[Closed] Reducing casualties on the road

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

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