Essex police: If cyclists were more safety-conscious they wouldn’t get killed

Airzound wrote:

The Filth at their finest. Bunch of losers. They did absolutely nothing when I was knocked off and left for dead. Most of them are thick arrogant over weight slobs who could do with riding a bike themselves at rush hour on a busy road when it's peeing with rain.

Hear, hear - couldn't agree more!

McDuff73 wrote:

Having watched the programme Horizon on BBC2 on Monday its become evident that the driving test as they stand are wholly inadequate.
They need to take into account the ability or inability of human beings to function during multiple tasks, some of us are biologically unable to see whats right in front of us whilst we concentrate on other tasks ie cant see cyclists/pedestrians whilst driving, surely that needs to be addressed?

My son passed his test last year aged 17. It was a lot harder than the one I took in 1979 aged 17.

In my opinion the whole idea of a Driving Test is not the right way to do things. We don't let doctors or airline pilots have a single pass/fail test and then issue them with full credentials.

Learning to drive should be an extended course covering all aspects and conditions. When you have enough hours clocked in the various parts of the course and if the instructor is satisfied then that part of the course is deemed complete. You need to complete the whole course.

Many drivers of my age will have had a very simple driving test that almost anyone could have passed. I booked six lessons and a test. I never drove in the rain, at night, on a dual carriageway, down country lanes or in heavy traffic such as the rush hour before I had a licence. The test was driving round Bournemouth on roads I knew. Starting on a hill, reversing round a corner, a 3 point turn and by virtue of not hitting anything and answering 3 questions on road signs and markings I earned a licence at age 17 to drive all kinds of vehicles, in all kinds of conditions and on some kinds of roads I had never driven before.

We need rigorous extended courses not one off tests.

james-o wrote:

What the police are saying here is simple common sense

Henry Louis Mencken: "For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong."

And this was definitely a wrong use of police time and PR machine.

james-o wrote:

What the police are saying here is simple common sense, lessen the odds of being a statistic. But they do need to state / recognise that nothing can protect a rider from the more idiotic drivers out there

I take your general point but I have to take issue with this. There is quite a lot that could be done to protect everyone (cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders, motorcyclists and indeed other motorists) from the more idiotic drivers out there.

1 Top of the list would be to change the attitude of the police to road safety.
2 Markedly increase the chances of being caught speeding.
(this equated to the "broken windows" theory in criminology. ie if you allow seemingly minor offences or behaviours to be seen as normal then you just lower the bar for other more serious crimes.
3 Once you have increased the chances of being caught and such that drivers think it is likely they will be caught not unlikely, then increase points penalties to a realistic level. Points work because they effect drivers equally whatever their income.
4 Get the CPS to use the laws properly. Careless is careless. Dangerous is dangerous. Don't prosecute for careless driving when the driving was in fact dangerous.
5 Stop giving persistent offenders their licence back each time or if you do, then not so damn quickly. And on a returned licence affix permanent points so they know that one more even minor offence and they could lose it again. Three strikes and you are out (banned permenantly) for major offences. ie where 6 or more points are given on a single offence. Lifetime points. A ban not just on offences on a rolling 4 year period but a total lifetime number acquired. I suggest 24.
6 Allow the Police Force / Local Safety Camera orgs to keep a good proportion of the fines to invest in more detection and enforcement. Speeding and offending drivers are then paying for enforcement. Enforcement technology and extra traffic officers are therefore self financeing and an investment.

I could go on but you get my drift.

There is actually plenty that can be done about idiot drivers.

james-o wrote:

What the police are saying here is simple common sense, lessen the odds of being a statistic.

You give them too much credit. That's not 'what the police are saying here'. What the police woman said was “If cyclists were more safety-conscious then families would not have to see that.” Nothing about lessening odds, just a categorical statement that is simply and obviously false and which carries a nasty whiff of victim blaming for those previous cases of dead cyclists she claims to be talking about.

Given that the fatal error is most frequently on the part of the motorist, if cyclists were more safety-conscious there would be at best a small reduction in how often families saw that. Assuming the effort of being so safety conscious didn't just deter people from cycling in the first place, in which case families would more often see family members having heart attacks instead.