“Poll after poll has shown that the biggest reason for people not wanting to cycle is perceived danger. And anyone who has dared to ride a bike on unprotected roads will soon discover that a large part of this danger comes from pure illegality, not least the vast proportion of drivers who speed, especially on residential roads.
This neatly leads us to the other factor highlighted by the report, and its reaction to it: the howls of outrage if people politely suggest that people could perhaps be less of a danger to others when they drive.
Before the report’s launch, the only one of 10 recommendations highlighted in the media was the idea of removing the so-called tolerances in speeding offences, whereby you can currently go about 10% plus 2mph above a limit and not be penalised.”
The link to the parliamentary group report (.pdf file) is here.
This reminds me of two recent posts that I got involved in here.
The first was about Wales’ upcoming 20mph zone, where people were complaining that “they’re just trying to generate revenue”. Well, only if you decide to break the law, surely?
The other was a discussion on the cyclists who were “caught” speeding in Devon. Drivers were outraged and wanted cyclists to adhere to the speed limits (good luck without a speedometer). But they would get apoplectic when you suggested that they should do the same.
As a cyclist it always strikes me that we probably don’t need any new laws to make the roads safe, we just need the current laws to be enforced and obeyed. If every driver gave every cyclist 1.5m of space, priority at junctions, kept out of the cycle lanes, etc. as they’resupposed to then the roads would be a lovely place to cycle.
The other was a discussion on the cyclists who were “caught” speeding in Devon. Drivers were outraged and wanted cyclists to adhere to the speed limits (good luck without a speedometer). But they would get apoplectic when you suggested that they should do the same.
Motorists Break Law To Save Time, Cyclists Break Law To Save Lives, Finds Study
From your link:
“Beanland’s study concluded that “cycling experience is associated with more efficient attentional processing for road scenes.” She suggested that road safety would be improved for all if more motorists also cycled.”
I suspect they’re right.
Before I took up cycling I also used to review my car dashcam footage and reflect on what could have been done better.
I lived in the Netherlands for a few years. One of the main reasons I believe it is such a safe place to cycle is that basically every motorist is also a cyclist.
A similar trope is tossed around in motorcycling communities.
(Supposedly) Motorcyclists make better drivers, not only in themselves but also in their friends, family and neighbours by virtue of awareness “my neighbour Jim is a motorcyclist, I should look out for him when I’m driving”.
Some groups are advocating that the CBT (basic motorcycle training) should be a requirement for new drivers to capitalise on this.
Some level of mandatory other-road-user immersion requirement could be a good way a good way to boost safety.
Fuck, driver licensing is too relaxed anyway, bring in mandatory retesting and increase the skill requirements gradually. Literally force the shit drivers out of their cars. You do it for commercial/heavy vehicles why not personal.
I think the car driving test now is actually quite good and can be difficult to pass but once you pass (potentially at 17) then that’s it. There’s no requirement to keep those skills up, learn about law changes, no further tests, just nothing. Accountants, doctors, lawyers, social workers etc are all required to keep up professional development annually and usually have to submit an annual declaration with a certain number audited. Driving a literal killing machine centimetres away from children needs nothing extra.
My suggestion would be the government and insurance companies develop an optional extra certificate like the pass plus but something you do regularly, needs you to pass tests under new laws, and to prove safe driving somehow. You pay for but it gives a discount on insurance to make up for it. I would go for this. I am hesitant about having a tracker on the car even though I drive very safely.
I believe the secret sauce is empathy.
That’s a huge part. A lot of people just can’t put themselves in others shoes unfortunately
Or they could at least make cycling awareness part of driver’s training.
Same guy, same publication a year prior found that not only do cyclists break the law for different reasons, they also do it less frequently than motorists.
About 20 years ago, I was caught by a copper using a radar gun and was ticked off for speeding on my bicycle. I admit, I was just having fun. But yes it was dangerous.
He was mainly tickled ar the idea of being able to charge someone with ‘cycling furiously’. He didn’t just told me off
Drivers were outraged and wanted cyclists to adhere to the speed limits (good luck without a speedometer).
I’ve found myself dragged into online conversations several times over the years regarding speed limits in Royal Parks, especially Richmond Park which is notorious for its rat running drivers.
Motorists always managed to work themselves up into a frenzy over “speeding” cyclists, no matter how many times it was pointed out to them that in the park the speed limit applies to motorised vehicles only. Cyclists could not possibly be speeding as there was no speed limit applicable to them on those privately managed roads.
They have been given out tickets to speeding cyclists for a while now, at least according to a friend who cycles a lot, so I think it applies equally but is just exceptionally harder to enforce. You need multiple police officers physically stopping and giving tickets.
That sounds silly. Why on earth is that duality in place?
I don’t know. Maybe because as a rider you cannot be expected to know your own speed without a speedometer, maybe.
Still, given that this is the rule and it’s well documented and publicised, it’s a bit boring to having to explain to yet another gammony armchair warrior on those forums. So I stopped going there.
Interesting. I’m pretty sure that those light-up speed-check signs pick up cyclists (they’ve picked up me :) ) but whatevs
Enforcement of existing rules would go a long way; the parliamentary group also advises increasing tariffs for breaking the law and tightening the what counts for “exceptional circumstances” when it comes to defence.
Driver training and awareness campaigns and reduced speed limits are all tinkering around the edges. They don’t make any meaningful change. The Netherlands and Denmark proved this is a solved problem: build dedicated cycleways with a curb separating them. Yes it’s expensive, but it works. Anything else is virtue signalling. Cars and bicycles are wildly different modes of transport. Asking them to share the same space is dangerous. Much more dangerous than asking pedestrians and cyclists to share the same space.
And Dutch residential roads discourage speeding. Also, their rollout looks really cool:
Agreed. And compared to the build and maintenance costs of a car road, cycling infrastructure is incredibly cheap.
I live in a moderately sized British town which is completely flat and would be perfect for cycling, but it’s so car focused it’s ridiculous. There used to be a cycle lane at some point but it’s completely washed out and no one bothers to fix it. If you cycle anywhere you expect to be killed any moment, because people are annoyed by you and overtake by the smallest margin. Just recently there was this absolute bastard complaining in the town’s Facebook group about people doing less than 60mph in the b-roads around town, the same b-roads that are super twisty and barely fit two cars side by side, and should really be 40mph.
Small twisty residential roads should really be 40 KM/H or less
The B roads the poster mentions are very likely rural and not residential, which default to the national speed limit of 60 mph for singe lane roads. Residential roads in the UK are usually 30 mph, sometimes 20 mph.
Here are the 10 recommendations (there’s a lot of text surrounding these explaining and justifying them which I’ve trimmed out):
A1) the Government consider the introduction of escalating penalties for repeat traffic offences.
A2) the Government seek consistency by requiring re-testing for anyone wishing to drive following any period of disqualification.
A3a) the Government increase the maximum sentence for dangerous driving to four years.
A3b) the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) guide police forces to bail drivers whom they arrest for dangerous driving with a condition not to drive.
A4) the Sentencing Council revisit its 2020 guidance on the totting-up disqualification, to reinforce that exceptional hardship should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances.
A5) tolerances in the enforcement of speeding be removed.
B1) the development of guidance based on best practice, with the intention that it is adopted as widely as possible by Police forces.
B2) the implementation of a standardised system across police forces for submission and processing of third-party reporting, based on best practice and supported by adequate resourcing.
B3) the Government appoint a UK Commissioner for Road-Danger Reduction.
B4) Police and Crime Commissioners should consider all crash victims as victims of crime.
B5) the Government launch a very extensive and ongoing communications campaign designed to increase greatly both understanding of and compliance with the changesJust the first of these would be massive. If after your 9 points wear off and you are back to 0 any further offence instantly is 9 points instead of 3 for 5 years then you aren’t going to speed are you.
I’ve been trying to get my local council to enforce the law on the road near me and have just been fobbed off repeatedly.
It’s a 30 road, with a school and loads of pedestrians and cyclists using it yet we see people running the red lights, speeding well over 50 and doing crazy overtakes DAILY
I’ve driven and cycled in 3 other countries and England is by far the scariest, feels like every other driver is trying to kill you
I got into cycling a few months ago, but I’m pretty much done with it at this point. Last week I was nearly hit twice on a 10 minute ride…
I love it, but it’s just not safe, and I find that it’s just a stressful experience at this point. It’s also not just cars, pedestrians have zero respect for a cyclist on a road or shared cycle path.
I’ve had people just walk out into the road and expect me to go around… people wouldn’t do that with a car ffs.
Then I’m getting shouted at on a shared path because someone had to move slightly to one side, despite the rules being that no one has right of way.
Government wants me to cycle? The government can get fucked.
I love the arguments about tolerances, how “having to stare at the speedometer will make things less safe”.
The average 17 year old is expected to be able to drive at a steady speed while dividing attention effectively and NOT staring at the speedometer, and demonstrate this skill on their driving test. So basically all the people going on about how they will “have to stare at the speedo” are saying: “Speed limits shouldn’t be enforced because I’m too incompetent to safely drive at the speed limit”. It makes me think that it would be a good idea that driving licenses really expire at their expiration date, requiring a new driving test.
Anyone who thinks driving at the speed limit needs to stare at the speedo seriously needs some remedial training from a driving instructor.
Agree. Too incompetent, and maybe too lazy to improve.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Talking in public for the first time about the death of his mother, Carol, who was run over in 2016 while cycling in north Wales by a pickup truck driver who had just been on the phone, Boardman recounted his dash to the hospital in Chester from France on learning the news.
Compiled by the all-party parliamentary group on walking and cycling, the report contains 10 recommendations, which while considered and relatively modest, could have a transformative effect if implemented.
In which other area of life, I asked, would an activity that on an average day kills five people and seriously injures more than 80 be treated as normal, with attempts to curb this toll seen as nanny state interventionism?
Just before Boardman spoke, Yair Shahar, a London-based father of three, quietly set out how a driver pulling out from a side road rode directly over him and his bike.
One of the recommendations included in the report is to greatly curb the ability of repeat speeders who keep their licence even after amassing 12 points by claiming “exceptional hardship”.
This is a long-term structural issue, and even though the current justice secretary, Alex Chalk, is a former co-chair of the all-party cycling group, no one is holding their breath for immediate action.
The original article contains 769 words, the summary contains 213 words. Saved 72%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
