Changes in the Law to make cycling safer for all

Dont_be_Furious

I believe we may need a radical step change in the behaviour of motorists and cyclists to address:
· Reckless behaviour of many motorists
· Reckless behaviour of many cyclists
· Bridge the gap between cyclists and motorists so all “drivers” on the road feel they abide by the “same” rules.

And the most effective way to do this is improvements in the law to change behaviour. But these changes needs to be commensurate to the changes of behaviour needed.

**For motorists, there should be a Fixed Penalty point offence (x1 minimum point) if they were deemed at fault by the Police attending a severe accident (where the motorist caused an injury with a cyclist or pedestrian). Too many motorists get away too lightly after causing an accident and injuring others. Introducing a 1pt fixed offence, would mean there would be many more accidents that would have to be “declared” by motorists to their insurance companies.

I read in 2009 a supermarket worker Darren Hall was convicted of ‘wanton and furious driving’ after he had ridden on the pavement and hit and killed an 84-year old pedestrian. Hall was jailed for seven months and banned from driving a car for a year. This to me is the way forward. If you “drive” a bike dangerously, you should be at risk to get points on your driving license too…. so bicycles and vehicle drivers have a form of "parity" in law to “drive” more safely. I propose if cyclists become at “risk” of Fixed Penalty and adding Points (e.g x1 pt maximum per offence) onto their “driving licence”, cyclist’s behaviour would significantly change towards being less reckless. Especially as it would also then impact obtaining and costs for their insurance. If a cyclist had no licence, the points are added to a temporary “driving” licence that would impact them on a future licence and other third party insurance.

More deaths occur on rural roads than on urban ones. I propose, on rural roads, the law should be changed in favour of the cyclist in an accident involving a cyclist or pedestrian. Something radical is needed to make motorists change their behaviour on these rural roads. But, I appreciate “stricter liability” laws are a major topic in itself, and is only likely to apply to civil compensation cases UK.

In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the most common key contributory factor recorded by the Police is ‘failed to look properly’ by either the driver or rider. So I would like the Police to make it enforceable that the cyclist must attend/pass a cycling proficiency test, and likewise the Police to make it enforceable for a motorist to attend driving improvement course or re-test following every accident where “failed to look properly’ was identified as an attribute to the cyclist or the motorist. Likewise pedestrians should be liable to on the spot fixed penalty fines for jaywalking and causing road accidents.

Children under 16 must pass a cycling proficiency test to be allowed to cycle on the roads regularly on their own, and to carry a pass to show this. Long term, there may be new generation of “proud” cyclists.

As the motoring law keeps changing, all motorists must re-test their theory part of the driving test every 5 years.

I am undecided that if you are regular cyclist for regular commuting (e.g taking the same journey regularly), then 3rd party insurance is “mandatory”. Cycling is dangerous and good training is vital to be safe, and I believe that every regular cyclist “should” pass a proficiency test. This needs far more encouraging. So, 3rd party insurance could be significant in encouraging this, as it the insurance could be cheaper if you have passed such a test.

I have tried to keep all these ideas to be self-financing (e.g fines, or re-tests, insurance industry), so not just additional rules that may end up being effectively unenforceable or of little practical value in changing behaviour. Also, these changes only “impact” road users if they chose to be reckless drivers. Road users who chose to be responsible should not be adversely impacted.

DBF

** Updated 14/11 (see comment #23)

Johnmcl7

As you've pointed out yourself, the law you seek is already in place - if the police find a motorist at fault in an accident (with a cyclist, another car or just an accident on their own) there is a scale of charges available with driving without due care and attention, careless driving and dangerous driving which start with penalty points and finish with mandatory bans and possible jailtime.

I don't see the point penalising drivers who also cycle, why should they get a far stiffer penalty over cyclists who don't have a license?

I think you considerably overrate cycling proficiency and the car theory tests, the local schools carry out cycling proficiency tests and regularly drive home good cycling skills yet by far the worst cyclists around here are the school children so that clearly doesn't work at all. People always state that cyclists need more proficiency tests as if they don't know that cycling through red lights, going down the wrong way on one way roads, cycling without lights and cycling on the pavement is wrong but I don't believe that for a second. I don't see the point in redoing the theory test, I have redone mine recently 12 or so years after doing my car one (this time it was a motorbike one) and virtually nothing has changed, it's still as outdated as ever. The hazard perception test seems utterly pointless as the points you have to observe are not consistent and it feels very artificial. If anything I'd say the CBT and 125 lessons were the most useful as it really drills observation skills hard into you as even a 125 is still a fairly quick little vehicle.

As someone who regularly cycles, I do worry about being hit by a car driver who isn't paying attention as I have enough close calls in my car (for some reason people don't seem to see it because it's silver) and at least that has protection. However I don't see that the threat of a penalty is going to change anything when it already exists and clearly there are still plenty of people not paying as much attention as they should be.

John

Dave_C_2

Sadly DBF's suggestions to changes in the law whilst laudable, are only addressing the symptoms of the "motorists hate cyclists" disease. If anything they will only come into play after an accident has occurred.

I know it sounds old hat, but the only way forward is to copy the Dutch, where the whole system is based round sustainable safety, with separation of the types of road users. Did I mention that the Netherlands has the safest roads in the world for cyclists (and pedestrians), where cycling is the norm.

Please have a poke around the rest of David Hembrow's site, starting with this page

Now look at the video on the CEOGB home page. It's not a dream, it's happening now in the Netherlands, all it takes is the political will. How many more children, pedestrians and cyclists have to be killed on our car-dominated roads before we act?

Dave

ventureuk

Nice sentiments but a post here is pretty pointless, this is the type of post which appears on Bike Radar quite often and they have many times the readership.

Try an online UKGov petition instead then come back and ask for signatures.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/

Dont_be_Furious

Humble apologies if I posted this on the wrong forum. But there were similar threads about non-money related cycling issues. I felt this site has a well a balanced and respected mixture of viewpoints. I fully support other cycling schemes and investments to make it safer for cyclists, but I was interested if changes to the law could address the behaviour of reckless cyclists and motorists which is getting worse. The Dutch links are very interesting.

If you drive recklessly as a cyclist, and found to be at fault by the Police in an accident that injures others, then should that behaviour be declarable to the insurance companies as it may well indicate a “risk” about that persons driving abilities?

What I need to do is some digging, and see if the insurance industry can provide some hard evidence that reckless cyclists (who have caused accidents or offences) are “more” likely to be bad motorists too. I’ll do some more research, and the petition is a good idea.

DBF

Idiophreak

I don't think it's the enforcement laws need changing, as such...it is the underlying issues that need addressing....For instance:

Problem: Drivers just don't have any empathy for cyclists. They don't understand how it feels to have a car squeeze you into a gutter.

Cause: A lot of motorists have simply never ridden a bike on the roads.

Solution: Mandatory cycling proficiency test as pre-requisite for provisional driving licence. All drivers will have experience of riding a bike and thus be more aware of how their behaviour impacts cyclists.


Problem: Cyclists don't use lights or wear helmets.

Cause: They don't want to lug them around the place once they get to where they're going.

Solution: Secure cycle storage, where accessories can be left with the bike without them being stolen.


Problem: Cyclists running red lights, using pavements.

Cause: Cyclists don't want to have to stop and get back up to speed again.

Solution: Allow cyclists to turn left on a red light. Provide cycle lanes that don't stop at red lights.

Norman_Castle

As the motoring law keeps changing, all motorists must re-test their theory part of the driving test every 5 years.

I agree regular assessment would be a benefit. Passing a driving test is a starting point. A reminder course after a year then every five years highlighting common problems should benefit all. As photo driving licences are renewed every 10 years. Including a Highway Code and a top 10 of driving misconceptions, laws broken and accident causes with the returned licence may help. This would be very cheap and easy to implement.

antrobus

Dont_be_Furious wrote: »

...
For motorists, there should be a new mandatory Fixed Penalty point offence (x1 minimum point) issued if they are deemed at fault by the Police in any accident causing an injury with a cyclist or pedestrian....

Presumably what you actually meant to write was 'if they are deemed at fault by a court'. (Unless that is, you envisage some kind of constitutional innovation that involves a Judge Dredd style police force.) Athough I'm not certain why you believe this isn't what already happens.

System

The suggestion that cyclists and cars are separated ala Netherlands is very laudable however the buld density in the UK is such that this is probably impossible in all but a few cases.

Idiophreak

antrobus wrote: »

Presumably what you actually meant to write was 'if they are deemed at fault by a court'. (Unless that is, you envisage some kind of constitutional innovation that involves a Judge Dredd style police force.) Athough I'm not certain why you believe this isn't what already happens.

I thought the point of fixed penalty notices was that you're deemed to be at fault by default, unless you choose to go to court to dispute the thing...If I'm stopped speeding I'm not given a ticket by the court...

Dave_C_2

!!!!!! wrote: »

The suggestion that cyclists and cars are separated ala Netherlands is very laudable however the buld density in the UK is such that this is probably impossible in all but a few cases.

This is number one in the list of excuses, they did this in the Netherlands, with very similar cities to the UK.
From closer to home you can see how it would be a struggle to put segregated cycle paths in some London Streets

What we actually get is bits of slippery blue paint to designate non-mandatory cycle lanes - or parking spaces as some drivers call them! Not forgetting these wonderful cycling facilities.

Dave