Slightly Injured 16,023

And thats just the reported ones!

I guess those trying to reduce rural road limits have either never left London or do 20mph round the Cotswolds. 40Mph probably terrifies them. We need better cyclists better drivers not more people plodding round getting ******* off

If my googling is correct 179 soldiers died in Iraq. They were there for many years fighting a war with people trying to kill them.

Compare that to one year on the roads and cycling seems to have a fairly high death rate.

The idea that 107 people should die just trying to get somewhere or out for a fun ride is horrific. These aren’t statistics these are mothers, fathers, children etc.

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.nl/2009/11/cycling-against-car-culture.html

I support reductions in speed limits on the basis that if shit drivers are moving more slowly, both them and other road users have more time to react, plus the consequences of any accidents are less significant.

Re the primary position/not in the gutter approach. I find there is an unhealthy number of drivers which find this antagonistic to the point where they ‘must’ squeeze by/pass even closer regardless. Its the old cyclist has less of a right to be there mentality which is at the heart of the problem.
I feel in greater danger when in that primary position from being mown down tbh.

Me: Stop and have a look then. Why did you pull out if you couldn’t see what was coming.?

Her: Well the law says it’s not my fault if the sun’s in my eyes, so it doesn’t matter if you’re in my way.

I believe that drumming the mantra “speed kills” into people has had the effect that people now equate speed above the posted limit with danger, and conversely, speed below the limit with safety.
I’ve heard it more than once after an accident:
“Ooh, but I wasn’t speeding”
as if that is the only metric with which we can measure safe driving.

If you remove the need for people to be responsible for their actions, then they will stop being responsible for their actions.
💡

Scrap speed limits.
Scrap cycle lanes.
Scrap all the paint on the roads.
Scrap traffic lights.
Scrap pedestrian crossings.
Start prosecuting when RTCs do occur.

Make it so people have to think about their road use, and they will think about their road use, not creep along, blinkers on, with the sound of cyclists being clipped off the wing drowned out by the incessant tones of Jeremy “No you’re not a serious **** journalist” Vine.

Ignoring the fact that we have some of the safest roads in the world already, it does work and has been shown to work.
💡

London Cycle Campaign

This doesn’t really sell the speed limit solution to me but if people drove more slowly then maybe they would have more time to make the necessary observations? Also collisions would be less likely to be fatal.

I think it’s fear of prosecution or an insurance claim that’s most likely to get people to modify their behaviour.

As both a cyclist and a car driver but putting my car driver hat on for a moment. I would find strict liability a more paletable solution than lower speed limits.

So we’ll be pretty much back in the situation we were in the 1930s then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain#Annual_summary

And no, I don’t think drivers have become noticeably less reluctant to prosecute other drivers in that time. The cultural attitude to motoring is still to treat it as a fundamental human right, rather than being in control of a scary bit of machinery.

No, and I’m really not sure how you can come to that conclusion.

We need the police to start prosecuting when someone’s driving falls so far below standard that an accident occurs, not prosecuting drivers who are driving safely without incident.

I’m not sure where private prosecutions come into this.

If anything else was responsible for a fraction of the deaths and injuries caused by motoring there would be massive public outcry and it’d be banned … but somehow road deaths/injuries seem to have become almost acceptable, just part of normal daily life

Just one of the items on my “why people are stupid” list 😀

They have strict liability in Italy, and it’s done nothing to reduce road deaths – in fact you can see it in that diagram you posted.

If it was introduced (over the dead bodies of the motor lobby and the right-wing press) I don’t think it’d hurt, but it’s not going to solve anything by itself.

I think better driving standards are required. Additionally plans to alleviate driver frustration which leads to drivers making ill judged decisions. Wether thats making public transport a)viable and b)affordable is something that I fear will never happen.

Also better cycling standards. How many of those injuries are from cyclists putting themselves in harms way? Running lights, poor position in the road or squeezing though gaps that are not there?

Surprisingly few, considering the poor standard of cycling that most people observe on their commutes. Boris got it badly wrong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/oct/04/boris-johnson-cycling-accident-statistics-wrong

fourbanger – The Yorkshire version of Look North had reducing the speed limit to 20mph as their lead article earlier in the week. Brake wheeled out some poor woman whos daughter had been killed by someone driving at 40mph in a 30mph zone. They then used this as the reason to reduce the limit to 20mph.

All organisations who are concerned with road safety should focus on improving driving standards, not just aim to reduce the speed limit.

The approach of removing conventional road markings, signs and controls is an interesting one. In “Traffic” the author describes a Dutch experiment with this which improved both safety and traffic flow.
I think Westminster reduced accident rates by taking away pedestrian barriers along the edge of pavements. The suggestion was that people drive more carelessly when they think there are safety measures in place to protect other road users. Anecdotally, I have experienced road junctions where the traffic lights failed, and everyone had to slow right down and work out what the other road users were doing, in order to negotiate the junction safely; it seemed to work quite well!

This is not just about cyclists. About 10 people a day die on UK roads, so reducing that number benefits motorists and non motorists. Achieving that will involve lots of different changes. Personally, I think reducing speed is part of the solution. There is a general culture of driving as fast as you can get away with in this country, and too many people do not bother to drive at a speed that is appropriate for the conditions, so I think generic limits are inevitable.

Actually about 5 people are killed on the roads every day

Yes there is room for improvement but the UK’s roads are among the safest in the world.