British Cycling welcomes government Think! Cyclist campaign
At first glance, seems better than NWC (not hard, I know).
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
Think! Cyclist
(10 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
Looks a lot better and I think it's good that it focuses on a few points.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Like the NWC it completely misses the point and will do absolutely nothing to make cycling safer. This approach has been tried for 100 years now (yes the first time was in 1913) and has never worked. We can look across the North Sea to the mainland to see what works, it ain't rocket science.
Posted 11 years ago # -
It is better than the NWC which I felt was anti cyclist. It asks drivers to observe. The Highway Code with respect to vulnerable road users, eg give cyclists room. But as KIM points out, the Highway Code exists already without protecting us.
Mainland Europe legislates using strict liability as well as having better infrastructure. We should do both.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I agree with Kim, Play Nice campaigns don't do it if the infrastructure isn't functional, but it's nice that the 2 tips for cyclists - to cycle wide of car doors, and to claim the lane if the road is narrow - are quite enabling, permission-giving, rather than the usual stuff about dressing bright and ready for a crash.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I don't really agree with Kim. I do believe that infrastructure is entirely necessary. But it will take many years for this to come about. In the meantime, cyclists are dying and getting injured. At the core of this is a lack of respect for cyclists, and ignorance of safe driving. Propaganda can work but it needs to be on a larger scale and it needs to come from the top.
For example, we often have messages coming from scientists about the health benefits of exercise and the problems with pollutants from combustion. But we don't see these accompanied by all the ministers cycling, walking or bussing to work.
Posted 11 years ago # -
No, it needn't take many years to get good infrastructure. It only took a few years to make big big changes to Dutch roads.
Posted 11 years ago # -
First, I think 8 years is still a long time to allow cyclists to continue to be exposed.
Then we are not starting from the same position as the Dutch in terms of spend (much as I'd like it).
Inevitably infrastructure can't go everywhere and some cyclists will want or need to go on the road.
I think that as well as introducing excellent infrastructure, the Dutch also have the benefit of better on-road rules.
Anyway the article linked above doesn't mention the key difference between the Netherlands and here - we haven't achieved the revolutionary change in political consensus. I think that there is the opportunity to do that now but the political/social situation is different from the Netherlands in the 70s.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Maybe not much better than the NWC after all.
"Give cyclists space – at least half a car’s width."
"Avoid driving over advanced stop lines – these allow cyclists to get to the front and increase their visibility"
At least two messages which are inferior to those required by the Highway Code
Posted 11 years ago # -
I really do recommend Horizon's Guide to Car Crashes, now on iPlayer.
It's interesting to note the different stages government and manufacturers went through to try and reduce road fatalities and injuries over the past 60 years.
First, they established that most collisions were the result of driver error, and specifically poor judgements. Imbibing alcohol was proved to impair judgement even further, causing 2/3 of casualties. Widespread road safety information campaigns were largely ineffective as drivers just ignored the advice. So they targeted driver behaviour with breathalyser tests and enforcement.
Then they tried to force drivers to change risky behaviour at junctions through cheap and easy solutions: traffic islands and mini roundabouts.
Next they showed that the design of cars was not safe for the occupants. So they built in crumple zones, roll cages, etc. provided three point seatbelts. Drivers were not wearing their belts so they had to legislate and enforce that to save lives. Finally manufacturers softened car interiors with padded surfaces and airbags.
Motor vehicle occupants are still killed and injured, but the numbers and the rate have declined sunstantially.
The lesson I draw from this fascinating documentary for cycling is this:
1. Identify the problem (cyclist deaths and injuries).
2. Prove what causes the problem (mostly motor vehicle driver error).
3. Try to change behaviour causing the problem (legislation, enforcement).
4. Engineer the infrastructure to change behaviour or lessen risk (junction design, segregation).
5. Modify vehicles causing deaths and injuries to make them safer for the likely victims (design of HGVs, commercial vehicles, private vehicles to minimise injuries to vulnerable road users).You can see that as we go further down the list, the steps become more difficult and costly to achieve. History shows us that this is why safety immprovements occur in this order.
So, cycle campaigners should maybe focus on targetting the improvements that are achievable easily as a priority, then turn attention to the next stage. For me, that means 'we' need to campaign more vociferously for strict liability legislation as a first step. It really would be very simple for parliament, the legal system and insurers etc. to implement. Then the engineering stuff that takes a lot longer can be worked on.
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
