admit that if they were to take their driving test again they would fail. While I accept that a driving lessons/test doesn't teach you how to drive, truly, it teaches you how to pass the test. Driving lessons do teach you about the rules of the road.

But I think an advert initiative would be a first step at the very least.

Agreed, well on the education part.

However, I do think that more deterrent sentances should be in force. The ability to take away someones driving license would be a huge deterrent IMHO. I have a friend who was a poor driver, but when he got to 10 points, he drove like and angel. If short term bans were available for careless driving, using a mobile, or other offences then I believe more notice would be taken by drivers.

Also, why do motoring offenses not take into account the consequences?
For example, if I got into a fight and punched someone, in scenario A, they get a bloody nose and that's it. I get charged with assault maybe. Scenario B, they get bloody nose, but also a blood clot that ends up heomorraging and they die. I get charged with manslaughter or murder. I have to face the consequences of my action.
Yet drivers do not. I know it is slightly better now with the offence of causing death by careless driving, but is this good enough?

number9

There are more cars on the UK's roads than ever, yet the UK has one of the lowest traffic fatality rates in the world and is pretty much the benchmark the rest of the EU looks to try and emulate.

The UK has the second highest pedestrian (and child) death rate in the EU.


Our pedestrian and cyclist mortality rate is a national shame and a great signal of the general lack of civilisation.

DonDaddyD

Wallace1492 wrote:

Agreed, well on the education part.

However, I do think that more deterrent sentances should be in force. The ability to take away someones driving license would be a huge deterrent IMHO.

I agree with you mostly. However, I can't help but feel that the best deterrent would be having police on the road to enforce the laws in the first place.

The whole reason people break the law is that they think they can get away with it.

But yes a zero tollerance or short term ban would work until people started realising that the law wasn't completely enforcable and then would start breaking it. Speeding come to mind, despite the cameras and speed traps, I'm hard pushed to know anyone that sticks to 30mph.

Also, why do motoring offenses not take into account the consequences?

For example, if I got into a fight and punched someone, in scenario A, they get a bloody nose and that's it. I get charged with assault maybe. Scenario B, they get bloody nose, but also a blood clot that ends up heomorraging and they die. I get charged with manslaughter or murder. I have to face the consequences of my action.
Yet drivers do not. I know it is slightly better now with the offence of causing death by careless driving, but is this good enough?

It's not as simple as that. I think its the intent and circumstances that led to the consequence. In a fight you know that you are going to harm someone, injure them and possibly kill them. You are in direct control of your actions and the decision to cause someone harm, though there is the self defence argument there is a point where defense becoem attack even if you didn't start it.

Behind the wheel of a car there are many external variables that could result in the loss of life that the driver has no control over.

choirboy

OK folks - here's a practical suggestion that occurred to me this morning as I watched two cyclists shimmy down the very narrow LH side of a bus in Hammersmith... Why don't all TFL buses have a bloody great sign on the near-side rear warning cyclists of the danger? They have one on the off-side telling vehicles to let them pull out but there is a big red blank space just crying out for some sort of warning notice.

Educating cyclists of the dangers seems to be part of the solution here and this seems like a no-brainer to me.

spen666

Terra Nova wrote:

Spen, please let Number9 have his point of view. I know, he knows, you know, we all know that these offences are charged according to the laws available, tried according to the trial systems we have available, judged on the evidence available and sentenced on the verdicts passed according to the tarrifs available under our current laws.
....

Who is trying to stop him expressing his views?


I have never tried to stop him or anyone expressing their views?


I will challenge views I disagree with and invite people to provide evidence tio supportthings I disagree with.

I in particular will challenge when blame is attached to people who are not the cause of the thing complained about. In this case, it was not the judge's fault he could not sentence the driver to inprisonment for the standard of driving as the jury only convicted of an offence which was non imprisonable

spen666

gtvlusso wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Personally I'm surprised there has yet to be a series of TV adverts making people aware of the dangers cyclist can encounter on the road. This would at the very least be a start.

....

+1 Totally agree with you. Are Sustrans doing anything?! Just gonna check their website. I would guess that some other organisations have some marketing on this subject, but I am not aware of a very high level campaign supported by the Police. Does anyone else know of anything?

Sustrans won't do this- they want people off the road on their seperate routes

OldSkoolKona

I think it is very much a cultural issue, interms of how road behaviour and attitudes towards cyclists are in the UK at present.

I always think about drink driving, not a perfect example I know, but there was a general shift away from it being acceptable behaviour to the current (admittetely not perfect) situation where it isn't. This has been achieved not just by tougher sentencing, but by enforcement by the police, advertising, media coverage and a general shift towards peer pressure on not allowing friends to drink and drive.

A similar thing is required with regards to how road users interact, in particular in the acceptabilty of using a mobile while driving to take one example. I see many road users using a mobile (worringly lorry drivers, with it clamped to one ear while the other hand has their map over the steering wheel looking for that delivery). In this case, further laws are the answer but enforcement of the existing laws and a change of attitude.

In terms of attidues, the current Daily Mail/Times type articles on Lycra Louts is damaging cyclist safety as it puts an attititude of 'its ok to mistreat cyclists as they deserve what they get' mentality in some (not all) drivers)

One thing worth noting is that it isn't just cyclists who come under threat and are poorly represented in court - here's a case of a pedestrian killed by a lorry while crossing a zebra crossing.
Death crash lorry driver denies careless driving
It sadens me some times to hear people complain about the behaviour of pedestrians, yes they can be unpredictable, but replace pedestrian with cyclist and you get the same excuses motorists use to mow down cyclists. Them and us attitudes don't help anyone.

And finally (yes long post, but been off the boards for some time), I don't believe in the majority of cases there is such a thing as an accident. The word incident is used because rarely is it completely an 'act of god' situation that would allow accident to be used. If you do your Advance Driving course there is good discussion on that element. The acceptance of things being accidents (IMHO) allows an acceptability of the status quo. Yes, there will always be injuries and worse fatalities, but they can be significantly reduced, just as was achieved with drink driving.

Wallace1492

number9 wrote:

There are more cars on the UK's roads than ever, yet the UK has one of the lowest traffic fatality rates in the world and is pretty much the benchmark the rest of the EU looks to try and emulate.

The UK has the second highest pedestrian (and child) death rate in the EU.


Our pedestrian and cyclist mortality rate is a national shame and a great signal of the general lack of civilisation.

I think it is a sign of too much emphasis on the car culture.
Also, both of the above can be correct. UK has far lower car occupant deaths than virtually every other country, but whet lets us down is the higher pedestrian toll. Overall it compares favourably.

However, the pedestrian/cyclist toll needs some work.

spen666

Terra Nova wrote:

Greg, you say "Forgive me if this sounds blunt, but in that case you were always going to be disappointed." I am sure you don't need my forgiveness, but what you saying this is unnecessary and irrelevant. The result of the court case WAS about the exposition of truth. What I mean is it wasn't a matter of me wanting GUILT, it was a matter of the TRUTH, whatever that meant, I was prepared for the truth. You really do not need to go down the route of giving the lessons of how things work in this country to me.
....

Criminal Court cases are not about the truth- no matter how much you are lead to think that.

In criminal cases, the truth rarely comes out

DonDaddyD

spen666 wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

Greg, you say "Forgive me if this sounds blunt, but in that case you were always going to be disappointed." I am sure you don't need my forgiveness, but what you saying this is unnecessary and irrelevant. The result of the court case WAS about the exposition of truth. What I mean is it wasn't a matter of me wanting GUILT, it was a matter of the TRUTH, whatever that meant, I was prepared for the truth. You really do not need to go down the route of giving the lessons of how things work in this country to me.
....

Criminal Court cases are not about the truth- no matter how much you are lead to think that.

In criminal cases, the truth rarely comes out

Same thing Mrs DDD said.

I'm about to give a statement regarding the fatality I saw.

I can ensure that my statement will be the truth as I saw the event. That's all.

Eau Rouge

Wallace1492 wrote:

I think the sentences for traffic offences are not tough enough, but I don't mean at the top end. For example the 4 years for killing someone for texting while driving does not put me off, the fact you could kill someone does - but if texting gave you a say, 2 week or 1 month ban, then this may have a better effect. I would advocate more driving bans, I think it is too hard to be banned from driving..

Currently, even for offences that do allow for a driving ban, the ban is very often suspended, or runs concurrently with a custodial sentence or is quashed on appeal on the basis of it effecting the convicted's employment. It's rare enough for someone to actually not be able to drive as a result of a driving ban. Getting 12 points is much more likely to result in a ban than a single driving offence.

I don't know what the legal principles used to argue the appeals are, but they clearly hold sway and have done for a long time. Changing the law to allow small-term bans for careless driving is unlikely to actually result in many more driving bans.

The problem isn't the lack of sentencing though. Sentencing really doesn't deter anyone from doing anything, getting caught does, as DDD said. The police/CPP rarely take people to court for careless driving where there isn't another reason to do so, serious injury or fatality for example. The driver gets away with it with maybe a small financial hit from higher insurance premiums. I don't understand the logic behind it one tiny bit.
How can a system that prosecutes drivers who don't actually have an accident, just break the speed limit (fair enough) then not prosecute drivers to the same degree who actually hit things in their vehicles. It's nuts. Road Safety is easy, don't ht things, yet those drivers who do hit things are let off scott free. Madness. Give them 3 points, in serious cases 6 (just like speeding offences) and see what happens.

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

....

Same thing Mrs DDD said.

I'm about to give a statement regarding the fatality I saw.

I can ensure that my statement will be the truth as I saw the event. That's all.

That's a big thing. The truth as you think you saw it may indeed not be the full picture of what happened. You should not take that as any attack on your honesty- its not

You are a 3rd party, but in lotsof criminal cases, the victim, witnesses and defendant all have vested interests and truth sadly rarely is ever revealed in court.

number9

, the ban is very often suspended, or runs concurrently with a custodial sentence

Quite.

A killer driver gets a year's custody and a year's ban.

YOU CAN'T DRIVE IN PRISON!!

spen666

Eau Rouge wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

I think the sentences for traffic offences are not tough enough, but I don't mean at the top end. For example the 4 years for killing someone for texting while driving does not put me off, the fact you could kill someone does - but if texting gave you a say, 2 week or 1 month ban, then this may have a better effect. I would advocate more driving bans, I think it is too hard to be banned from driving..

Currently, even for offences that do allow for a driving ban, the ban is very often suspended,

There is no power in English law to impose a suspended driving ban.

or runs concurrently with a custodial sentence or is quashed on appeal on the basis of it effecting the convicted's employment. It's rare enough for someone to actually not be able to drive as a result of a driving ban. Getting 12 points is much more likely to result in a ban than a single driving offence.

I don't know what the legal principles used to argue the appeals are, but they clearly hold sway and have done for a long time. Changing the law to allow small-term bans for careless driving is unlikely to actually result in many more driving bans.

Why change the law? A ban can be imposed now for careless driving. You appear to be calling for the law to be changed to what it currently is now

The problem isn't the lack of sentencing though. Sentencing really doesn't deter anyone from doing anything, getting caught does, as DDD said.

There is a degree of deterent in sentencing, but if you have no fear of getting caught in the first place, then there is little sentencing deterent. It is a combination of detection and sentencing

The police/CPP rarely take people to court for careless driving where there isn't another reason to do so, serious injury or fatality for example.

Before a prosecution can be brought, the CPS must be satisfied their is sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable prospect of conviction ( the evidential test) AND that it is in the public interest to prosecute (the PI or public interest test). The guidelines CPS lawyers have to abide by make it clear that in careless driving cases where there is relatively minor property damage or iminor injury, then it will not normally be in PI to proceed

The driver gets away with it with maybe a small financial hit from higher insurance premiums. I don't understand the logic behind it one tiny bit.

That is not a consideration in deciding whether to prosecute. It is nothing to do with criminal law

How can a system that prosecutes drivers who don't actually have an accident, just break the speed limit (fair enough) then not prosecute drivers to the same degree who actually hit things in their vehicles. It's nuts. Road Safety is easy, don't ht things, yet those drivers who do hit things are let off scott free. Madness.

No, I must challenge you here- they are a pop group,they are not involved in road traffic legislation

Give them 3 points, in serious cases 6 (just like speeding offences) and see what happens.

DonDaddyD

spen666 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

....

Same thing Mrs DDD said.

I'm about to give a statement regarding the fatality I saw.

I can ensure that my statement will be the truth as I saw the event. That's all.

That's a big thing. The truth as you think you saw it may indeed not be the full picture of what happened. You should not take that as any attack on your honesty- its not

You are a 3rd party, but in lotsof criminal cases, the victim, witnesses and defendant all have vested interests and truth sadly rarely is ever revealed in court.

I don't take it as an attack. It's like those films that tell the same story from three different perspectives. All any witness can do is be factual and truthful about what they did see and what they didn't see.

But yes, often personal feelings create vested interests and the way things are said inciminate far beyond what the truth could ever do.

I've done some soul searching on this one recently, I have had to set aside personal feelings and any vested interests because it's peoples lives we're talking about. As a witness all I am going to do is say what I saw, what I didn't and couldn't see and be done with it. In that way I will feel I have served justice, the concept not the case.

biondino

Just a thought about the concept of "an accident". I'm not convinced by Greg's black ice example, as anyone driving in conditions where it happens should be aware of the risk. Perhaps a better example would be mechanical problems? My worst cycling accident happened purely through equipment failure - I suppose you could say "well you should have maintained the bike better" but if anyone here has an idea how you spot, or avoid, cassette failure I'd love to hear more!

And this brings me onto my main point. We all have personal, individual concepts of acceptable risk in how we go about our daily lives. It's why we don't wear helmets as pedestrians, why we cross roads when not on a proper crossing point, why we eat doner kebabs. We choose courses of action where the reward - whether it's something amazing, like ascending Everest, or something mundane, like getting through the day - justifies the risks we perceive to achieve it.

And, as we don't all want to live in a bubble, we takes risks more or less all the time. These risks, in a car, might amount to going too fast to stop if a child runs out between parked cars. I pick this example because all of us do it, without exception. We know that it's exceedingly unlikely to happen; we even know that, thanks to TV, if we hit a child at 30mph they're likely to survive (indeed this may justify our risk to us). But it DOES happen, and children get killed doing precisely that by drivers who really can't be faulted at all in their driving style.

This, in turn, leads to the point made above where, despite even 1 death being 1 too many, cycling actually has a low casualty rate and its benefits hugely outweigh its risks. And this has to be at the forefront of any legislator's mind when looking at Making Things Better for cyclists and other road users.

spen666

number9 wrote:

, the ban is very often suspended, or runs concurrently with a custodial sentence

Quite.

A killer driver gets a year's custody and a year's ban.

YOU CAN'T DRIVE IN PRISON!!

IIRC that is either to change or has recently been changed or is proposed to change so that ban starts when released from prison.

There is a problem here though in that for that to work, the prison service and DVLA will have to communicate ie prison must notify DVLA of release dates and DVLA must act on those.

We all know how well the government agencies communicate

biondino

Here's a hypothetical devil's advocate thought:

What if it was made illegal for a cyclist to stop to the left of any vehicle bigger than a SUV? What if the cyclist was presumed liable for any accident that happens when a stationary vehicle turns left and hits a cyclist?

It's utterly unfair, of course - but it could seriously reduce the number of deaths, and isn't that the most important thing?

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

...

I've done some soul searching on this one recently, I have had to set aside personal feelings and any vested interests because it's peoples lives we're talking about. As a witness all I am going to do is say what I saw, what I didn't and couldn't see and be done with it. In that way I will feel I have served justice, the concept not the case.

It is very very hard to set aside all personal feelings in a matter

spen666

biondino wrote:

Here's a hypothetical devil's advocate thought:

What if it was made illegal for a cyclist to stop to the left of any vehicle bigger than a SUV? What if the cyclist was presumed liable for any accident that happens when a stationary vehicle turns left and hits a cyclist?

It's utterly unfair, of course - but it could seriously reduce the number of deaths, and isn't that the most important thing?

What size is a SUV? How can cyclist know that an SUV is longer than vehicle in front without getting alongside it and trying to measure it?


More seriously, that will promote the idea it is automatically safe to stop to the left of vehicles smaller than a SUV- not a sensible idea

davmaggs

A simple idea on the education front for cyclists might be to include a basic guide to anyone applying to use the cycle to work scheme.

I noticed (anecodatal I know) that the scheme got a lot of new people on the road. Many of the London offices where I have worked changed from the odd cyclist to having racks full of new bikes as popularity increased.

During conversations with new cyclists many of them really hadn't been aware about HGV/bus turning circles, riding too near the curb and other things that more experienced people think as of being obvious.

I'm thinking that the guide could be very short, only a few pages and could also be distributed via other campaign sites. The advantage of attaching to the C2W is that retailers would have to give it out as part of the scheme. I would also makes it tip focused, rather than slant it as cycling is inherrently dangerous.

Chicane-UK

Just a thought about the concept of "an accident". I'm not convinced by Greg's black ice example, as anyone driving in conditions where it happens should be aware of the risk.

Hmm.. not sure I agree with you on this one biondino. To be fair I'm more of a motorist than a cyclist (very casual cyclist but I do thoroughly enjoy it when I'm out on the bike!) but my opinion is that there are still adverse weather conditions you can not plan for.

Yes, you should be very aware that the temperature is low enough that it can be dangerous and I'd say that too many people blindly expect the roads to be gritted and expect to be able to drive at the normal speeds even in subzero temperatures.. but I think there is justification for saying that you could drive into a section of road with a lower air temperature which is enough to permit black ice to form and you simply don't see it and are involved in an accident as a result of it. There are just so many variables that I don't think it's fair to suggest that EVERY single environmental consideration can always be taken into account by joe schmoe every time he goes out in his car.

I'm afraid that, the more I take note of cyclists now, the more things I see which personally make feel that cycling education needs to be vastly improved - not just motorist education. Yes, many drivers are arrogant and drive too quickly, and give no consideration to anyone other than themselves.. but I've seen far too many ninja cyclists in the last few weeks, and people cycling through red lights, and people riding on the pavement, and people riding inappropriately in heavy traffic to feel that it's fair to only apportion blame to motorists.

The Chingford Skinhead

spen666 wrote:

biondino wrote:

Here's a hypothetical devil's advocate thought:

What if it was made illegal for a cyclist to stop to the left of any vehicle bigger than a SUV? What if the cyclist was presumed liable for any accident that happens when a stationary vehicle turns left and hits a cyclist?

It's utterly unfair, of course - but it could seriously reduce the number of deaths, and isn't that the most important thing?

What size is a SUV? How can cyclist know that an SUV is longer than vehicle in front without getting alongside it and trying to measure it?


More seriously, that will promote the idea it is automatically safe to stop to the left of vehicles smaller than a SUV- not a sensible idea

It will also pose a problem for the cyclist who stops at a clear junction only to find a vehicle roll up next to them. A bit like the loophole that allows motor vehicles to encroach in the ASL box if the light turns red after you have passed the first white line, the police will only be able to enforce the law if they actually witness the cyclist arriving after the vehicle. Based on ASL enforcement, nothing will change. Well, I say nothing, one possibe unintended consequence is that you will get more cyclists RLJing to avoid your scenario.