[Closed] Reducing casualties on the road

not mandatory helmets for all road/pavement users then?

Imma gonna say mandatory helmet use.

I would rather reduce accidents than mitigate them.

Rather than looking to reduce injury after accidents which is at best controversial we should be looking to reduce the number of accidents

mandatory helmet use would reduce accidents - people wouldn;t go out as much if they had to put a skid lid on every time 😉

you want to reduce accidents?

Reduce the volume of traffic

You are not taking this seriously

tsk tsk

[i]You are not taking this seriously[/i]

It's difficult - all the points you make are valid and could be introduced if their was the political will to do so.

But there isn't, so nothing will change.

Inserting hidden surveillance cameras in all Audis, Ford Focus STs and pimp-tinted 4x4s would do wonders in my area...

80% of bad driving caught on film right there.

1) - make testing much harder [b]yes[/b]
2) - have a graduated licence for car drivers like for motorcycles - and as is done in Australia IIRC. Small engined car, limited to usage. [b]that could work, have the changes in the motorbike laws reduced motorcycle fatalities or accidents?[/b]
3) - allow police to do random stops - at the moment they need suspicion, and have far tougher drink driving enforcement. roadblock particular roads and breathalyser everyone [b]Absolutely not, nice theory PITA in reality[/b]
4) mandatory retesting every 5 years and every two years after 75. [b]no need, if the test is hard enough and penalties are stiff enough and the licence is seen as a privilege and not a right...[/b]
5) introduce a continental style "car driver assumed at fault until proven otherwise" in collisions with bikes [b]despite living on the continent, i've never heard of this one, in fact the complete reverse. It would promote the them and us culture which does nothing to remove the problem.[/b]
6) - 20 mph speed limit in residential areas [b]for everyone, and everyone must respect the rules of the road. The good news being that there is a never ending pot of money to pay for the enforcement[/b]
7) - proper well thought out cycle facilities - not just a bit of red paint where it is not needed [b]Personally I don't see a need[/b]

Anything else?
Mutual respect and common sense, removal of the them and us attitude and perhaps include a few minutes cycling as an awareness part of the driving test.

1 testing seems fairly strict now, wasn't in the past but that would be picked up by 4
3, police being cut, good luck with staff intensive operations like that.
Everything else yep go for it.

Edit Don number 4, really? So you don't think people get good enough to pass the test (however hard) then completely ignore it drive how they like and pick up many many bad habits? Stick to current tests and retest regularly so people don't [i]forget[/i] how to drive properly

People need to learn that driving is a privilege and not a right.

I am not sure retesting every 5 years is sensible from a point of view of cost and how many testers you would need but something does need to be done.

I think the current testing system needs to be completely overhauled and it needs a staged pass system which includes a motorway test as I think it is madness someone can pass a test and go out on the motorway alone straight away.

The test also needs to address a bit more about how to look after a car. I am not expecting people to have to fix a car but they should know how to recognise there is a problem that means the car needs immediate attention. My reasoning is that breakdowns can be dangerous, cars fail mots with faults that are dangerous so why should drivers be allowed to be ignorant to the faults? Maybe if people actually looked at their cars with open eyes they would spot faults before they drive around with them for 6 months and then get annoyed by a big MOT bill. Also people need teaching on why you need to have the car services and do cambelts etc.

The cameras that record accidents as used in the states would help as well.

3) - allow police to do random stops - at the moment they need suspicion

Do they? Whenever I watch those 'Cops with Cameras' shows, they seem to stop folk willy-nilly. Occasionally, the voiceover will pronounce that a car has been stopped because "Gigsy's copper's nose" has smelt something....

5) introduce a continental style "car driver assumed at fault until proven otherwise" in collisions with bikes

I don't think that is fair at all assuming someone is guilty just because of the mode of transport they use.

Retesting is a good idea though and yes limited engine size based years since passing the test.

more traffic police would help.

It is no good having laws which aren't enforced. I have been pulled over (speeding) once but it is rare to even see police.
A pulling over and a stern word about things really reinforces things.
minor issues to be delt with in the 'stern word' manner. not indicating, tailgating, dangerous overtaking etc.

the ability to give out single points on the license for things such as above. not indicating, dangerous overtake etc.

2) - have a graduated licence for car drivers like for motorcycles - and as is done in Australia IIRC. Small engined car, limited to usage.

I am not sure i agree with this - teenagers rag the shit out of their first car because it is a 1.0l engine - the thing that slowed most of my mates down was the second/ third car. getting a car with some real power makes you respect them a lot more.

having said that - I have been working with a foreign student over the summer - he often hires the biggest car available to him (V6 vauxhall insignia) then boots it across the country doing 130 up the motorways. 😯

and yes limited engine size based years since passing the test.

no need, if the test is hard enough and penalties are stiff enough and the licence is seen as a privilege and not a right...

To which end I think we need a '3 strikes' system. Receive a ban of any length 3 times and the last one is permanent.

I also think livelihood shouldn't matter, 12 points that's it if you need your vehicle for work you should have thought of that first!

but more years driving does not necessarily equal better driving does it? Harder tests for bigger engines surely?

Not it doesn't but not sure why you need a different test for a bigger engine. Gaining experience driving goes a lot further than passing a test then feel free to do what you want as soon as you have your bit of paper.

3 strikes? seems generous, 2 I reckon.

Agreed livelihood shouldn't matter in sentencing, if you need to drive to work you should know better.

Edit, sorry drac meant more testing in a vehicle to suit, no point testing in a 1.0 super mini than spending all your time driving round in a powerful behemoth.

some-one I know drives with no licence and no insurance, and TBH it's pretty common amongst people round here. thinking is: driving a car not that hard actually, so no real need for lesson, chance of being stopped if your careful is pretty small, and the penalties aren't that expensive, really a lot less than running a car legally.

there aren't enough police on the roads at the minute let alone more to stop more people

retest every 5 years would just be waste of time for most law abiding people, no? why should you anyway, if you've done nothing wrong?

Most accidents are young blokes, right? restrict what/when they can drive. I seen loads in car parks late at night all pissed/stoned doing stunts arsing about, stop that.

Drac - Moderator

5) introduce a continental style "car driver assumed at fault until proven otherwise" in collisions with bikes

I don't think that is fair at all assuming someone is guilty just because of the mode of transport they use.

It works well in most of Europe and is IMO a very good way of reducing the toll of cyclists killed and injured

Or as the publication Cycling in the Netherlands, published by the Dutch Directorate-General for Passenger Transport puts it:

Something that should not be overlooked in the safety section: Liability. In some countries, bicycling is seen as causing danger, which sometimes ends up in an anti-cycling policy. The Dutch philosophy is: Cyclists are not dangerous; cars and car drivers are: so car drivers should take the responsibility for avoiding collisions with cyclists. This implies that car drivers are almost always liable when a collision with a bicycle occurs and should adapt their speed when bicycles share the roads with cars.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/drivers-may-be-blamed-for-all-bicycle-accidents-638842.html

There are not enough bike lanes in this country. It's bloody shameful to be honest. Visit other European countries and there will more often than not be some proper cycle paths. That doesn't exist here to the same extent, if at all. This would be the number one way to reduce casualties.

Then there is definitely NOT enough police presence/checks on the roads. Christ, in the two years in drove a car in Sweden I got stopped 3 times for breathalyzing tests, never happened here.

I still say the biggest reason for casualties is that cyclists have to mix with cars on the roads. And when I say cycle paths i don't mean a green painted strip on the road, but proper separated bits.

I am not in complete agreement with segregating cyclists completely. However well engineered junctions that are designed with bikes in mind would be a great help anc certainly our road designers could learn a lot from the dutch.

I like the dutch urban system with no road signs and a 30 kph limit - where pedestrians have priority over bikes who have priority over cars

chance of being stopped if your careful is pretty small, and the penalties aren't that expensive, really a lot less than running a car legally.

Ban means losing the car?

I think point 4: "mandatory retesting" would be the most effective.

Operators of most heavy machinery require regular safety refresher courses. Seems sensible that drivers should too.

I think it would genuinely help to point out bad habits, misconceptions and rule changes. I'm amazed* at the number of drivers round my way who swing across lanes on the roundabouts or who don't seem to have any idea what the national speed limit is.

A useful practical test exercise would be to sit with the driver and film them as they drive normally on their local routes, then play it back and point out all the odd things they did.

(* I'm sure I have plenty of bad habits too, but sometimes it takes someone else to point them out)

Automatic short jail sentence for drink drivers. Second offence decent sentance

And when I say cycle paths i don't mean a green painted strip on the road, but proper separated bits.

Just got white lines painted about a foot from the kerb round my way! Aka the gutter.

[i]our road designers could learn a lot from the dutch.[/i]

Holland? (is that dutch?)is a lot smaller/less traffic than britain though, doesn't that make a difference?

I think point 4: "mandatory retesting" would be the most effective.

Surely just because a driver can drive well doesn't mean she/he will drive well between mandatory tests?

It may well be worth doing, though, to cut out some of the idiot drivers who don't have a clue.

It works well in most of Europe and is IMO a very good way of reducing the toll of cyclists killed and injured

Wider roads, mild banking on corners, long sight lines, curved lamp posts, no trees within 20 feet of the verge.

How do we compare to other countries for road accidents/death anyway? aren't we quite good?

emsz - Member

our road designers could learn a lot from the dutch.

Holland? (is that dutch?)is a lot smaller/less traffic than britain though, doesn't that make a difference?

Netherlands is the country, the people are the dutch, holland is a province of the country

its actually a lot more densely populated than the UK in the main and its not that small. Traffic is managed well unlike here. Lots of busy motorways and so on

emsz you should grass on them [ seriously]- do you think they will stop if they hit someone or panic and leave the scene? That is one of the best things tests + insurance does, it makes you do the right thing when you mess up and someone gets hurt.

most of what TJ says is sound
What worries me most is the way many people are when they drive badly it is like they rejoice in how bad they are. Somehow we need to get people to see it is a cooperative exercise designed to ensure we all get from a to b without crashing rather than just being about making sure i get from a to b faster than you.
I have no suggestions as how to re educate people on this issue sadly.

Don - its in most of europe.

all the low countries, Germany, France, I think spain, again I believe Scandinavia

Its not discussed as it is the norm and has been for a long time

2) - have a graduated licence for car drivers like for motorcycles - and as is done in Australia IIRC. Small engined car, limited to usage

I like this adea, wonder what sort of difference it makes with motorbike users safty?

I would also like to see some sort of fuel card system, that you would have to swipe to prove your vehicle has a mot, insured and taxed, as well as the driver having a valid licence, before you could buy fuel, how it could be implemented I have no idea and I am sure there would be many reasons why it would not work, but clearing the roads of uninsured, unsafe drivers would be a good start in my book.

TandemJeremy - Member
Automatic short jail sentence for drink drivers. Second offence decent sentance

I think a better way would be 1st offence automatic community service, picking up litter on roads/motorways/etc wearing a fluro vest with 'Drunk Driver' written in massive letters on it.

2nd prison.

3rd permanent ban.

Take drunk driver's cars as well, they obviously can't be trusted!

I would also like to see some sort of fuel card system, that you would have to swipe to prove your vehicle has a mot, insured and taxed, as well as the driver having a valid licence, before you could buy fuel, how it could be implemented I have no idea and I am sure there would be many reasons why it would not work, but clearing the roads of uninsured, unsafe drivers would be a good start in my book.

I like that!

yes for mandatory retests. Hugely costly though: is the dvla registration of new drivers and running of test centres funded completely by driving test fees? You'd also need loads more examiners and instructors, we might even have to wheel glupton out of 'retirement' 😉

TandemJeremy - Member

The cameras that record accidents as used in the states would help as well.

I was thinking about that the other week. Surely the technology now exists for new cars to be relatively cheaply fitted with a dash/bonnet mounted camera and basic telemetry recording 'black box recorder'. It could record in a fifteen minute loop to maximise visual quality for the memory available (for other drivers reg plates for example) and could be stopped a couple of minutes after a collision is detected, or if the driver or police see an incident and want to preserve the film and telemetry and wish to use it for evidence for or against the driver.

I bet that would sharpen up people's driving, knowing that if you screw up or the police pull you for speeding/dangerous driving you have both your car's recordings and possibly the other driver's recordings too. Insurance companies could also 'profile' drivers who agree to have this retro-fitted to older cars and reduce their premniums accordingly as they are put off driving unsafely, and more able to prove fault in the other party in the case of a claim.

Surely just because a driver can drive well doesn't mean she/he will drive well between mandatory tests?

True bit it would increase the overall standard of driving.

If we retested every 5 years then that means one fifth of the drivers on the road would have sat a test in the past year and would have the "correct way to drive" freshly in their minds (even if they chose to ignore it).

That's got to be a start.

I'd also like to see all driver's spend one day commuting on a bike as an "other road user awareness" part of driver training. 😀

How do we compare to other countries for road accidents/death anyway? aren't we quite good?

Yep the UK is right up there at the top of the table. Road deaths are already decreasing year on year. 8,000 deaths per year in the 60's and now down to around 2,500 annually. That's good going in anyone's book.

With regard to the young driver/high power car thing. Insurance companies effectively police this anyway. Have you seen the price of premiums for young drivers on a boggo supermini. Hate to think what anything with a big engine would cost.

Visit other European countries and there will more often than not be some proper cycle paths.

Julian - thats the sort of system that is starting to be fitted in the US

In Spain the law is in favour of the driver, a small example, if the cyclist is knocked down by a car and receives a head injury, the driver is not responsible for the head injury if the rider is not wearing a helmet. Fact and not supposition.
Could you supply a list of countries where the driver is presumed guilty until proven innocent and figure which show a reduction in the number of accidents involving cyclists, please? This, IMO, gives cyclists the go ahead to ride like twunts without any comeback, see my example above.

There are bike lanes, and there are bike lanes. Proper cycling infrastructure like you see in Holland and Germany would reduce cycling casualties. Some of the bike lanes in this country are so poorly designed I reckon they actually increase risk to cyclists.

Crucially in those countries you also have less of a class system on the roads. Cyclists are considered worthy and equal users of the road (by the majority of drivers).

In the UK we need a campaign to increase empathy between road users. We also need to marginalise the 'old school' (esp in the media) who still think it's acceptable to talk about cyclists like we're second class citizens.

Junky I couldn't be a grass 😳 sorry.

I read somewhere once that there was an experiment to take away all the road markings and the kerbs and stuff, and it made all the cars slow down cos they had to constantly think about other people all the time instaed of just following the road without thinking about it. Does it work?

Just to add, a compulsory training day and retest every 10 years or so would be a great idea.

I'm a private pilot and if I don't fly regularly then I have to take a check flight with an approved instructor. If I fail to meet the required standard then it's more lessons until I'm back to the right standard. This is a good thing though rather than a chore. It helps keep skills as sharp as they should be.

Don't see why driving should be any different.

Yep the UK is right up there at the top of the table. Road deaths are already decreasing year on year. 8,000 deaths per year in the 60's and now down to around 2,500 annually. That's good going in anyone's book.

The death toll for 2010 was 1,857, as against 2,222 in 2009, a 16% drop and the seventh consecutive annual fall, the Department for Transport statistics showed. There was an 8% reduction in the broader statistic of people killed or seriously injured, which stood at 22,660 last year.

[b]Although deaths and injuries fell significantly for motorists, pedestrians and motorcyclists, the number of cyclists killed rose for a third consecutive year. Deaths rose by 7% from 104 in 2009 to 111 last year, although the DfT says the number of cyclists rose by just 0.5%.[/b]

[url] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/30/road-deaths-fall-record-low [/url]

Why is this?

TandemJeremy - Member

Julian - thats the sort of system that is starting to be fitted in the US

finally, increased driving standards and road safety become a silver lining to the cloud that is the 'compensation culture'! 😀 😀

This is quite an interesting way of presenting deaths info:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/14/mortality-statistics-causes-death-england-wales-2009#zoomed-picture

You could make the argument that we could spend money better on trying to combat other causes rather than driving, particularly as most of the suggestions above that might actually help improve driving standards will likely be ignored by many of those who they actually target - eg regular testing, engine size limit and so on will be ignored as car insurance/tax are at the moment.

emsz - Member

Junky I couldn't be a grass sorry.

I read somewhere once that there was an experiment to take away all the road markings and the kerbs and stuff, and it made all the cars slow down cos they had to constantly think about other people all the time instaed of just following the road without thinking about it. Does it work?

Yes. Its common in the Netherlands. I had a recent cycling holiday there and love this concept - so simple and it works
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woonerf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space

This, IMO, gives cyclists the go ahead to ride like twunts without any comeback, see my example above.

What I would do.
1) - make testing much harder
[b]Harder, but I am not sure about 'much harder'.....[/b]
2) - have a graduated licence for car drivers like for motorcycles - and as is done in Australia IIRC. Small engined car, limited to usage.
[b]How about those 'black boxes' that some insurance companies are using to reduce the cost of insurance for new drivers. Perhaps they should be compulsory. Drive like a div and lose your licence or have to take further training[/b]
3) - allow police to do random stops - at the moment they need suspicion, and have far tougher drink driving enforcement. roadblock particular roads and breathalyser everyone
[b]Police need suspicion at the moment, but they don't have to have much of an excuse to find 'suspicion' to stop a car. Problems with a lot of Police action is finding the resource.[/b]
4) mandatory retesting every 5 years and every two years after 75.
[b]Again, the infrastructure would have to be immense. Just not practical.[/b]
5) introduce a continental style "car driver assumed at fault until proven otherwise" in collisions with bikes
[b]No way. Fault should never be 'assumed'[/b]
6) - 20 mph speed limit in residential areas
[b]Not a blanket 20mph, but I think there should be more 20mph limits in areas that warrant it[/b]
7) - proper well thought out cycle facilities - not just a bit of red paint where it is not needed
[b]Yes, agreed. A lot of cycle lanes are more dangerous to use, than not using them. Problem is, with so much infrastructure in place, can it be cost-effectively implemented?[/b]

I think there needs to be a shift in people's attitude to using transport & the road system. At the moment, there are too many drivers who treat the road system as if it is theirs. If you are in the way, you are a hindrance and should move. They are the most important thing and will disregard laws of the road if it means they can get where they want to, 30seconds quicker.

Lifer - risk compensation is a part I guess

Cars feel safer to drive with ABS and airbags so people take more risks so cyclists get killed.

also increasing congestion maybe?

An overarching legal responsibility on motorists to have a duty of care to all cyclists and pedestrians, coupled with bigger fines/penalties for due care and attention/dangerous driving/drinking+drugs and a graphic advertising campaign that outlines the consequences for victims and what life will be like in prison and how tough life after prison will be.

It blows my mins that rotating machinery in a factory is behind a guard and covered by all kidns of health and safety, yet we allow 38 tons with 18 rotating wheels to trundle past us inches away from the pavement at 30mph.. If aliens landed they would think we are seriously mental.

Although deaths and injuries fell significantly for motorists, pedestrians and motorcyclists, the number of cyclists killed rose for a third consecutive year. Deaths rose by 7% from 104 in 2009 to 111 last year, although the DfT says the number of cyclists rose by just 0.5%.

You need to factor in that modern cars are so much safer than 20 years ago. That's why I'm guessing a lot of deaths are avoided. I'd say that cycling is rising by more than 0.5% a year. You only have to look at the roads up here. See far more cyclists on the way in to work now then ever before.

Dedicated cycle lanes are the way forward. Not these cra**y shared pedestrian lanes or green lines painted onto an existing road.

allow police to do random stops - at the moment they need suspicion, and have far tougher drink driving enforcement. roadblock particular roads and breathalyser everyone

I'm fairly certian they can already do this. I got pulled over on a Saturday morning by police doing random stops a couple of christmases ago. I think they used the excuse of "awareness" but that was just a pretext for doing random stops.

1) - make testing much harder

I don't know as the test need to be [i]harder[/i] exactly; all that will mean is that it'll take people longer to pass. I think perhaps it needs to be more thorough; the lack of any motorway training whatsoever is madness, for instance.

2) - have a graduated licence for car drivers like for motorcycles - and as is done in Australia IIRC. Small engined car, limited to usage.

This isn't such a bad idea. It's artificially restricted anyway, if you consider insurance premiums, but restricting everyone to a maximum engine size and power output until they'd passed their advanced test might work.

3) - allow police to do random stops - at the moment they need suspicion, and have far tougher drink driving enforcement. roadblock particular roads and breathalyser everyone

I don't think police power is the issue, and you need to be careful about empowering some of them too much. The problem is "we don't need traffic police because we have speed cameras" so there's minimal enforcement of non-speed related issues and no judgement applied to those who are speeding.

4) mandatory retesting every 5 years and every two years after 75.

I'm all for retests, though I think five years is a bit steep (and impractical). Ten maybe. That's long enough for bad habits to have crept in to a point where they've become a problem, and where new rules and features have been introduced (eg, if you're a few years older than me, you'll have no idea what to do with mini roundabouts).

5) introduce a continental style "car driver assumed at fault until proven otherwise" in collisions with bikes

This is idiocy, sorry. Why should anyone be "assumed" to be at fault, ever? Can you imagine what would happen if this was implemented?

There's already too many cyclists riding like idiots and giving the rest of us a bad name, this would just give them carte blanche to ride like tools with impunity. That's before you consider scrotes deliberately colliding with cars in order to make false insurance claims.

6) - 20 mph speed limit in residential areas

I'm not convinced that speed limits are the answer, when 'looking where you're going and paying attention' is a far bigger issue. But that's harder to enforce.

7) - proper well thought out cycle facilities - not just a bit of red paint where it is not needed

I think you've hit the nail on the head with "well thought out" - it's not always practical to have cycle lanes, and where they've tried to squeeze them in and ended up with five foot long cycle runs is where they've caused more harm than good.

I had cause to ride round Exeter a few weeks back, and the difference in cycle facilities there was shocking. It's really well done (and heavily used - which came first I wonder?), so there's working proof that it can be done.

Okay as no-one's said it yet I'll go there.

Limiting ALL vehicles except emergency services to speed limit +10%. Could be done to all new vehicles before sales and to older ones at MOT time.

You are missing the point... "UNLESS PROVED OTHERWISE".

Guilty until proven innocent. Genius.

Witness saw cyclist riding like a **** he's responsible.

Witness is 100% reliable and unbiased in all cases, and unknown to the driver, of course.

Limiting ALL vehicles except emergency services to speed limit +10%.

So vehicles can't go above 80mph in a residential area? That'll help.

Deaths rose by 7% from 104 in 2009 to 111 last year, although the DfT says the number of cyclists rose by just 0.5%.

some-one I know drives with no licence and no insurance, and TBH it's pretty common amongst people round here. thinking is: driving a car not that hard actually, so no real need for lesson, chance of being stopped if your careful is pretty small, and the penalties aren't that expensive, really a lot less than running a car legally.

Exatcly. The fine is less than the insurance, you've only got to watch Road Wars to realise that. Fine should be 10 x the average insurance quote for the person stopped. Money could be put into a pot to pay out to those hit by uninsured drivers, rather than our premuims funding it all.

retest every 5 years would just be waste of time for most law abiding people, no? why should you anyway, if you've done nothing wrong?

Why? The Highway Code changes, cars change, roads change, people change (Physically and mentally) When was the last time you brushed up on the highway code? Have you had any further instruction? I admit I've only looked at the Highway code 2-3 times since I passed my test, but I have had more instruction. It does help.

The retests don't need to be as strict as the first test IMO. None of this shuffling the wheel bollox and 3 point turns done EXACTLY right, but you'd need to show an improvement on perception and skill.

And most importantly, a MEDICAL and EYESIGHT test!

I find it hard to believe how many of you don't want the european style assumption of blame / strict liability

it really works where it is in place - and its across much of europe. it makes real difference.

the vast majority of accidents between cycles and motor vehicles the motor vehicle is at fault. The cyclist is vulnerable - the car driver is not. All this does it take into account this vulnerability

Clubber that chart is amazing. Some interesting facts:

Total annual deaths from suicide - 3,457 (far higher than on the roads)
Car deaths 922 - that's 2.5 people per day.
Babies who die before, during or soon after birth 237 (less than I'd have thought).

and wait for it:

Men who die of 'Diseases of the male genital organs' - 200 per year. Owch!

Junky I couldn't be a grass sorry.

so you are enabling the person to commit crime and it sounds like you dont approve. What if you were in the pub and same driver gets in the car pissed....still not grassing?
IMHO it is only grassing if you are involved in the crime and squeal to save your own skin. Otherwise it is being responsible and doing the right thing which is not always easy.

Criminals want us to feel bad for saying they have broken the law as it allows them to break the law...lets hope he does not hit someone you love - sorry for getting a bit Daily mail here but tbh by doing nothing you are allowing this.

the no grassing rule enables criminals to get way with stuff as we are meant to feel bad for doing the right thing when they are not capable of doing this themselves.
It is BS.

Discussion on the strict liability topic

Instead, what people are usually suggesting is a presumption of liability – a rule that a motorist will be liable for a crash with a cyclist unless the motorist can show that the cyclist was at fault. The unless part is crucial, and is the difference between a presumption and strict liability. For example, RoadPeace have called for ‘strict liability’ in the past, but have since changed their language to reflect this.

A presumption of liability would normally work by shifting the burden of proof. So after a crash, a cyclist wouldn’t need to prove that the driver did something wrong; it would be for the driver to prove that he didn’t do anything wrong (or that the collision was caused by the cyclist doing something wrong).

http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/16/strict-liability-and-legal-protection-for-cyclists/

Peter, I've never looked at the highway code, I don't drive!! sorry.

but I do have to ride on the roads, and TBH it's to scary most of the time, so I ride on the pavement 😳 I know it's wrong, but to me the choice is either being told of by the police (never happened) and being dead.

Easy

I find it hard to believe how many of you don't want the european style assumption of blame / strict liability

I'm up for it, it isn't about innocent until proven guilty, it's about making the bloke pulling the trigger being responsible for where he points his gun. If you are in an urban area driving you should be imagining/expecting a cyclist/pedestrian to walk out and be able to stop in time. You are the one driving the mobile health hazard.

I find it hard to believe how many of you don't want the european style assumption of blame / strict liability

the vast majority of accidents between cycles and motor vehicles the motor vehicle is at fault.

Got stats to back that up, TJ?

don, isn't TJ just talking about accidents between cars and bikes, rather than everything and bikes?

I posted this podcast a few evenings ago as I felt soem good poitns were made.

http://thebikeshow.net/road-danger-reduction-with-dr-robert-davis/

It really about an entire change of attitude.

You could make the argument that we could spend money better on trying to combat other causes rather than driving, particularly as most of the suggestions above that might actually help improve driving standards will likely be ignored by many of those who they actually target - eg regular testing, engine size limit and so on will be ignored as car insurance/tax are at the moment.

Clubber that chart does not seem to distinguish between accidents at work and accidents at home in public etc. Because the amount of money spent preventing accidents at work is enormous (I'm not complaining about it), and I am sure that the accidents at work numbers are a low proportion of those. I cannot believe that huge measures are not taken to separate cars from peds/cyclists.

It really about an entire change of attitude.

How do you change attitude? It needs a bit of compulsion. I go for legislation and education.

Not UK but a quick google

In 88.9% of cases, the cyclist had been travelling in a safe/legal manner prior to the collision/near miss. Most happened at or near a junction (70.3%) and most were caused by sudden lane changes by the motorist, with sideswipe the most frequent cause (40.7%).

The motorist was judged at fault in the majority of events (87%), and 83.3% of drivers didn't realise the danger they had put the cyclist in – or at least didn't show any reaction

http://www.good.is/post/cars-cause-most-bike-car-crashes/

I've never looked at the highway code, I don't drive!!
...
I do have to ride on the roads, and TBH it's to scary most of the time, so I ride on the pavement

The Highway Code is a guide for all road users, not just motorists. Maybe if you read it, you'd feel more confident on the road?

after a crash, a cyclist wouldn’t need to prove that the driver did something wrong; it would be for the driver to prove that he didn’t do anything wrong (or that the collision was caused by the cyclist doing something wrong).

So what this means then is, where there's an absence of proof (which is going to be 'most of the time' I expect), then it's the driver's fault. The road will be awash with teenage boys on scrap bikes throwing themselves under cars for the compensation.

Plus, you've got people on bikes like Emsz with (by their own admission) absolutely no road sense, who do choose to use the roads anyway, safe in the knowledge that in the event of an accident they probably won't get blamed for it.

Perhaps what's really needed is education and road awareness for the cyclists, hmm? Or are we all perfect?

Peter, I've never looked at the highway code, I don't drive!! sorry.
but I do have to ride on the roads

😯

You know the Highway Code applies to cyclists too emsz?

The [url= http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/index.htm ]online Highway Code is free[/url] to read - might be worth a browse for your own safety!

So what this means then is, where there's an absence of proof (which is going to be 'most of the time' I expect), then it's the driver's fault. The road will be awash with teenage boys on scrap bikes throwing themselves under cars for the compensation.

Why? its not what happens in Europe and it would be very easy to show that that is what happened.

Hundreds of cyclists killed every year, thousands injured with damaged bikes and the vast majority the car drivers fault. And a simple piece of legislation to redress the balance is used widely in other countries and works well - but would not here? really 🙄

Its about rebalancing the priorities and showing roads are for all not only for cars