The parents of a “strong and experienced” cyclist, killed in a collision with a vehicle being driven at a “deadly” Glasgow junction, have called for all political parties to support the adoption of “best-practice infrastructure” as well as other safety measures to better protect cyclists.
Emma Burke Newman, a 22-year-old student, was killed while cycling in the Scottish city earlier this year, with the investigation into her death still ongoing. Now, in “our first political action”, her parents Rose Marie and John have offered support to Pedal on Parliament, a campaign that organises a ride to the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood to call for proper funding and infrastructure to make cycling accessible for all.
Ultimately aiming “to make Scotland a cycle-friendly country”, Pedal on Parliament’s 2023 event takes place this Saturday with the ride in Glasgow and other parts of the country.
Writing in a blog post published through Pedal on Parliament, Emma’s parents said the symbolism of their daughter’s death, a young rider “devoted to making cities safer and more beautiful for all”, is “terribly searing”.
“She cycled everywhere in the much bigger cities of Paris, London, and Berlin. But, only three months into living in Scotland, she was roadkill at that deadly junction, as if the world were saying, no, you cannot. Not now.
“Instead, we must. We, her parents, feel compelled to push Scotland ahead, to make roads safer for everyone. It seems that society has accepted death and serious injury as a cost of getting from point A to B? We don’t accept that. Had Emma lived, she would have made safer travel her life’s work. Since she has not, we are taking on the mantle. It will help us of our grief, to ensure that her death was not in vain.
“Although we are still in mourning, we have decided to support Pedal on Parliament as our first political action. We are demanding ‘No Backpedalling.’ Scotland has great plans and the budget for active travel. Now it must deliver, without stalling. Given that the country is a decade or more behind, there is no time to lose – only more lives to be lost.
“We urge all parties to support and adopt best-practice infrastructure, identification and remediation of dangerous hotspots, enforcement of current rules and regulations (using dash-cam video to catch lawbreakers) and improved safety standards for heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). Not to mention education and a shift in attitudes.
> Round-the-world cyclist Mark Beaumont leads Pedal on Parliament protest ride
“Actually, Scotland’s needs for active travel have been well articulated for years. The foot-dragging needs to stop, right now. In Glasgow, we are heartened that politicians and stakeholders will meet soon to discuss road safety and hope that they can go further to develop an action plan.”
While noting the investigation into the collision of January 27 is “still ongoing”, Emma’s parents insist “our daughter would be alive today” if “the proper infrastructure existed to separate cycles from HGVs and buses”.
“There is more than enough space at the intersection where Emma died to accommodate every traveller. There is more than enough space, we just have to commit to making it safe for all who use it,” they continued.
“What happened at this junction, we realise, is one case, but also an object lesson pointing to the need for long overdue progress to improve the safety of Scottish roads.”
More information and full details of this weekend’s event can be found on Pedal on Parliament’s website…





















70 thoughts on ““Society has accepted death as a cost of getting from A to B”: Parents of young cyclist killed in collision call for change”
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak –
[I]Prime Minister Rishi Sunak – who pledged to ban smart motorways during his leadership campaign – said “all [b]drivers[/b] deserve to have confidence in the roads they use to get around the country”.[/i]
A cyclist, you say? Sorry, only drivers deserve such consideration, according to the man at the top.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65288852
I don’t disagree about the
I don’t disagree about the overall attitude, but when he’s talking specifically about motorways “drivers” is a reasonable word to describe the people using them. Selective and out-of-context quotations are enough of a problem without “our” side resorting to them too.
Yeah, I did consider that,
Except I did not quote “out of context”. I did consider the context, and did not disguise it in the quote, leaving the context apparent. However I judged his meaning in “the roads they use to get around the country” to be broader in application than just the motorway network. I felt he was taking the smart motorway issue as a particular example within the general context of unacceptable transport infrastructure, whilst ignoring the perspective of non-motorised transport using the same infrastructure.
I don’t think he was deliberate in his exclusion of cyclists’ peril – it is just symptomatic of the blindness towards the needs of non-motorised transport by those who set the general direction of things.
the whole issue with smart
the whole issue with smart motorways being the lack of smarts of most of the drivers using them.
that people blindly drive into stationary vehicles and insist its the road thats causing the problem, tells you all you need to know about the UKs attitude towards driving.
Awavey wrote:
Yes. The difficulty about “attitude” here though is that while most would agree that “humans are fallible” we both overestimate our own abilities (driving / cycling) and also overestimate our abilities to judge the abilities (or not) of others. And we (mostly) all get treated as competent adults for voting purposes and once we’ve passed the driving test.
Sadly it goes beyond just “no-one cares about cyclists”. Everything beyond the car is a non-issue for many. I was surprised to find some parents objecting to making the street outside a school a no-through road (during Covid-era times). (They lived on that street – but maybe their children didn’t go to that school.)
“Society has accepted death
“Society has accepted death as a cost of getting from A to B”
Indeed, and if the death and injury toll from driving was from any other cause, it would be banned immediately until it had been made safe.
Fairly hyperbolic considering
Fairly hyperbolic considering that cycling is only 3rd in terms of fatalities per passenger mile.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/300601/average-number-of-fatalities-according-to-transport-in-the-united-kingdom/
And yet there is no mention
And yet there is no mention of cycling in the quote……
Think you’re off base with the hyperbolic point. Dying on the roads is a tacitly accepted cost of getting from A to B regardless of transport.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
And yet there is no mention of cycling in the quote……
Think you’re off base with the hyperbolic point. Dying on the roads is a tacitly accepted cost of getting from A to B regardless of transport.— ShutTheFrontDawes
Perhaps I misconstrued eburt’s comment. Apologies if I did I assumed they meant that cycling specifically would be banned.
ShutTheFrontDawes][quote
Perhaps I misconstrued eburt’s comment. Apologies if I did I assumed they meant that cycling specifically would be banned.— ShutTheFrontDawes
you assumed this
meant that cycling would be banned? were you deliberately misconstruing the point?
1800 road deaths per year, only 100 are cyclists
wycombewheeler]
[quote
I wasn’t deliberately misconstruing the point, no. I was reading eburt’s post having read the article, which I don’t know if you’ve noticed talks specifically about making cycling safer, not all modes of transport.
But at least I can apologise when I get something wrong, unlike you and your “facts”.
I agree, I think this is
I agree, I think this is about having a “vision zero” approach to road usage.
No mention of cyclists in the
No mention of cyclists in the post you quote.
Road deaths run at about 1,800 a year in the UK, and very little is done to address this. Dangerous junctions are not routinely improved. Dangerous drivers ae not banned from the roads. Restrictions on motor vehicles are not required.
E-bikes and e-scooters are so dangerous they have to be speed limited, yet new cars can be sold which can travel at 150mph, and only the drivers concience is apparently required to limit that.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Aren’t we supposed to believe that cycling is so safe that we don’t need to wear helmets? I’m sure someone on here told me that you’re more likely to die falling in the shower. I’m confused.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Cycling is a relatively safe activity, but the issue is that it often takes place on public roads and there’s a certain percentage of drivers that are incompetent and/or malicious. You may wish to wear a helmet to protect against these drivers, but it’s not particularly recommended as cycle helmets aren’t tested or designed to withstand high speed collisions. There’s plenty of other ways that we as a society can improve the safety of roads and they are a lot more effective than slapping a thin bit of foam on your head.
hawkinspeter]
[quote
It is recommended. You might want to check the highway code. It may not protect against all collisions, but that is not a good reason to pretend they’re of no benefit.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
You’re still pushing that agenda.
I did not say that they are of no benefit, but it is foolish to think that they are any meaningful part of reducing road danger. PPE has its place, but it should be way down the list and it’s far better to avoid a collision in the first place.
It’s counter-productive to keep talking about bike helmets as they’re most successful in persuading people to not cycle and sedentary illnesses are a bigger problem than the small number of cyclist collisions. If you want to get people cycling which benefits individuals and society, then it’s best to focus on the dangerous drivers which also benefits pedestrians. It’s notable that you don’t seem to be singing the benefits of pedestrian helmets as you probably realise that it’s a ridiculous proposition.
I’m still pushing an agenda?
I’m still pushing an agenda? That’s a laugh coming from someone that keeps spouting about helmets being ‘not recommended’ and useless for something they’re not even designed for. Talk about a chucking rocks at a straw man.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Well, you’re the one bringing up the topic of bike helmets in almost every discussion. It’s a distraction from the actual issues and doesn’t reduce the chance of being involved in a collision.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Well, you’re the one bringing up the topic of bike helmets in almost every discussion. It’s a distraction from the actual issues and doesn’t reduce the chance of being involved in a collision.— ShutTheFrontDawes
I brought up helmets because of what I’ve been told on here in the past. About cycling being so safe we don’t need to wear helmets, with examples of other activities being more dangerous.
Plainly cycling can’t be both very safe and also very dangerous.
As you know (having said you
As you know (having said you’ve some health and safety expertise) – different kinds of protection. Helmets also don’t make cycling feel much safer for most people (or at least not safe enough they’ll hop onto a bike in traffic) and don’t make it more convenient. Nor do they make journeys faster / more efficient (except possibly for some of those questionable ones used in some parts of the sport for enhancing streamlining).
Remind me again why we’re back in EC1V 3QJ?
chrisonatrike wrote:
I brought it up (more fool me) as I’m sick and tired of hearing that cycling is very safe one minute and very dangerous the next.
Helmets also apparently don’t make people feel safer (as per your post), but eburt says they make people feel so much safer they take extra risks to the point that they’re actually more likely to have a head injury when wearing one.
I feel like people just make stuff up as they go to fit their own agenda, even when making directly contradictory statements.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
(If you’ll allow me) Oh no we don’t!
I think that’s a fair observation of people.
On the actual point I don’t entirely see a contradiction here. Of course I’m now speculating airily* but if you are not (for whatever reason) minded to ride on the roads I’m pretty sure the offer of a helmet won’t tempt you. OTOH If you have already crossed that decision rubicon and you’re about to get on a bike then doing something associated with “safety” may make you feel a lot more confident.
* Perhaps there is an actual study in existence…? I’m sure I recall hearing of something like this from the University of Westminster. I’m sure eburtthebike would have heard of it if so!
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
This is the wrong article to have a helmet debate on. Just look at the scene of the collision. It’s clear that a helmet would be irrelevant and the dangerous thing is not the bicycle. This poor woman was crushed by a 26-ton tipper truck.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-64452187
She was crushed under the
She was crushed under the wheels of a 4-axle 32T truck with a specification for off road use – & the driver carried on for 53 metres before a passer by flagged him down to stop becuase he’d not even noticed hitting the victim
Those are some of the questions to start asking
Again, we are talking about
Again, we are talking about cars being dangerous, why are you trying to conflate that to cyclists?
I may well have stated that walking 5km is at least as risky as cycling 5km, and yet only one of these needs a helmet. In both cases the source of the risk is uncontrolled cars.
The fact remains that if 1,800 deaths a year were being caused by something other than motor vehicles, action would be taken.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Because I’ve read the above article. Have you?
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
You may well have read it, but as has been proven beyond doubt and admitted by yourself, your understanding leaves a great deal to be desired.
wycombewheeler wrote:
I wouldn’t disagree – and I think the largest factors are the special cultural place of driving, the fact that mass motoring is several generations old and essentially baked in and the large numbers for whom this is “normality”. That’s without mentioning the money involved in maintaining this.
However an awful lot of driving is going on – more than many activities. Perhaps we should put that figure in the broader context. The latest figures from the Mortality Profile from the OHID show (some examples from deaths not due to disease):
Mortality, all causes (2021): 549,349
Infant mortality (2019 – 21): 7,036
Smoking-attributable mortality (2017-19): 191,903
Death from drug misuse (2018-20): 8,185
Suicide (2019 – 21): 15,447
You might argue that the
You might argue that the tobacco industry or drugs pushers partly caused 200k of the 549k, but there’s a big element of personal choice and personal risk-taking there.
Drivers are very fond of arguing “cars will be cars – the rest of you take the risk” – oh no we fucking don’t – cars perpetrate those dangers and inflict them upon us – I just want to breathe clean air and get to where I’m going safely as though that’s not (a) normal (b) too much to ask?
wycombewheeler wrote:
I love it when people start with “the fact is” or similar. You’re guaranteed to get something patently false.
Smoking and alcohol use would both have to go through radical change to get death rates as low as that.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
The fact remains that if 1,800 deaths a year were being caused by something other than motor vehicles, action would be taken.
— ShutTheFrontDawes I love it when people start with “the fact is” or similar. You’re guaranteed to get something patently false. Smoking and alcohol use would both have to go through radical change to get death rates as low as that.— wycombewheeler
could you imagine if 1800 people a year were dying due to misuse of ovens? and the response was “well people need to cook food, what can you do”?
There would be an investigation into the causes of the accidents and safety measures introduced to prevent re-occurance.
52 people died in the 7/7 bombings in London and there was a massive increase in counter terrorist operations and measures, that would be a quiet month for road deaths, because the 1800 are just accepted as the necesary cost of moving people and stuff around.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Lol. You can’t even admit that your “fact” is complete BS. Fantastic whataboutery on the oven front. Bravo.
several posters wrote wrote:
And no mention of helmets before your post either.
I’m a bit confused about what point you’re making (unless you’ve just seen eburtthebike and are automatically assuming helmet row?). I understood eburtthebike’s point to relate to much of the danger when getting about without a motor vehicle to be due to the presence of motor vehicles – and that as the article says we might not accept the level of deaths in other sectors.
Statistically use of any transport mode in the UK is very safe (compared to rest of world). Unfortunately this is partly due to “driving non-motorised / lower-energy modes off the roads”. FWIW according to analysis here in terms of numbers unsuprisingly cars are doing most of the killing and most of those dying are pedestrians – makes sense since pedestrians are the most numerous vulnerable road users.
chrisonatrike wrote:
And no mention of helmets before your post either.
I’m a bit confused about what point you’re making (unless you’ve just seen eburtthebike and are automatically assuming helmet row?). I understood eburtthebike’s point to relate to much of the danger when getting about without a motor vehicle to be due to the presence of motor vehicles – and that as the article says we might not accept the level of deaths in other sectors.
Statistically use of any transport mode in the UK is very safe (compared to rest of world). Unfortunately this is partly due to “driving non-motorised / lower-energy modes off the roads”. FWIW according to analysis here in terms of numbers unsuprisingly cars are doing most of the killing and most of those dying are pedestrians – makes sense since pedestrians are the most numerous vulnerable road users.— several posters wrote
I’m not really making a point. I just don’t know whether cycling is so dangerous we should be demanding instant reform or so safe we don’t need to wear helmets.
What level of safety is considered ‘acceptable’?
~20 deaths per billion miles traveled (for cyclists) seems pretty low to me. In commercial air travel, 1 catastrophic failure (which could result in hundreds of deaths) per billion flying hours is considered the ‘acceptable’ level as set by EASA and FAA through CS 25.1309 and 14 CFR 25.1309.
So while I haven’t done a conversion from time to distance (not sure how I would), it seems that numbers are comparable.
I’m not surprised that someone whose daughter has just died would be far less tolerant of death than the average person – I would be too, I just don’t know where we should set the bar. Vision Zero is a fairy tale and it’s treated as such.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
It should be treated as a target or aspiration. Whilst I agree that zero deaths may be unachievable, we can at least improve the current situation and it’s as much a mindset to deal with road danger in a far more serious manner – hopefully taking in safety practices from other industries.
hawkinspeter wrote:
It should be treated as a target or aspiration. Whilst I agree that zero deaths may be unachievable, we can at least improve the current situation and it’s as much a mindset to deal with road danger in a far more serious manner – hopefully taking in safety practices from other industries.— ShutTheFrontDawes
In terms of deaths per distance, the UK has around 4 deaths per billion vehicle kilometres. It’s pretty low compared to many other countries, including neighbours and other first world countries like France.
The picture seems far better than many seem to imply.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
None of that is a good reason to not want to do better though.
Also, often forgotten are the deaths caused by air pollution from vehicles which is a big problem in high population areas (e.g. illegal levels in Bristol).
hawkinspeter wrote:
None of that is a good reason to not want to do better though.
Also, often forgotten are the deaths caused by air pollution from vehicles which is a big problem in high population areas (e.g. illegal levels in Bristol).— ShutTheFrontDawes
But it is a good reason to avoid hyperbolic and false (albeit emotive) statements like “if the death and injury toll from driving was from any other cause, it would be banned immediately until it had been made safe.”
Something is done about road safety. We have (some) police enforcement. We have (reasonably good and widespread) road signage. We have (mostly approriate) speed limits throughout the country. We have (a degree of) driver competence testing. We have (a degree of) testing for vehicle roadworthiness.
To imply that nothing is done about road safety, or even that road safety is really low, is misleading. Often deliberately so.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
However, there is a clear difference between how traffic deaths are treated and reported and other causes of death.
The motor industry has previously colluded to change how collisions are reported and pushed for the use of language such as “accident” to reduce the agency of the driver. Luckily, we didn’t go all-in on the victim blaming laws on “jay-walking” that they managed to get introduced in the U.S. and other countries.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Indeed. And to imply that “nothing more can be done” would also be a bit misleading – there is likely some “low hanging fruit” in terms of just enforcing the existing laws a bit more vigourously (with side benefits of picking up unrelated criminality / detecting drivers who are not physically fit to drive).
Again looking more broadly (e.g. in terms of “population health”) I think the idea that because we are indeed (IIRC) one of the safest places overall (see e.g. WHO report)* for “road safety” we can put this issue to bed now can also be questioned. I would agree than by doing “the same, but more so” we may not get much further. Unless we can get rid of the remaining cyclists and discourage more people from walking anywhere (or standing on the footway).
* Apparently behind Swizerland, Sweden, and Norway in terms of medium to large populations – 2018 report. Some very small places or with very few / no motor vehicles, few roads do better.
Just to drive into one
Just to drive into one particular part of that “just enforcing the existing laws a bit more vigourously”. Do you know how much that would cost and what the benefit would be? Let’s say for example that we increased the funding for road policing by a factor of ten. How much would that cost and how many deaths would be prevented?
Would it be an effective use of funds, compared to, for example mental health spending (to pick an example from thin air).
I don’t know. Do you?
Since we both have no idea
“Effective” for what? If we’re talking about mental health or policing then of course more than just “death and injury” start to enter in. Expectations about quality of life, feeling of security etc.
Anyway, since we both have no idea (and don’t know what we don’t know) it’s good that neither of us are making a point.
Any change has costs and benefits. Continuing to do the same thing is also a choice and should be evaluated also. As a heutistic – pending detailed evaluation – it seems sensible to me to look at changes which might have benefits beyond just the bottom line of “KSIs reduced per time per pound spent”. Otherwise just arresting smokers / forcing the sedentary to run laps might win on numbers. (That kind of intervention might lead to some feeling that the country had become less of a pleasant place to live in also).
For example on the policing side I mentioned – because the police themselves do – that when engaging in road policing (say a close pass operation) they commonly find a collection of other offenses.
Is getting them to do more this kind of thing more cost-effective than no change? In terms of “KSIs” maybe not, in terms of preventing crime this might look good. Or if it’s the Met police – it might just lead to more accusations of police targetting women or minorities…
Indeed! It’s certainly not a
Indeed! It’s certainly not a simple as ‘anything this dangerous would be banned if it were anything else’.
It may well be that AI is the
It may well be that AI is the answer to a lot of the cost issues though. It can sift through far more data than a human ever can. If you put all the banned drivers and drivers with only provisionbal license into it’s memory and then ran all the existing CCTV through it it could presumably identify many more offenders (of that and other offenses) than a traffic cop trawling the streets.
The question is more about would there be a political will to do that or would it just be “a tax on drivers” or “killing the economy”.
The truth is that more can be done very easily. Take for example the idea, often floated on here, that drivers are required to do an online course every so many years. If you charged them for it then it might well be self funding and probably a drop in the ocean when compared to the cost of running a car.
There’s absolutely no practical reason why encouraging (make it easy for) road users to submit footage and no reason why that wouldn’t be self funding again. I’ve had about 10 drivers doing courses based on my footage in the last 6 months. At nearly £100 a pop that’s got to be more income than resources used. If it’s not change it.
AI being the answer to such
AI being the answer to such issues is like ‘nuclear fusion’ being the answer to global mass consumption. A great idea in theory.
With the advent of ChatGPT there have been some interesting recent advances (to use the term fairly loosely) in AI. Like fusion, the solution remains ineffective.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
I agree. ChatGPT is very good at certain tasks, but as it’s been trained on lots of stuff that humans have written, it shares a lot of our prejudices and currently it suffers from “hallucinations” where it makes stuff up. It can certainly be used as an assistive tool though to speed up tasks that people currently do.
The biggest problem with trying to use AI for any kind of law enforcement is that it’ll likely be quite racist, so will need checks in place to prevent it being abusive.
I think this is the point. AI
I think this is the point. AI, unlike fusion, is being used by the police already. The issue is how far and how we check it.
https://pwc.blogs.com/publicsectormatters/2019/10/making-the-most-of-ai-and-new-technology-for-policing.html
hawkinspeter wrote:
Schumacher family planning legal action over AI ‘interview’ with F1 great
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/apr/20/schumacher-family-planning-legal-action-over-ai-interview-with-f1-great
brooksby wrote:
I think that’s more a problem with bad journalism. The journalists could easily have just made up the interview themselves and published it with only a brief mention at the bottom that it was fabricated, but they just happened to use AI to make up the interview.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
this is true, and we are only at a quarter of the road deaths per capita of the USA (1/20th the deaths, 1/5 the population). But I’m not sure that other countries are worse makes those lives any more expendible.
I think the driver training and testing standards in this country are higher than many places and this is mainly what we lean on for road safety, because the level of police enforcement is frankly laughable.
All the measures you describe are what result in 1800 deaths a year, to reduce that figure we need further measures, but that level of deaths is tolerated, there is no discussion on what further measures we need to drive that number down.
Vision zero is common in most workplaces, if there were 1800 deaths a year in industrial accidents in factories or on farms severe sanctions would be imposed by the HSE. But being able to drive cars around at any speed is almost a sacrosanct right.
(Construction 30, agriculture 22, manufacturing 22 deaths/year)
New cars are allowed to be sold with top speeds far in excess of the national speed limit, the technology exists to speed limit vehicles but there is no appetite to even discuss mandating this. Drivers will allegedly need to have the option to go faster to “get out of trouble” but this evasive action requirement is not present for vulnerable road users on e-scooters.
wycombewheeler wrote:
It seems back-to-front to have speed restrictions on e-bikes and e-scooters that are relatively lightweight and yet no speed restricions on the 2 tonne cars etc.
as we all know on here, there
as we all know on here, there are lots of things we could do to make cars a lot safer for people outside the car – halving the number of cars/ mîles would be a start, as would a black box in every car that prevents ANY abuse – but we don’t do the black boxes because we have somehow decided that it is more important that drivers are allowed to have their fun and to take reckless chances with our lives and property.
David9694 wrote:
“We” have decided nothing about the conditions that have come about allowing motorised transport to go about murdering & maiming at high levels, world-wide.
For a start, there is no homogenised single “we” all having an aligned ability to adopt the same belief and associated actions at any particular moment. There are thousands of different and highly unaligned attitudes and behaviours about how cars et al can or should be driven. Many of these attitudes are now hard-wired into millions of drivers. (And other, opposing, attitudes hard-wired into cyclists).
Which highlights the second illustration of the fact that “we” have not decided anything: humans are controlled by ideas, not the other way about. We are infected (“possesed” may be a better term) by notions and attitudes that are installed by powerful outside agencies within the various cultural soups wherein we swim. Human agents may propagate these attitudes (via adverts and other mass media organs of persuasion) but it’s the ideas themselves that are actually doing the controlling, including the puppeting of the humans broadcasting them as well as the humans performing them.
Ask yourself why the world is stuffed to the brim with zillions of humans performing all sorts of self and other-harming actions. Are we doing so out of sheer peversity, freely chosen? Seems unlikely. We seem to be possesed by what that Dawkins called “memeplexes” – a seprate evolving set of metaphysical entities (religions, ideologies, beliefs, conspiracy theories etc.) that only need we physical containers (our big brains) as hosts.
These memeplexes can be parasitic and don’t care about the welfare of their hosts, only about their own survival. Off we go to war with some other humans infected with competing parasitic memeplexes. One such war is the current “motorist vs cyclists”. Perhaps it’s really “car designs vs bicycle designs”? 🙂
There is no “us” – maybe.
There is no “us” – maybe. But then – is there even an I?
Ooh, memetics! Always interesting but I’ve not kept up. What if any *predictive* power does that have? Also – while employed in practice by those with something to sell I’m unclear what exactly this brings to the argument. Is it possible to practice memeplex hygiene, or cultivate certain ones over others? Or is this just a post-facto analysis for what happened, because there is no-one in control of anything?
I think in most other
I think in most other circumstances an unexpected death is taken more seriously than on the roads. Even in hospitals, where many deaths are to be expected, they are continuously looking at statistics and taking action to reduce risk and even take action against NHS trusts that underperform. This does not happen to any great degree on the roads, I think if it did we wouldn’t be arguing about speed limits, we would be following the evidence that 20mph reduces critical injuries and fatalities. If that’s wrong then you can always reverse it.
I too have some qualms about vision zero in that targets should be achievable and time limited*. So better target setting would help but you also have to apportion responsibility for those targets (it has to be multi-agency).
Incidentally, I am targeting a lot of my close pass submissions this year on two roads near my home that I ride regularly. My (forlorn) hope/thinking is that statistically these will look like hot spots and therefore warrant further attention. To my way of thinking that’s how it should work.
*surely the big problem with climate change targets.
IanMK wrote:
Road and Covid deaths seem to be deemed an acceptable cost to society in the UK at the moment (and Rest of World tbf)
Secret_squirrel wrote:
well considering the global economy (including the UK) was practically stopped for COVID while the economy has always taken precedence over the impending climate consequences of fossil fuels, I would disagree with part of that statement.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Fair enough, it’s the internet…
That’s a good question – and not one that people like framing, never mind considering. Bit like NICE etc. have to make funding choices. Then someone with an emotional connection to the subject will frame this as “you’re deciding how many people should die / should suffer when there is a possibility they could not!”
I think there’s a bigger point is not just “are x deaths acceptable” (so let’s argue about x). After all as you say most people just aren’t fussed – until it hits them (see RoadPeace‘s commendable efforts to try to challenge this). And as things get safer this won’t happen to most people.
More broadly I think we’ve not got the balance right – this activity needs “taming”. We’re getting too many communal problems for the mostly private benefits. Motoring costs everyone money (including non-drivers) and is a massive consumer of resources (including public space). It has a slew of issues: suppression of other transport modes, its space-inefficiency leads to congestion / gridlock, it’s noisy, by encouraging hypermobility it can “kill places” at least as much as it facilitates people getting to others. And it literally kills people.
It’s not as snappy – and is more complicated – but “sustainable safety” please. That goes way beyond what – to me – sometimes appears more of a slogan for protest. It’s about how to facilitate the safe and pleasant movement of people, not vehicles. Paying due attention to human nature it takes a set of principles and then derives the more detailed plans and policies from them. And it’s been tested for some decades…
ShutTheFrontDawes][quote
And yet you spend so much time and effort endlessly not making it.
The way I look at it is if as
The way I look at it is if as many people who died on the roads each year in the UK died in UK airline crashes or died in UK rail crashes, the public & government wouldn’t stand for it one bit there’s quite rightly zero tolerance to any death using those forms of transport.
But on average 5 people will die today on our roads, as they do every day, they probably wont get mentioned on the news bulletins, so its absolutely become something alot of people, society as a whole, just accept as a cost to driving.
Awavey wrote:
I’m not going to presume what society would or wouldn’t accept in practice regarding those other transport methods. What I do know is that ‘good enough’ in aviation is 1 catastrophic failure per billion flying hours. The actual achieved rate is far better. But when it appears that the target is not being met (e.g. Boeing 737 MAX-8), action is taken.
Available statistics suggest that there are ~4 deaths per billion km traveled in the UK. The question is that good enough? I think it seems reasonable personally, especially compared to some countries, who have far higher rates of death.
And it’s unfair to say that society doesn’t care about road deaths. They’re reported in statistics and in the media when they are severe or unusual. And coroners can and do make rulings to reduce the chance of future deaths/injury.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
or about 1 incident per 900billion km,
or 1 death per 250million km. That’s quite a large factor less safe
but those are stats about
but those are stats about whether a mode of transport is safe to use or not, and Im not really debating that aspect, trains and planes have those kinds of stats because we actually decided not to accept that using them just results in people becoming KSI stats.
More people wouldn’t fly –
More people wouldn’t fly – plenty don’t as it is – if air travel seemed unsafe for them. You’re helpless if there is a mid air calamity – maybe the element of control (and being on the ground) with a car makes a difference to people’s perceptions of risk.
I don’t leave the house worrying that a ‘plane will fall on me, but I do worry – don’t we all to some extent – about being killed or injured by a driver. I worry even more when the ambulances, junior doctors or nurses are on strike or when the hospitals were full of Covid. I carry one of those foil survival bags.
All of us are conditioned to live with and internalise that ever-present threat from drivers – e.g. the parents of the small children in my little road on their little balance bikes always ready to whisk them out of the way of the neighbours who – despite knowing that these or local cats still are probably around – drive too fast.
It comes down to this: those notices on lorries “if you can’t see my mirrors, I can’t see you” – thanks, but this is my problem how?
Check out this document that
Check out this document that puts it all in perspective,
https://www.pacts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/PACTS-What-kills-most-on-the-roads-Report-15.0.pdf
What Kills most on the roads report from PACTS.
Drivers should have a box of
Drivers should have a box of tissues ready for when they see how Road death statistics look now
Also
Also
All true but of course we’re
All true but of course we’re also interested in rates – eg. those charts corrected by something like number of that mode. What’s the risk to cyclists from cars per car? Or better broken down by the type of road (motorway, urban A road vs. rural A road etc). That’s to help better direct efforts to change things and predict what to address as things change.
The latter is not simple though because for eg. increasing the modal share of cycling something dramatic has to change – and the only places this *has* happened (outside of “the fuel ran out”) its come about through a substantial transformation of the infrastructure and indeed law. So while the previous stats are the best you’ve got the situation is now different.
Fortunately we have some other places who’ve trialled this already we can study…
Driving is not a right it is
Driving is not a right it is a privilege, and the punishments for driving offences should reflect that. There are a significant number of drivers in the UK who have poor driving skills, and a significant number who just don’t care.
Road policing is frankly piss poor, and the punishments when a driving is actually convicted of something are just as bad.