[Closed] Reducing casualties on the road

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

The road will be awash with teenage boys on scrap bikes throwing themselves under cars for the compensation.

Unlikely really. The roads aren't awash with people braking suddenly to get people to run into the back of them ( yes, it happens but not 'awash').

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.

If I legally own a gun and I accidently shoot you because you suddenly run into my firing line, who's fault is it?

I'm looking at the consequences of the cyclist can do no wrong attitude that is developed in Holland.
From my time in Holland the experience is the following, if you step into the road without looking a car will either hit you because you've made a mistake or take avoiding action therefore preventing an accident. The cyclict, who can do no wrong, will shout and scream but not try to avoid the accident, the pedestrain has to move or be responsible. The Dutch cylist doesn't have to use common sense.
If we translate this into other areas where the cyclist believes they have no responsibility, this becomes dangerous is a nuisance and is not healthy.

DS I spent loads of time in holland in 96-97 and found the dutch cyclists to be courteous and safe, so in the spririt of fairness and you asking for figures, lets see some numbers for peds injured or killed in holland due to cyclists? Because right now this is just your anecdote and doesn't prove anything. I don't think it happens.

OK!!! Sorry, bloody hell!!

some lunchtime reading then. 😳

Don - and again you are wrong. In a cycle / pedestrian collision the cycle is assumed at fault. the most vulnerable user is protected.

I bet you were walking on cycleways and got shouted at.

Don - and again you are wrong. In a cycle / pedestrian collision the cycle is assumed at fault. the most vulnerable user is protected.

I bet you were walking on cycleways and got shouted at.

Indeed.

I bet you were walking on cycleways and got shouted at.

Don - and again you are wrong.

TJ have you seen this? [url= http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/09/shifting_risk_i.html ]Shifting Car Driver Risk[/url]

It seems that placing restrictions on young drivers doesn't reduce overall accidents.

But DS, just because you had a bad day where is the evidence that the law in Holland causes accidents between cyclists and peds? Otherwise your experience is just an anecdote. I have a counter anecdote:

[i]The other day I stepped off the pavement in a bit of a dream and a lorry stopped in plenty of time and waved em on my way. Therefore all UK roads are safe.
[/i]
You can patently see that the conclusion is bollocks. But the event did happen. You are drawing a detailed conclusion from a single experience. I would like to see wider evidence of this supposed flaw in the Dutch legislation?

Interesting RTO

Presumed liability yes
Strict liability no

Lifer - Member

Presumed liability yes
Strict liability no

Indeed - one of the links I put explained the difference well

Toys19, you clearly haven't understood what I said.

from rto's link

In Australia, the demonising of P-platers (drivers in their first couple of years of driving) is driven almost entirely by the Murdoch press, who seem to like hating on the youngsters because their target market are old, stupid and bitter

🙂

From what you've written I agree with Toys...

RTO that does seem to make sense. I think what they need to do is provide younger drivers with an outlet.

For example

I heard a report from the USA about lowering gun crime, the cops got all the local hoods as teenagers to come to the ranges and learn how to use the guns, they could fire them and partake in the those cardboard bad guy scenarios. They had free reign to come to the range every weekend and use the guns under supervision.

Result: Massive reduction in gun crimes in that area.

The theory was that guns are glorified so a teen in that environment wants to get their hands on a gun and what it feels like to shoot it, so when they do get their hands on an illegal gun without supervision the consequences are awful. After using them on the range they quickly tire of firing them and handling them and learn the consequences of misuse.

So for new road users, kids should be able to got to the local grass track/racetrack and get their kicks there for free, maybe in return for being exposed to some road safety edumacation...

"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'd recomened you try some bike ability cycle training. Everyone I know who has taken it from experenced to novice has gained from it. It will help you confidence. Depending on where you live there may even be funding availble. Even if you can drive I'd recomend people to give it a go, it's a diffrent skill to driving.
I know a feww trainers in the London and Bournemouth area if you are anywhere near either of those areas I can put you in touch with.

As already said the UK has a relatively good record of road safety

It may just be me but I cycle on the road (2500 miles so far this year), I ride motorcycles and drive a car for around 15-20,000 miles each year
I spent years racing motorbikes of all kinds.

I don't feel in any particular danger out there.
Sure, you see people doing daft things and being too aggressive etc. but I don't feel that it's so prevalent to start me worrying about it.
I don't particularly enjoy road riding at night though

Unlikely really. The roads aren't awash with people braking suddenly to get people to run into the back of them ( yes, it happens but not 'awash').

You're arguing that it's not awash but agreeing that it does happen. So you're saying that we can happily change the law to assume blame because it's ok to prosecute a few innocent drivers as collateral damage for the greater good, then.

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

Hang on. One minute we need to assume blame, the next it's 'very easy' to show what happened? If it's very easy, why do we need assumptions built into law?

If I legally own a gun and I accidently shoot you because you suddenly run into my firing line, who's fault is it?

Good analogy. If you own a gun (car) and I run (ride) into your firing (driving) line, [i]whilst on a shooting range (road),[/i] the fault is mine.

I commute to work by bike every day in Dublin - the traffic is usually fairly slow. Most cyclists break the lights, particularly pedestrian crossings, scoot in and out of lanes without looking - I am more at risk of being cut up or hit by another cyclist than a car. Many generally assume that because a bike is a very efficient way to get around town because it can nip in and out of traffic that it is acceptable to do this. They creep between halted busses and trucks and generally operate as if they were invincible.

Most motorists hate cyclists and it is well deserved. The presupposition of motorist fault is totally unfair.

When I drive and see a cyclist I assume that any cyclist I see can very likely do something stupid at any time, so drive accordingly.

An awful lot of cyclist safety lies in the cyclists own hands. Cycle lanes are good because they take many real menaces off the road.

"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'd recomened you try some bike ability cycle training. Everyone I know who has taken it from experenced to novice has gained from it. It will help you confidence. Depending on where you live there may even be funding availble. Even if you can drive I'd recomend people to give it a go, it's a diffrent skill to driving.
I know a feww trainers in the London and Bournemouth area if you are anywhere near either of those areas I can put you in touch with.

Good analogy. If you own a gun (car) and I run (ride) into your firing (driving) line, whilst [s]on a shooting range[/s] [b]in the woods[/b], the fault is the shooters.

FTFY

If you compare health and safety in a factory with health and safety on the road the difference is incredible. In a factory the assumption is that people make mistakes, they forget or get into a daze, or even trip. So if they trip and fall into a machine that is not guarded that is not their fault, its the fault of whoever had the responsibility for guarding it or allowing a rotating pounding whatever machine to run and present this danger to the workers. I feel the same about road users, the car driver is making the choice to command a dangerous killing machine and then expecting everyone else to be cautious and take responsibility for this fact.

"As already said the UK has a relatively good record of road safety"

Straight numbers of death can be very missleading. Take a listen to the podcast I linked to on page two, for some explainsion of this.

BTW, going back to the OP, I'd welcome mandatory P-plates for (say) two years for new drivers. I think it'd cut down on road rage and persuade other drivers to cut them some slack and expect the unexpected.

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

Hang on. One minute we need to assume blame, the next it's 'very easy' to show what happened? If it's very easy, why do we need assumptions built into law?

TJ was saying it would be very easy to show if cyclists were jumping in front of cars.

IMO you'd have to be mental to try and get into an accident with a car intentionally, because, you know, you might die.

IMO you'd have to be mental to try and get into an accident with a car intentionally, because, you know, you might die.

Indeed, I cannot see people intentionally chucking themselves in front of cars to get compensation. There is enough legal framework in place for this to happen already, you could amass your dodgy witnesses and carry this out right now regardless of a change in the law.

Like others here I ride a bike on the road, a motorcycle and drive a car.

Don't feel like I am entering death race 2000 every time I go out on the road. In general the level of driving is pretty good in this country.

To get much safer would mean either not riding bikes on the road or not driving cars on the road.

As people have eluded to, there are other things that kill more people that we should concentrate on first.

Its really not that bad in the real world people 🙂

FTFY

No, nice try but that's not right.

A road is a place where you expect cars; it's where cars are supposed to be. It's disingenuous to compare that directly to "the woods"; I wouldn't expect a nutcase with a gun to be shooting in any old woods, but I would expect them on a shooting range. If I got shot in the woods it'd (probably) be the shooter's fault of course, the same as if I got run over whilst walking on the pavement.

Ta toys / lifer.

I do find it quite incredible that on a supposed cyclist forum any attempt to rebalance the usage of roads from car drivers towards pedestrians and cyclists gets jumped on so hard by some.

If this is the reaction from a group I would assume to be pro cycle then its hardly uprising that the general attitude on the roads in the UK is so anti cycle.

Presumed liability and 20 mph urban limits would improve the lot of the cyclist greatly without disproportionate burdens on the car driver

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woonerf ]Woofnerf[/url] as used in the Netherlands and other places is a fantastic scheme - the area looks better without all the signage and people are safer

Straight numbers of death can be very missleading. Take a listen to the podcast I linked to on page two, for some explainsion of this.

can't get audio here at work

All sorts of figures often aren't as clear as the headline numbers suggest but that wasn't the nub of my post
I was making the point that I don't feel in any particular danger on the roads, whatever vehicle I'm using

bazzer

To get much safer would mean either not riding bikes on the road or not driving cars on the road

Nope - adopting the empty streets would reduce casualties dramatically as would assumed liability

I struggle with long sentences

however, IMO:

Anyone (both drivers) involved in a crash/claim has a mandatory retest, at their expense or that of party at fault

Coppers do frequent sweeps of randomly selected petrol stations to check insurance, MOT etc and have power of seizure and "disposal" of uninsured cars

redesigning roads - great, but no money for that in the forseeable future

Sadly, I think the only thing that will reduce accidents is to go back in time a couple of generations to ensure society doesn't turn into the the blubbering selfish mass with no common-sense that it has done.

Although, maybe the driving theory test should incorporate the stuff you have do go through on a speed awareness course. I got done for 37mph on an empty road, did the course and now NEVER speed, (except on motorways when its clear). but that will only help new drivers, who then see old drivers with their bad habits, so maybe everyone should have to undergo a retest to be allowed to continue driving, to sort of reset the clock. i can see that happening....

So if they trip and fall into a machine that is not guarded that is not their fault, ... I feel the same about road users,

I agree, to a point. However, I still think that safety is the responsibility of everyone. You can't simply go "oh, it's the driver's fault" irrespective of the behaviour of all the halfwits on foot / pedal.

Machines have guards, roads have crossings, signals. If someone removes the guard and shoves their hands into a bandsaw, is it still the saw operator's fault? In a car, I expect everyone else to be careful, but that doesn't mean I'm not being. It's not one-sided.

Nope - adopting the empty streets would reduce casualties dramatically as would assumed liability

At what cost though ? and I don't mean just financially.

2009 there were 109 cyclists killed when I did a quick search. Lets say a 20% of them did something stupid leaving 82 ish people being killed due to the fault of the driver.

Is it really worth tackling this when there are other things which kill far more people ?

Its a tiny problem !!!

I wouldn't expect a nutcase with a gun to be shooting in any old woods, but I would expect them on a shooting range. If I got shot in the woods it'd (probably) be the shooter's fault of course, the same as if I got run over whilst walking on the pavement.

Well lots of us ride cheeky trails in places where it might not be safe, and "nutcases" with guns are actually legal and proficient shooters shooting in woods where they have ownership or rights. It is still the shooters responsibility to ensure he does not shoot anyone.

You say the pavement is not where you would expect to get run over, but the road is a shared space, peds and cyclists are allowed to cross, so it should be the operator of the lethal machinery who has responsibility to not hit peds or cyclists.

Sadly, I think the only thing that will reduce accidents is to go back in time a couple of generations to ensure society doesn't turn into the the blubbering selfish mass with no common-sense that it has done.

I agree, road users feel that they have a right to the road and everyone else should stay out of their way.

Machines have guards, roads have crossings, signals. If someone removes the guard and shoves their hands into a bandsaw, is it still the saw operator's fault? In a car, I expect everyone else to be careful, but that doesn't mean I'm not being. It's not one-sided.

There is no guard between the pavement and the road, if you have a lapse and walk into the road then bang you are dead, that's why there are guards on machines, you have the lapse, no issue.

If I'm in the woods or par or in afield and make a wrong step off the path there isn't a rotating machine waiting to mash me up. The machines are there by the choice of the road users, they are choosing to put everyone else at risk.

Mandatory extra testing, retesting etc. will change very little

A lot of the idiots out there are the ones that have most recently passed their test
They take nothing from the test, it's just a hurdle that has to be overcome in order to drive 'properly' any extra testing would just be another hurdle and very little education

I do find it quite incredible that on a supposed cyclist forum any attempt to rebalance the usage of roads from car drivers towards pedestrians and cyclists gets jumped on so hard by some.

I'm not jumping on 'an attempt to rebalance', I welcome it. I'm jumping on the ill-conceived and plain wrong suggestions such as,

Presumed liability and 20 mph urban limits would improve the lot of the cyclist greatly without disproportionate burdens on the car driver

Presumed liability will lead to innocent drivers being penalised. 20mph limits will be ignored unless they're enforced.

Bazzer - and all the pedestrians and all the injured.

Its a huge problem. Making cycling both safer and appear safer has massive benefits in reduction in illhealth from inactivity and reduction pollution.

TandemJeremy - Member
Ta toys / lifer.

I do find it quite incredible that on a supposed cyclist forum any attempt to rebalance the usage of roads from car drivers towards pedestrians and cyclists gets jumped on so hard by some.

If this is the reaction from a group I would assume to be pro cycle then its hardly uprising that the general attitude on the roads in the UK is so anti cycle.

Presumed liability and 20 mph urban limits would improve the lot of the cyclist greatly without disproportionate burdens on the car driver

Your original post was not about reducing cycling deaths though, specifically. It was about reducing casualties on the road..........

All accidents should be investigated objectively & thoroughly, regardless of whether cyclists are involved.
If a cyclist is involved, it should be investigated just as thoroughly as any other accident & if the motorist is found to be at fault, then appropriate punishment etc. should be given.
I can see the point that the cyclist is more vulnerable than the motorist, but I can't see why it should be necessary for the motorist to be assumed at fault. If the motorist is at fault, then the subsequent investigation should reveal this whether they are assumed to be at fault or not.

I think one of the main issues specifically relating to motorists and how they deal with cyclists, is that they don't consider their manoeuvres adequately enough, or the consequences of their actions thoroughly enough. The thought process seems to be "....hmmm, approaching cyclist.....that's gonna slow me down....will move out to overtake regardless of what I can or can't see coming my way and overtake......I do not want to slow down and wait for 10 seconds......must get past......blind left hander......doesn't matter......I must get past.......'

The majority of motorists in my opinion think that motorised vehicles have priority on the road. They don't see that a cyclist on the road is a legitimate road user, but a hindrance to their journey. If this never changes, then things won't improve in my opinion.

So cougar its pointless having speed limnits? Presumed liability works well in Europe. At the moment the cyclist is penalised for car drivers mistakes. lets rebalance it a bit

Have you ever cycled in Europe?

stumpy01 - Member

Your original post was not about reducing cycling deaths though, specifically. It was about reducing casualties on the road..........

Indeed - it wandered a bit although the assumed liability and empty streets / shared spaces concept helps pedestrains as well. Empty streets /shared spaces concept reduces car accidents

The majority of motorists in my opinion think that motorised vehicles have priority on the road. They don't see that a cyclist on the road is a legitimate road user, but a hindrance to their journey. If this never changes, then things won't improve in my opinion.

this is why we need the assumed liability. You don't get this attitude in places with it nearly as much

All accidents should be investigated objectively & thoroughly, regardless of whether cyclists are involved.
If a cyclist is involved, it should be investigated just as thoroughly as any other accident & if the motorist is found to be at fault, then appropriate punishment etc. should be given.

Who is going to do this? At the moment its usually a fight between a insurance companies lawyers and a lone cyclist to apportion blame - teh use of assumed liability rebalances this. Minor injury accidents simply do not get investigated thoroughly

Having read the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooner ]woonerf[/url] link I can see how sensible this is. Here pedestrians and cyclists have legal priority over motorists. In the UK motorists think they have priority over peds/cyclists.

Scares the life out of me being a pedestrian in Holland when we were there in the summer. Bikes going in both directions on the cycle lanes on both sides of the roads. THEN the chuffin' mopeds and scooters that go on them too.

Anyway, my point to reduce casualties on the roads is to take all incidents as seriously as the airlines do: Road Accidents Investigation Bureau like the AAIB. A report with serious clout with a fine if someone is negligent and recommendations that have to be adhered to, including updates for all drivers.
Not sustainable economically, but maybe the fine levied on the overturned lorry on the M25 and the disruption it causes ought to be related to the loss of GDP the congestion causes. That'll larn em.

Well lots of us ride cheeky trails in places where it might not be safe,

You're going to have to quantify this. What do you mean by "cheeky trails" and "not safe"? If you're riding on a footpath where cycling is prohibited and get hurt, I've little sympathy.

and "nutcases" with guns are actually legal and proficient shooters shooting in woods where they have ownership or rights. It is still the shooters responsibility to ensure he does not shoot anyone.

Situation 1. You ride along a public bridleway and get shot by a farmer. Who's at fault?

Situation 2. You climb over a gate with a sign saying "warning, shooting in progress, do not enter" and get shot by a farmer. Who's at fault?

I'm not disagreeing that drivers need to take more care, and that in most cases it is the driver's fault. I'm arguing against the idea that it is always the driver's fault unless you can prove otherwise.

You say the pavement is not where you would expect to get run over, but the road is a shared space, peds and cyclists are allowed to cross, so it should be the operator of the lethal machinery who has responsibility to not hit peds or cyclists.

It's a shared space with rules to allow different users to coexist. These rules are oft flaunted by (some) cyclists. If I'm driving through a junction controlled by traffic lights and a cyclist runs a red light at speed straight into the side of me, is it still my fault unless I can prove he ran a red light? No witnesses and he's saying "no I didn't, they were amber."

I would like to see a change in sentencing that allowed for the loss of driving licences for longer periods up to a life ban in cases of clear dangerous/neglectful driving.

If I'm driving through a junction controlled by traffic lights and a cyclist runs a red light at speed [b]straight into the side of me[/b], is it still my fault unless I can prove he ran a red light?

Clearly his fault not yours as he rode "straight into the side of me"

Could you take the presumed liability further then?

A small car is very vulnerable if it has an accident with 50 tonne truck - only going to be one winner

[url= http://news.aol.co.uk/uk-news/story/leaping-driver-escapes-lorry-crash/1929275/ ]This happened[/url] down the road from me on Monday, close to the same spot where my next door neighbours daughter was killed in [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1369185.stm ]similar circumstances[/url] some years ago

uplink - indeed you can - thats how it works by my understanding

uplink teej, yeah I think its a good idea.

So cougar its pointless having speed limnits?

I didn't say that. It's not pointless to have speed limits, but it's simply naive to think that changing a sign from (30) to (20) is going to magically reduce the number of accidents. It's far more complicated than that.

Presumed liability works well in Europe.

You keep banging this drum. "Europe" is a collection of countries with very different road systems to our own. What works for one doesn't necessarily work for another, and in any case, even if it does work are we happy to prosecute a number of innocent people for the greater good? Hey, why don't we do that for all crimes? "Ok sir, we don't know if you did it or not, so we're going to assume you did." That'd have a massive effect on crime. And it'd probably work in Europe too.

I don't understand why you can think that any assumption of guilt is a good idea. If there's a fight in town and it's not clear who started it, do we just blame the biggest bloke?

At the moment the cyclist is penalised for car drivers mistakes. lets rebalance it a bit

No arguments here.

Have you ever cycled in Europe?

No. Have you ever driven in England?

CBAsed

OK, I'll add that I have cycled in Europe and am a Frenchy and have still never heard of presumed liability there though it may exist but I am sceptical that in itself it drives behaviour.

Regardless, the reason that the attitude to cyclists there is typically better than here is because cycling isn't seen as something wierd to do. That said, given traffic, etc, I've seem plenty of behaviour as bad as anything here - things break down once it's affecting people's journey to work and so on. TJ, I don't really recognise the utopia you paint. Better, particularly in the countryside but not always and noticeably less so in more built up/busier areas which I'm guessing is where a lot (the majority?) of the serious cycling accidents happen in the UK.

the attitude to cyclists there is typically better than here is because cycling isn't seen as something wierd to do.

You know, I've wondered this. I think part of the problem is simply that drivers aren't used to seeing cyclists on the roads. This does seem to be changing, as there appears to be an exponential increase in the number of people getting out and pedalling in the last two years.

don simon - Member
CBAsed

Doesn't this mean beaten and looking for a way out? 😆

I think there are people on here that clearly believe that toys, hence the never ending threads some like to indulge in... 😉

It means that I can't be arsed, read into it what you want.

I believe that tests shouldnt be made much harder but yes they need a shake up. The first thing i would do is introduce some sort of shock factor. For example in a safish environment do something to REALLY disturb the driver like chucking a dead child doll in front of the car and see how they react. Ive seen so many drivers drive into a dangerous situation and just lock up or do nothing. The only time i was nearly hit by a car seriously was a girl driving and she literally just accelerated instead of braking whilst screaming !

ban all non ncap 5 vehicles.

come on DS I'm only joshing. We have all said what we need to say, what more can be done. Nice interesting discussion though.

Toys, some of it is interesting, some of it isn't. I've got a 13.30 appointment to go to.
Hasta luego!

reducing casualties on the road?

it's cars innit - make them move less quickly when they're around people (not on major trunk roads / motorways)

[holistic hippy crap] be the change you want to see - start by driving slowly yourself...[s][holistic hippy crap][/s]

ban all non ncap 5 vehicles.

Quite the opposite; take away all the driver airbags and replace it with a 6" spike in the centre of the steering wheel. Then we might see some defensive driving.

(-: