"Cycling is inherently safe; driving is dangerous”; Oxford and Cambridge top bike theft rankings; Highway Code changes; comeback kids (and elder statesmen); 'cross carpets + more on the live blog

I agree.

Colin's comment is worryingly close to 'the responsibility for road danger is 50-50, can't we all just be nicer to each other?'

That is to misunderstand the problem and any possible solution.

This is the point I frequently point out to people when they argue that cycling is dangerous.  Cycling is inherently safe; driving is dangerous.  They tell me I'm arguing semantics and it all amounts to the same thing, which is, of course true, unless we are trying to tackle the caus of the problem rather than the symptom.

There is room on most country roads, but not to drive like we're auditioning to present Top Gear. 

What is lacking is ongoing messages and training for drivers, partly as guidance changes and partly as drivers' untested "experience" is allowed to dictate to them what is a reasonable course of action and attitude on the road.  There is far too much presumed "priority" and too much talk about "60mph roads" and the like.  Passing your test is, in practice, the pinnacle of our driving standard, and it should be the baseline.

GMBasix wrote:

.... There is far too much presumed "priority" and too much talk about "60mph roads" and the like.  ...

I find it absolutely staggering that for roads outside built-up areas 60mph is the default, and only reduced on risk assessment. It should be completely the other way round - speed limit low (eg 20 or 30) default. Where a road is used frequently it's worth doing an RA to set a safe maximum other than the low default, but without an RA  it should be 30 max

GMBasix wrote:

Passing your test is, in practice, the pinnacle of our driving standard, and it should be the baseline.

The DVLA test pass is the statutory minimum standard of competence.

The HMSO Roadcraft book describes Best Practice as developed by the Police Road Traffic Division. Advanced Driving programs are available from organisations such as Brake or the Institute of Advanced Motoring (IAM) for those who wish to be more than competent.

Sadly once the DVLA test is passed, it is the personal responsibility of the driver to be aware of changes in the law and act accordingly. Clearly that falls far short of the minimum standard in practice.

A credible safety system would require regular testing, including obvious high risk events such as different vehicle types, as practiced by Commercial Aviation.

The concept of pricing for risk, as the insurance industry does, only addresses the value of property and not the value of people.

Testing every 10 years has been proposed but no politician has the courage to do that.

lonpfrb wrote:

The DVLA test pass is the statutory minimum standard of competence.

I wish that attitude was used in court cases for careless/dangerous driving. They should use an experienced driving test examiner to declare whether the driving would constitute a pass or fail on a driving test, and if they declare that it would be an instant fail, then the judge should instruct the jury (assuming not a magistrate's court) to return a guilty verdict.

lonpfrb wrote:

GMBasix wrote:

Passing your test is, in practice, the pinnacle of our driving standard, and it should be the baseline.

The DVLA test pass is the statutory minimum standard of competence.

The HMSO Roadcraft book describes Best Practice as developed by the Police Road Traffic Division. Advanced Driving programs are available from organisations such as Brake or the Institute of Advanced Motoring (IAM) for those who wish to be more than competent.

Sadly once the DVLA test is passed, it is the personal responsibility of the driver to be aware of changes in the law and act accordingly. Clearly that falls far short of the minimum standard in practice.

A credible safety system would require regular testing, including obvious high risk events such as different vehicle types, as practiced by Commercial Aviation.

The concept of pricing for risk, as the insurance industry does, only addresses the value of property and not the value of people.

Testing every 10 years has been proposed but no politician has the courage to do that.

When public mood is in that direction no courage required. It's merely a case of shifting the Overton window in the right direction, which as we saw with Brexit is perfectly possible in a short period of time. 

Again this will require vision, competence and resourcing, but most of all will.

The party that is currently in the position to be able to do it has little of the first 2, and have better uses for the 3rd (eg awarding it to pub landlords posing as PPE contractors).

The actual stopper in my view is the 4th. They don't have the will to overcome the motor industry lobby, even when the prize is fewer deaths, less pollution, and better quality of life for the electorate. It isn't even a consideration let alone a priority.

lonpfrb wrote:

The DVLA test pass is the statutory minimum standard of competence.

Well, quite. My point is that, while it is reflects the minimum required standard, it is the pinnacle of performance standard.

lonpfrb wrote:

Advanced Driving programs are available from organisations such as Brake or the Institute of Advanced Motoring (IAM) for those who wish to be more than competent.

I'm not a fan of driving software.  They use ot for the hazard perception tests, and I don't think it trains or assesses the right thinking.

lonpfrb wrote:

A credible safety system would require regular testing, including obvious high risk events such as different vehicle types, as practiced by Commercial Aviation.

A requirement for training, delivered in a less-than-cynical way would be a good start.  HGV/PCV drivers scoff at CPC training, and I am led to believe it is delivered with much the same vigour.  It would be good if courses were positivelty viewed and extended across all drivers.  I'm not convinced, at this point, that people living in repeated fear of losing their licence promotes a positive attitude to the process.  Commercial aviation practises a great many things that work in a different environment, including rewarding a professional attitude with a 'no blame, let's learn' approach in the first instance.  That's great for people who go to work knowing that their own mistakes could kill hundreds of people including themselves, but for people who treat driving car or truck as a right and a mundanity, there's a long way to go before the practices in aviation could be practised on the road.

lonpfrb wrote:

Testing every 10 years has been proposed but no politician has the courage to do that.

Yeah, for the reasons above and more, I don't think it will happen for a long time.  But training could happen (and it would be facilitate identifiable economic sector growth).

GMBasix wrote:

lonpfrb wrote:

Advanced Driving programs are available from organisations such as Brake or the Institute of Advanced Motoring (IAM) for those who wish to be more than competent.

I'm not a fan of driving software.  They use ot for the hazard perception tests, and I don't think it trains or assesses the right thinking.

Sorry for not being clear! By 'Driving programs' I don't mean software. Rather a programme of observation and guidance to develop the observation, understanding and critical thinking required to operate the Roadcraft system. I'm not allowed to call it Training because it legally is not that...

Rendel Harris wrote:

"Cyclists riding in groups can be impossible to deal with."

What's "impossible" about driving behind them until there's a safe legal opportunity to pass?

Motorists driving in groups can be impossible to deal with too, unless you choose a slimmer form of transport and just overtake them because there is actually enough road space as long as you don't require side-by-side seating.

Well, they're feeling so boxed in, in their- er - two tonne sofa-carrying boxes...

brooksby wrote:

Well, they're feeling so boxed in, in their- er - two tonne sofa-carrying boxes...

It's so difficult moving these two tonne sofas around with these "narrow" country lanes. If only there was a better way...

Rendel Harris wrote:

"Cyclists riding in groups can be impossible to deal with."

What's "impossible" about driving behind them until there's a safe legal opportunity to pass?

To answer your first sentence see your 2nd....

Edit: to be clear, many drivers find it "impossible" to drive safely.

I am frequently that "lone cyclist stubbornly claiming his/her space" on a rural road (i.e. I am not David Copperfield and I cannot just disappear because someone wants me to), but as I see it the main problem drivists have getting past me is the constant stream of drivists travelling in the other direction, meaning they wouldn't be able to overtake anything else of similar speed such as a tractor.

When I am driving on the same rural roads, does it feel really slow following a cyclist? Yes. Does it subjectively feel like it is delaying my journey? Yes. Is there anything the cyclist is doing as a fellow road user that justifies aggression, abuse and dangerous driving? Absolutely not.

Yes, it is rather galling when the one "stubbornly claiming" the least amount of space is deemed - by those wasting the most amount of space - to be the problem.

Sriracha wrote:

Yes, it is rather galling when the one "stubbornly claiming" the least amount of space is deemed - by those wasting the most amount of space - to be the problem.

A credible safety culture requires taking responsibility for own actions or omissions as a first step.

On the Crossrail programme we had multiple sites with more than one million hours worked with no injuries. Everyone has the right to go home after their days work.
That intent came from the stakeholders so became a mandatory requirement for all involved.

Where is that intent on the road?

#VisionZero

SimoninSpalding wrote:

I am frequently that "lone cyclist stubbornly claiming his/her space" on a rural road

When I am driving on the same rural roads, does it feel really slow following a cyclist? Yes. Does it subjectively feel like it is delaying my journey? Yes. Is there anything the cyclist is doing as a fellow road user that justifies aggression, abuse and dangerous driving? Absolutely not.

In the face of Chinese Communist Party aggression HM Government directs the Royal Navy to conduct Freedom of Navigation in International waters so as to confirm that right to free passage.

That "lone cyclist stubbornly claiming his/her space" is conducting Freedom of Navigation for vulnerable road users everywhere on our motor vehicle entitled streets.

The data shows that more cycling improves road safety. Long may that continue...

ktache wrote:

C'mon Reading!

C'mon Tim!