Changes in the Law to make cycling safer for all

Mids_Costcutter

As JQ and others have pointed out numbers of traffic police have been cut and there is a lack of enforcement. And of course the presence of police does have an effect on road users' behaviour and number of casualties.

However this trend started long before cuts to the overall numbers of police officers (follow link below).

http://www.ctc.org.uk/which-police-force-has-seen-biggest-drop-in-traffic-policing

Does this mean that road safety is just not a priority, despite being cost-effective?

Dont_be_Furious

The reason I proposed extending penalty points for cyclists (but still providing a retributive justice compared to motorists), was that it means if cyclists were issued such penalties they would have to declare these “driving” offenses to insurers… and so allows the insurance company to regulate through premiums.

If I am right to say the majority of adult cyclists are car drivers (or aren’t driving as they have been banned, or may be aspiring to want to drive), then the risk of additional points will impact very significantly on cyclists collectively. The argument that “non motorists” are penalised unfairly, isn’t quite true, as the law already provides points to individuals who do “not” have a licence. So, these “points” will stay declarable by “non-licence holders” and impact them, plus the Police typically fine when issuing such a penalty. This change, also means teenagers and young men who don’t “yet” have a car license ALSO need to be far more responsible when “driving” on a bicycle if they do not want to start getting points through reckless cycling. It also, means for the serial dangerous and reckless cyclists there is well established method to track and manage these offenders.

Jorren Knibbe (ukcyclerules) has commented that “if you’re careless on a bike you’re very unlikely indeed to hurt anyone.” As the “act” of a cyclist causing an accident has distinct differences to that of dangerous driving a car that is 1,000+ kg mass and motorised. He said “it’s like the difference between firing a gun into a crowd, and throwing a stone into a crowd – both can kill, but they involve a different degree of culpability because one is much more likely to kill.” ,and, “…if a death resulted, (as far as I’m concerned) the person who fired the gun would deserve a higher sentence than the person who threw the stone, because their act was worse (carried a higher degree of risk/certainty of harm).”.

My comment, is that reckless cycling can cause car crashes. So following Jorren’s anecdote, I would say, where a cyclist causes a severe accident, then the cyclist is like throwing stones at pedestrians AND throwing stones to (motoroists) who are holding a loaded and primed gun. And the sentence needs to be commensurate with the offence actually committed.

Significantly, there needs to retributive justice between cyclists and motorists. But, x1 penalty point where cyclist causes a severe accident and injuries, is one I am interested in to see if it could be viable. As the current legal frame for cyclists goes from a very diminutive fixed fine, sentencing, or having the cyclists car licence revoked (which is now happening to cyclists already). So, introducing points to cyclists would meant cyclists and motorists sharing the same responsibility “to drive” responsibly AND share similar (but retributive) deterrents.

But, note, to make this work, there also needs to be change in how Police can issue points to motorists too, as I have described earlier.
DBF

Buellguy

Idiophreak wrote: »

that's amazing!

Does make me wonder just how much alcohol was involved there (at least I hope, and I know it sounds so wrong, that alcohol was involved), I'd hate to think that that was their 'normal' style of driving :eek:

Dave_C_2

wealdroam wrote: »

All cycles to have registration number plates so that the rider can be idendified.

I then confidently predict the number of offences committed by cyclists would fall dramatically as the risk of being caught rises.

Might be a silly idea, but because the chances of getting caught are slim, some cyclists take that risk.

Oh no not this one again licensing bikes is just impractical.

From the Guardian, Risky cycling rarely to blame for biker accidents

A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a government-commissioned study has discovered.

and

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

As drivers cause the majority of accidents, maybe legislation aimed at drivers would be more effective!

Dave

Idiophreak

Dave_C wrote: »

As drivers cause the majority of accidents, maybe legislation aimed at drivers would be more effective!

Dave

Yeah...they should all be made to pay road tax and have number plates! Oh, wait...

Buellguy

A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a government-commissioned study has discovered.

Possibly because car drivers are taking avoiding action to stop accidents, doesn't make running a red light legal just because you don't cause an accident

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time
As drivers cause the majority of accidents, maybe legislation aimed at drivers would be more effective.

BUT cyclists are the sole cause 17-25% of the time, maybe legeslation for BOTH


Oh Sorry, you missed this bit out

The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall, but this was skewed by the fact that when child riders were involved their behaviour was named as a primary factor more than three-quarters of the time.

Oh and

"The main cause of crashes seems to be 'failed to look properly', whereas very few cyclists are injured or killed acting illegally, such as failing to use lights at night or disobeying traffic signals," said Chris Peck, from the lobby group.

'Failure to look' by whom, it doesn't say, but of course the CTC are fair and impartial aren't they

e999sam

wealdroam wrote: »

All cycles to have registration number plates so that the rider can be idendified.

I then confidently predict the number of offences committed by cyclists would fall dramatically as the risk of being caught rises.

Might be a silly idea, but because the chances of getting caught are slim, some cyclists take that risk.

Having number plates certainly doesn’t stop the majority of motorists from speeding.

wealdroam

e999sam wrote: »

Having number plates certainly doesn’t stop the majority of motorists from speeding.

Do the majority of motorists speed?

Anyway, having numbers plates certainly helps the police catch those that do speed, doesn't it?
Or do you know different?

Dont_be_Furious

I would like to see a controlled trial, where cyclists are allowed to “Give Way” at junctions to test the idea in the UK. But the problem with this (especially with the attitude now of so many cyclists) is with the old and with children pedestrians. Old people regularly complain bitterly to me that they are terrified of crossing roads on many junctions. It used to be in the good old days that a “green man” meant it was “safe” to cross. But now, an old person, with a walking stick or impaired in some way, simply cannot cope with fast moving cyclist suddenly appearing.

How could this “Give Way” for cyclists at junctions be managed, such that old and children were not placed at greater risk that at present? If we did allow a form of “Give Way” for cyclists, you are introducing greater risks, so could we increase the deterrent, to say x1 penalty point (or similar steep fine) if they did cause any injury or did not give way at the junction?

But, what is stopping any cyclist simply “dismounting”, walking across the junction, then looking over their shoulder and proceed if safe? Do we really need to make junctions “Give Way” for cylcists like this, when there is solution any cyclist can adopt already? My personal view, is the Advanced Stop Lines are brilliant inventions, and what is need are more, and “deeper” ones (at very busy junctions).

The only way “Give Way” for cyclists really works is as in France, where you have controlled lights (and so controlled pedestrian signals) at junctions that are programmed to advice when a cyclist can proceed with caution. And I think these would be of benefit in the UK in busy towns.

I fully appreciate bad motorists cause overwhelmingly the most injuries and fatalities, and I am really taken (over the years) how motorists/cyclists attitudes generally are hardening more than ever, and each group “collectively” share common beliefs and attitudes about the other group. And this “hardening” means more cyclists self-justify “driving” practices (riding at speed through red lights) that annoys the other group more.

Hence, by changing the law, so cyclists are recognised as equal “drivers” and “road users”, and share a common rules and risks of the same penalties, it may start to close this gap, before things get even worse.

DBF

dandelionclock30

A fixed penalty fine of a grand for all those who park their car in the cycle lanes.
What are they cycles supposed to do? This really gets on my nerves.No wonder cycles have to ride on the pavements.