Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Make cycle safety part of new driving test, capaigners urge

Government is consulting on changes to the driving examination

Learner drivers should be observed interacting with bicycles as part of their driving test, a group of campaigning organisations has said.

The Association of Bikeability Schemes (TABS), British Cycling, Cycling Scotland, Cycling UK, and theLondon Cycling Campaign have submitted a joint response to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) on proposed changes to the driving test.

David Dansky, Director of TABS said: “As local and national Government do more to encourage
cycling for all the benefits this brings to individuals and society, testing drivers interacting with people cycling, will ensure that they drive in a manner that minimises risk to those people and helps them feel safe, thereby encouraging more people to cycle.”

The organisations suggest a driver is tested overtaking someone on a cycle in a manner that ensures the person cycling is given enough room. In some circumstances the drivers should be observed not overtaking where overtaking would be risky, unnecessary or illegal.

The consortium call on the DVSA to recognise that cycling is increasing in the UK; drivers are more
likely than ever to encounter people on cycles while driving. Including these suggestions in any
guidance to driver testers would ensure that many new drivers have been observed interacting with
people on cycles, during their test and will have demonstrated appropriate behaviour.

They also recommend that any changes to the test that refer to interacting with cyclists should also
be filtered through to driving instructors who would be more likely to instruct their learner drivers about sharing the road with cyclists during driving lessons.

The government has launched a consultation on changes to the driving test, which include plans to

  •     increase the ‘independent driving’ part of the test from 10 to 20 minutes
  •     ask candidates to follow directions from a sat nav during the ‘independent driving’ part
  •     replace the ‘reverse around a corner’ and ‘turn in the road’ manoeuvres with more real-life scenarios, eg driving into and reversing out of a parking bay
  •     ask 1 of the 2 vehicle safety questions (known as the ‘show me, tell me’ questions) while the candidate is driving, eg asking them to use the rear heated screen

DVSA Chief Executive, Gareth Llewellyn, said: “Great Britain’s roads are among the safest in the world. But there’s still more that we can do to keep road users safe - particularly newly-qualified drivers.

“Making sure that the test better assesses a driver’s ability to drive safely and independently is part of our strategy to help every driver through a lifetime of safe driving.

DVSA Chief Driving Examiner, Lesley Young, added: “Candidates will be given more responsibility for making decisions during the test. We want them to show they can cope with distractions and assess risk without the intervention of their instructor or examiner.”

It’s a year since we reported how the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) called for the UK driving test to be revamped to make it more relevant to the real world risks that new drivers face.

Currently the driving test does not include any testing of a driver’s ability to cope with country roads, poor weather or driving at night, even though those areas are the main risk factors in the first six months of solo driving.

The IAM also wants to see the testing system make sure new drivers know how to behave around cyclists.
IAM’s director of policy and research, Neil Grieg told road.cc: "The IAM are very supportive of the current moves to include more cycling scenarios in the hazard perception test and cycling related questions in the theory test.

“We also want approved driving instructors to discuss cycling safety with learners and be quality assessed on that by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency to ensure it happens."

 

Add new comment

24 comments

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 7 years ago
2 likes

Smartphones are the greatest danger to modern driving. Intelligent technology that could disable phones in the driver's possesion whilst moving would be the best thing. How - I don't know, but you're more likely to be held up by one of these people and when you overtake, you know why as their heads are bend downward looking at Facearse. 

Kids these days have no driving skills at all. When I first started driving in 1990 my first car was expensive to insure (£380) but not at the level insurance is now. Given the things I see on a daily basis I can probably guess why. I don't think anyone I knew even had a mobile until the later 90s. 

Even as cyclists the young are on the phone whilst moving. There's no hope for them. How the accident rate isn't higher must be dumb luck.

Avatar
emishi55 | 7 years ago
1 like

What 'OldRidgeback' I think means is that because the UK (as an example) is awash with traffic, with so few people willing to take the risk to share the space (understandably), the net result are statistics that appear to show great safety.

Sorry I meant 'Burt the bike'

Also Oldstrath managed to make the same point I was trying to in a fraction of the space!

Avatar
Peowpeowpeowlasers | 7 years ago
6 likes

I actually had a driving school instructor steer at me while I was cycling outside the "cycle lane" here:

https://goo.gl/maps/a8ypXWUnJp72

I'm sure you can figure out why I wasn't using this excellent safety facility.  Anyway, unfortunately for him I had a Gopro on the handlebars and caught his indiscretion.  According to the police officer who visited him, he shat himself.  I doubt he'll attempt to bully a cyclist again, especially as I also informed the driving school he worked for (a sizeable outfit).

Avatar
mike the bike | 7 years ago
3 likes

 

There are a couple of glaring mistakes in the article....

Candidates have always been observed interacting with cyclists, but only if the cyclists are there.  The examiner can't magic them into existence.  The new proposals won't change this situation in any way.

Asking candidates to drive into a parking bay and then reverse out is not good practice.  The DVSA "Guide to Driving" recommends reversing into a space and driving out.

The current test does involve driving on country roads, assuming they are within range of the test centre.  This has been the case for at least fifteen years.

Similarly tests often involve driving in poor weather.  But if it's a lovely sunny day there's not much the examiner can do to change things.

Apart from that, bring on anything that helps with road safety.

 

Avatar
Tommytrucker | 7 years ago
4 likes

Learner drivers should be observed interacting with bicycles as part of their driving test,

I had an interaction with a learner driver just 3 days ago, approaching a roundabout, about 4 feet from the edge of the road so I thought I was pretty much taking the lane. Instructor then allowed his pupil to pull up next to me, and it's only that the car had indicators on the wing mirrors that I realised she was in the middle of running me off the road as they wanted to do a left at the roundabout and I was in their way. I had to stop otherwise I would've been squashed to the kerb or dragged under. I could see the instructor in the mirror just staring at me moronically.

Avatar
vonhelmet | 7 years ago
4 likes

Mandatory retesting every ten years, if not more frequently, would be the best thing we could do for road safety.

Avatar
emishi55 replied to vonhelmet | 7 years ago
3 likes

vonhelmet wrote:

Mandatory retesting every ten years, if not more frequently, would be the best thing we could do for road safety.

 

I would suggest actual road policing, and ensuring that repeat offenders are sentenced realistically, with removal of licences for periods of time to actually make the offender aware they committed a criminal act.

Compulsory retraining of offenders, or something like a 'three strikes and you're out' policy.

Anything that keeps the speedophiles at bay. 

Why shouldn't basic road manners, courtesy be normal? Why shouldn't all countries have the kind of decent behaviour from motorists that you expect as normal in say, The Netherlands?

 

Make all learner drivers cycle. Make all road offenders cycle as part of retraining also.

 

 

 

Avatar
I love my bike | 7 years ago
2 likes

As 'normal' cyclists cannot reliably be expected to be cycling on the roads during all driving tests, maybe driving instructors should 'volunteered' to do so. It would incentivise them to instruct their pupils properly, and also give them some much needed physical exercise.

 

'In some circumstances the drivers should be observed not overtaking where overtaking would be risky, unnecessary or illegal.'

Hopefully they meant 'other' & not 'some' as in what circumstances could the candidates make illegal overtaking manouvers & pass the test (even if amnesia sets in immediately after)?

Avatar
Gourmet Shot replied to I love my bike | 7 years ago
2 likes

I love my bike wrote:

As 'normal' cyclists cannot reliably be expected to be cycling on the roads during all driving tests, maybe driving instructors should 'volunteered' to do so. It would incentivise them to instruct their pupils properly, and also give them some much needed physical exercise.

I volunteer to drive past any new prospective driver (who we will place on a bike at the side of the road) at 70mph, 6 inches away from their elbow...  guarantee from that point on they will pass any cyclist with care

 

 

Avatar
HarrogateSpa | 7 years ago
7 likes

Great Britain’s roads are among the safest in the world.

Yesterday in my car at a red traffic light, the guy in the lane on my left drove not only into, but beyond, the cyclists' ASZ, then kept doing little rolls further forward. I'm certain if I'd said anything, I would have got a load of abuse from him.

In my mirror I could see the girl in the car behind, ear phones in, looking down at her mobile phone and tapping away on the screen.

Ok, neither of these indiscretions is usually life-threatening, but they show the sort of aggressive attitude, and careless, distracted approach, which is everywhere on Britain's roads. As far as I can see, policing of low-level infringements like these is non-existent.

If our roads really are safer than the rest of the world, I don't believe for a minute it's because of good driving standards. Maybe standards in other countries are worse; maybe improved vehicle safety has had an effect; and maybe users other than drivers have just been bullied off busier roads.

No doubt most of the time you'd have to be a bit unlucky for your crap driving to result in an accident. But GB's safety record is certainly not down to excellent driving.

Avatar
HarrogateSpa | 7 years ago
3 likes

Anything that can be done with respect to new drivers is welcome, but there will still be millions of drivers on the roads who passed their tests years or decades ago, can't remember anything of the Highway Code, and have developed their own personal 'style' and intolerant opinions.

Maybe a one-off test a 17 years old isn't sensible?

Avatar
emishi55 | 7 years ago
6 likes

Proven ability to cycle should be the first pre-requisite to being allowed to sit behind the wheel of a car, let alone operate such an item of machinery. Bicycle users have better road sense and make better drivers (when they need to use vehicles). I forget where I read the stats, but it stands to reason.

The negative impacts wrought on everyone by a colossal and extravagant usage of motor vehicles needs some pretty urgent action.  Cycling as part of the test would hardly be radical: people are 'legitimately' given the keys to a vehcile all too readily and all too easily.     

 

Avatar
Grahamd replied to emishi55 | 7 years ago
1 like

emishi55 wrote:

Proven ability to cycle should be the first pre-requisite to being allowed to sit behind the wheel of a car, let alone operate such an item of machinery. Bicycle users have better road sense and make better drivers (when they need to use vehicles). I forget where I read the stats, but it stands to reason.

The negative impacts wrought on everyone by a colossal and extravagant usage of motor vehicles needs some pretty urgent action.  Cycling as part of the test would hardly be radical: people are 'legitimately' given the keys to a vehcile all too readily and all too easily.     

 

Nice concept but there are disabled people that gain licences to drive, who by default couldn't ride a bike. Deciding who could and could not would open a big can of worms.

Avatar
emishi55 replied to Grahamd | 7 years ago
3 likes

Grahamd wrote:

emishi55 wrote:

Proven ability to cycle should be the first pre-requisite to being allowed to sit behind the wheel of a car, let alone operate such an item of machinery. Bicycle users have better road sense and make better drivers (when they need to use vehicles). I forget where I read the stats, but it stands to reason.

The negative impacts wrought on everyone by a colossal and extravagant usage of motor vehicles needs some pretty urgent action.  Cycling as part of the test would hardly be radical: people are 'legitimately' given the keys to a vehcile all too readily and all too easily.     

 

Nice concept but there are disabled people that gain licences to drive, who by default couldn't ride a bike. Deciding who could and could not would open a big can of worms.

 

Any advance or change in policy could 'open a can of worms'. 

Yes there would be disabled people unable to cycle. Of course any policy change would sensibly allow for those unable to cycle to pass over this. But in the meantime, it would make for:

a) More conscientious or aware drivers (hopefully)

b) A means of providing an opportunity - or rather a requirement, for anyone considering spending time behind the wheel of a car, to perhaps discover that a cycle might be a preferable option after all.

Also, in the case of those unable to use bi-cycles, there are options of course with tri-cycles and hand cycles. To be disabled does not exclude people from the option of cycling - even though the current state of driver behaviour and amount of traffic is likely to be even more of a disincentive than it is for bike riders.

All too often one of the great charges put forward is that disabled people need vehicles. And, fair enough, whilst true for many, a lot of people can get around by cycling whereas walking is too problematic. 

Avatar
Grahamd replied to emishi55 | 7 years ago
1 like

emishi55]</p>

<p>[quote=Grahamd wrote:

emishi55 wrote:

Proven ability to cycle should be the first pre-requisite to being allowed to sit behind the wheel of a car, let alone operate such an item of machinery. Bicycle users have better road sense and make better drivers (when they need to use vehicles). I forget where I read the stats, but it stands to reason.

The negative impacts wrought on everyone by a colossal and extravagant usage of motor vehicles needs some pretty urgent action.  Cycling as part of the test would hardly be radical: people are 'legitimately' given the keys to a vehcile all too readily and all too easily.     

 

Nice concept but there are disabled people that gain licences to drive, who by default couldn't ride a bike. Deciding who could and could not would open a big can of worms.

[/quote

 

Any advance or change in policy could 'open a can of worms'. 

Yes there would be disabled people unable to cycle. Of course any policy change would sensibly allow for those unable to cycle to pass over this. But in the meantime, it would make for:

a) More conscientious or aware drivers (hopefully)

b) A means of providing an opportunity - or rather a requirement, for anyone considering spending time behind the wheel of a car, to perhaps discover that a cycle might be a preferable option after all.

Also, in the case of those unable to use bi-cycles, there are options of course with tri-cycles and hand cycles. To be disabled does not exclude people from the option of cycling - even though the current state of driver behaviour and amount of traffic is likely to be even more of a disincentive than it is for bike riders.

All too often one of the great charges put forward is that disabled people need vehicles. And, fair enough, whilst true for many, a lot of people can get around by cycling whereas walking is too problematic. 

Good reply, I am thinking of a friend as I type this. He had a stroke aged 30 and lost majority of the use of his left side. He tried to cycle again with inevitable consequences of a fall. He laughed about it so I can too, but it does illustrate that there are some people who could not manage.

Avatar
burtthebike | 7 years ago
9 likes

"DVSA Chief Executive, Gareth Llewellyn, said: “Great Britain’s roads are among the safest in the world."

No they aren't.  They are so dangerous that most sensible people refuse to use them for walking or cycling, so they look safe because vulnerable users have been frightened off.

TBH, this measure is so blindingly obvious that it is frankly incredible that it isn't already in place.

Avatar
OldRidgeback replied to burtthebike | 7 years ago
0 likes

burtthebike wrote:

"DVSA Chief Executive, Gareth Llewellyn, said: “Great Britain’s roads are among the safest in the world."

No they aren't.  They are so dangerous that most sensible people refuse to use them for walking or cycling, so they look safe because vulnerable users have been frightened off.

TBH, this measure is so blindingly obvious that it is frankly incredible that it isn't already in place.

 

Err, actually they are.

The WHO has data on road fatalities. Libya is worst, with Thailand second. I forget the figure for Libya but Thailand has about 11 times the road death rate/100,000 of population that the UK has.

It's on the WHO website.

The UK has about 3 deaths/100,000 of population and Sweden is one of the few countries with lower road fatalities.

As for the good old days, they weren't that good. Peak road deaths in the UK were in the late 1960s when they were about 5.5 times what they are now, which when you consider how many fewer cars there were and the lower overall distances driven, should make you think.

Avatar
oldstrath replied to OldRidgeback | 7 years ago
4 likes
OldRidgeback wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

"DVSA Chief Executive, Gareth Llewellyn, said: “Great Britain’s roads are among the safest in the world."

No they aren't.  They are so dangerous that most sensible people refuse to use them for walking or cycling, so they look safe because vulnerable users have been frightened off.

TBH, this measure is so blindingly obvious that it is frankly incredible that it isn't already in place.

 

Err, actually they are.

The WHO has data on road fatalities. Libya is worst, with Thailand second. I forget the figure for Libya but Thailand has about 11 times the road death rate/100,000 of population that the UK has.

It's on the WHO website.

The UK has about 3 deaths/100,000 of population and Sweden is one of the few countries with lower road fatalities.

As for the good old days, they weren't that good. Peak road deaths in the UK were in the late 1960s when they were about 5.5 times what they are now, which when you consider how many fewer cars there were and the lower overall distances driven, should make you think.

Do you have data on the proportions of people who cycle by country , because my suspicion is that our roads mainly look safer because vulnerable users have been frightened off.

Avatar
OldRidgeback replied to oldstrath | 7 years ago
0 likes

oldstrath wrote:
OldRidgeback wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

"DVSA Chief Executive, Gareth Llewellyn, said: “Great Britain’s roads are among the safest in the world."

No they aren't.  They are so dangerous that most sensible people refuse to use them for walking or cycling, so they look safe because vulnerable users have been frightened off.

TBH, this measure is so blindingly obvious that it is frankly incredible that it isn't already in place.

 

Err, actually they are.

The WHO has data on road fatalities. Libya is worst, with Thailand second. I forget the figure for Libya but Thailand has about 11 times the road death rate/100,000 of population that the UK has.

It's on the WHO website.

The UK has about 3 deaths/100,000 of population and Sweden is one of the few countries with lower road fatalities.

As for the good old days, they weren't that good. Peak road deaths in the UK were in the late 1960s when they were about 5.5 times what they are now, which when you consider how many fewer cars there were and the lower overall distances driven, should make you think.

Do you have data on the proportions of people who cycle by country , because my suspicion is that our roads mainly look safer because vulnerable users have been frightened off.

 

The DfT has extensive data on cycling deaths. The death rate in the UK for vulnerable road users was far, far higher in the late 60s than it is now. It was pretty much accepted then and was largely unreported. The death rate for cyclists has remained pretty much static for the last six years, up a bit here, down a bit there, but roughly the same.

Taking action against drink driving has made an incredible effect on reducing road deaths.

What we have now is a situation in which road deaths are reported and the actual risk is far outstrippped by the perceived risk, which as I say was far higher in the late 60s and early 70s than it is now.

Again, the DfT has data on the number of miles cycled and this figure is increasing in key areas in the UK, such as London. Again, the actual fatality rate amongst cyclistsin London  is now lower than it was say in the 1980s, when fewer people cycled. But the perceived danger is higher, because there are more people encountering aggressive BMW drivers and so on.

Does that explain things?

Those peple who complain about road dangers faced by cyclissts now either weren't cycling in the 1980s and 1990s for example, or are looking through rose tinted eyewear.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to OldRidgeback | 7 years ago
2 likes
OldRidgeback wrote:

oldstrath wrote:
OldRidgeback wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

"DVSA Chief Executive, Gareth Llewellyn, said: “Great Britain’s roads are among the safest in the world."

No they aren't.  They are so dangerous that most sensible people refuse to use them for walking or cycling, so they look safe because vulnerable users have been frightened off.

TBH, this measure is so blindingly obvious that it is frankly incredible that it isn't already in place.

 

Err, actually they are.

The WHO has data on road fatalities. Libya is worst, with Thailand second. I forget the figure for Libya but Thailand has about 11 times the road death rate/100,000 of population that the UK has.

It's on the WHO website.

The UK has about 3 deaths/100,000 of population and Sweden is one of the few countries with lower road fatalities.

As for the good old days, they weren't that good. Peak road deaths in the UK were in the late 1960s when they were about 5.5 times what they are now, which when you consider how many fewer cars there were and the lower overall distances driven, should make you think.

Do you have data on the proportions of people who cycle by country , because my suspicion is that our roads mainly look safer because vulnerable users have been frightened off.

 

The DfT has extensive data on cycling deaths. The death rate in the UK for vulnerable road users was far, far higher in the late 60s than it is now. It was pretty much accepted then and was largely unreported. The death rate for cyclists has remained pretty much static for the last six years, up a bit here, down a bit there, but roughly the same.

Taking action against drink driving has made an incredible effect on reducing road deaths.

What we have now is a situation in which road deaths are reported and the actual risk is far outstrippped by the perceived risk, which as I say was far higher in the late 60s and early 70s than it is now.

Again, the DfT has data on the number of miles cycled and this figure is increasing in key areas in the UK, such as London. Again, the actual fatality rate amongst cyclistsin London  is now lower than it was say in the 1980s, when fewer people cycled. But the perceived danger is higher, because there are more people encountering aggressive BMW drivers and so on.

Does that explain things?

Those peple who complain about road dangers faced by cyclissts now either weren't cycling in the 1980s and 1990s for example, or are looking through rose tinted eyewear.

With respect, I disagree.

Firstly, what's the death rate, per mile travelled and allowing for the age-profile, of cyclists in the Uk vs the Netherlands?

Clearly its better here than in places where the roads are almost lawless, like China or Russia. But that just seems setting the bar pretty low. Like saying violent crime isn't as bad as Syria.

Also, I don't think one can say roads are 'safe' when tens of thousands die every year as a result of traffic pollution or physical inactivity. Those deaths are also a concquence of our road-conditions, so need to be added in.

Mainly, I disagree its just about 'percieved danger'. People percieve it because it's there. In many cases they tried it and decided, yup, its too dangerous.

The danger is real. It isn't made manifest because most people react to that perception by not cycling, or, if they are in the minority that do, by being prepared to do all the tiring anxiety-inducing work required to cope with it. Cycling might have increased very slightly, but its still only a small minority of journeys.

You cant draw conclusions about 'safety' from looking at casualty rates, becuase when the number of poeple cycling is small its a self-selected sample. To say its 'safe' you'd have to look at what the casualty rates are when the large mass of normal people cycle.

You'd have to do a controlled experiment by _forcing_ a large representative sample of the population to utility cycle on a regular basis, whether they feel its safe or not, and seeing how many of them get whacked. Given that might be a bit unethical to do, one has to just accept in good faith most people's perception that its 'too dangerous' as being valid rather than just insisting they are suffering from some sort of false-conciousness.

PS I do think things have improved in particular parts of London of late. But elsewhere, not so much.

Avatar
OldRidgeback replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 7 years ago
0 likes

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
OldRidgeback wrote:

oldstrath wrote:
OldRidgeback wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

"DVSA Chief Executive, Gareth Llewellyn, said: “Great Britain’s roads are among the safest in the world."

No they aren't.  They are so dangerous that most sensible people refuse to use them for walking or cycling, so they look safe because vulnerable users have been frightened off.

TBH, this measure is so blindingly obvious that it is frankly incredible that it isn't already in place.

 

Err, actually they are.

The WHO has data on road fatalities. Libya is worst, with Thailand second. I forget the figure for Libya but Thailand has about 11 times the road death rate/100,000 of population that the UK has.

It's on the WHO website.

The UK has about 3 deaths/100,000 of population and Sweden is one of the few countries with lower road fatalities.

As for the good old days, they weren't that good. Peak road deaths in the UK were in the late 1960s when they were about 5.5 times what they are now, which when you consider how many fewer cars there were and the lower overall distances driven, should make you think.

Do you have data on the proportions of people who cycle by country , because my suspicion is that our roads mainly look safer because vulnerable users have been frightened off.

 

The DfT has extensive data on cycling deaths. The death rate in the UK for vulnerable road users was far, far higher in the late 60s than it is now. It was pretty much accepted then and was largely unreported. The death rate for cyclists has remained pretty much static for the last six years, up a bit here, down a bit there, but roughly the same.

Taking action against drink driving has made an incredible effect on reducing road deaths.

What we have now is a situation in which road deaths are reported and the actual risk is far outstrippped by the perceived risk, which as I say was far higher in the late 60s and early 70s than it is now.

Again, the DfT has data on the number of miles cycled and this figure is increasing in key areas in the UK, such as London. Again, the actual fatality rate amongst cyclistsin London  is now lower than it was say in the 1980s, when fewer people cycled. But the perceived danger is higher, because there are more people encountering aggressive BMW drivers and so on.

Does that explain things?

Those peple who complain about road dangers faced by cyclissts now either weren't cycling in the 1980s and 1990s for example, or are looking through rose tinted eyewear.

With respect, I disagree. Firstly, what's the death rate, per mile travelled and allowing for the age-profile, of cyclists in the Uk vs the Netherlands? Clearly its better here than in places where the roads are almost lawless, like China or Russia. But that just seems setting the bar pretty low. Like saying violent crime isn't as bad as Syria. Also, I don't think one can say roads are 'safe' when tens of thousands die every year as a result of traffic pollution or physical inactivity. Those deaths are also a concquence of our road-conditions, so need to be added in. Mainly, I disagree its just about 'percieved danger'. People percieve it because it's there. In many cases they tried it and decided, yup, its too dangerous. The danger is real. It isn't made manifest because most people react to that perception by not cycling, or, if they are in the minority that do, by being prepared to do all the tiring anxiety-inducing work required to cope with it. Cycling might have increased very slightly, but its still only a small minority of journeys. You cant draw conclusions about 'safety' from looking at casualty rates, becuase when the number of poeple cycling is small its a self-selected sample. To say its 'safe' you'd have to look at what the casualty rates are when the large mass of normal people cycle. You'd have to do a controlled experiment by _forcing_ a large representative sample of the population to utility cycle on a regular basis, whether they feel its safe or not, and seeing how many of them get whacked. Given that might be a bit unethical to do, one has to just accept in good faith most people's perception that its 'too dangerous' as being valid rather than just insisting they are suffering from some sort of false-conciousness. PS I do think things have improved in particular parts of London of late. But elsewhere, not so much.

 

Talking about deaths from pollution or inactivity, wll that's anoth thing entirely. But road deaths amongst cyclists in the UK are at a fraction of what they were in the late 60s and early 70s. Road deaths amongst cyclists are also notably lower now than 10 years ago for example and lower still than they were 20 years ago, much lower in fact.

There is data on the total mileage covered in cycle journeys in the UK. This is now higher than it was in the 1990s for example.

So yes, the actual danger for cyclists on UK roads has reduced.

Again, this data is available on the DfT website. Please look at it.

Avatar
emishi55 replied to OldRidgeback | 7 years ago
3 likes

OldRidgeback wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

"DVSA Chief Executive, Gareth Llewellyn, said: “Great Britain’s roads are among the safest in the world."

No they aren't.  They are so dangerous that most sensible people refuse to use them for walking or cycling, so they look safe because vulnerable users have been frightened off.

TBH, this measure is so blindingly obvious that it is frankly incredible that it isn't already in place.

 

Err, actually they are.

The WHO has data on road fatalities. Libya is worst, with Thailand second. I forget the figure for Libya but Thailand has about 11 times the road death rate/100,000 of population that the UK has.

It's on the WHO website.

The UK has about 3 deaths/100,000 of population and Sweden is one of the few countries with lower road fatalities.

As for the good old days, they weren't that good. Peak road deaths in the UK were in the late 1960s when they were about 5.5 times what they are now, which when you consider how many fewer cars there were and the lower overall distances driven, should make you think.

 

Actually or subjectively?

Clearly the deterrent effect of the colossal and unsustainable amount of traffic that has been allowed to plague the carriageways and Victorian infrastructure that was never intended to carry it, is the number one factor in depriving most children from cycling as a normal activity. And of course everyone else.

What 'OldRidgeback' I think means is that because the UK (as an example) is awash with traffic, with so few people willing to take the risk to share the space (understandably), the net result are statistics that appear to show great safety. A bit like the motorways being safe for cyclists! (yes ok you're not allowed on them and horrible recent cyclist death notwithstanding).

But when you also look at what happens when motorists are given a bit of open road - like country lanes in the UK (with 50 and 60mph speed limits!!!) - they take the opportunity to go for it. You will also find time-pressured HGVs racing to harbour ports - Newhaven, Dover etc. Cycling deaths? Not many, but these roads are clearly a long way from safe.

Avatar
I love my bike replied to OldRidgeback | 7 years ago
1 like

[/quote]

Err, actually they are.

The WHO has data on road fatalities. Libya is worst, with Thailand second. I forget the figure for Libya but Thailand has about 11 times the road death rate/100,000 of population that the UK has.

It's on the WHO website.

The UK has about 3 deaths/100,000 of population and Sweden is one of the few countries with lower road fatalities.

As for the good old days, they weren't that good. Peak road deaths in the UK were in the late 1960s when they were about 5.5 times what they are now, which when you consider how many fewer cars there were and the lower overall distances driven, should make you think.

[/quote]

As from WHO stats, cyclists only make up 6% of road user deaths, why not just let them all die, so there won't be any more in the future, & cycling becomes perfectly safe (in theory)?

Avatar
Gourmet Shot replied to I love my bike | 7 years ago
2 likes

[/quote]

As from WHO stats, cyclists only make up 6% of road user deaths, why not just let them all die, so there won't be any more in the future, & cycling becomes perfectly safe (in theory)?

[/quote]

Yean but there is a serious flaw in yoru argument in that any cyclist wearing a helmet and hi viz is 100% safe and impervious to being hit by a car. FACT.  

Latest Comments