No helmets, no problem: how the Dutch created a casual biking culture

JohnnyRemo wrote:

Change is coming, but not from where we think. Driver-less cars will require segregation  - not cos they're a danger - the opposite. "Drivers" will not accept having to constantly slow/stop 'cos their car gets too close to other road users. Ww won't need strict liability with AI - (as long as Asimov's Three Laws apply!)

It's actually four laws, the 'zeroth law'. Latterly defined in words by Daneel R Olivaw (though the original concept is Susan Calvin's) it's actually more important and really applicable to the roads/driving/cycling/walking.

"A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm"

So with the likes of Mercedes already stating they would programme their self driving vehicles to sacrifice innocent people to protect their vehicles occupants in a situation could not be a thing if the AI is respecting the zeroth law. Because as we have seen over history, protecting a few inside the motors has had a far worse effect on individuals and society as a whole, not just directly on the road itself through collisions.

John Smith wrote:

Strict liability would be a terrible idea. From a purly selfesh point of view I could see it mostly being used by pedestrians walking out in the road without looking. How often do cyclists have people not notice them and walk out int he road? Presumed liability is a diffrent matter and could help if it was part of wide range of other changes. Far more important for me is:

Education of the public. Mass education to all types of road users on many subjects. Not just cycling, but also on things like not sitting in the middle lane, not pulling out of junctions dangerously. I'm not someone who thinks that the standard of driving in the UK is poor. All the data shows that we have some of the best and safest roads in the world. However there is more to be done, and a simple, well designed, road safty campain could do wonders. One subject at a time, and we could start with cycling, but look at what the "Clunk Click Every Time" did for seatbelts and the drink driving ones did. Lets do the same for other things. Personaly I would start with close passes, as it is an easy one to do, easy to enforce, and would do a lot of good to encorage cycling.

Education of the powers that be. Ensure that people in local govenment planning, both elected and employed, understand the needs of cyclists. Not just have a pamphlet and some guidelines that they ignore with no consequence, but proper education. There are 418 councils in the UK. Put together some sort of education tour to visit every council in the UK (Several at a time) to talk to them about the work.

Infrastructure. Unless brexit or Trump does start WW3 we are not going to get the wide boulevards of the Netherlands in most UK cities, but there needs to be much more to be done. Linked to the above, we need proper thought about infrastructure and it needs to be maintained to the same level as roads.

Seas of pedestrians being able to just walk across streets in city centres, rather than having to wait for a few single-occupancy cars carrying lazy, entitled shits to their offices. I'd buy that for a dollar.

I'm right behind your suggestions. Thing is, we're trying them, aren't we... we have been , for a while, haven't we... and are we there yet? Are we anywhere near there yet? Any idea when we will get there?

Of course we need proper education, and proper infrastructure, but they're all long-term, win-by-a-thousand-cuts-if-at-all approaches.

We need something to jolt the culture. It's a blunt instrument, far from perfect, but strict liability is the *only* thing I can see that would do that - in one go. And that's the key. Maybe if we rigged everything to get Chris Boardman in as PM... that might work. But we know, realistically, we'll still be talking education and infrastructure with our grandkids.

We're not going to organically reach Stop de Kindermoord. They didn't in the Netherlands; they had noisy campaigns led by people who thought like adults and who were ready to exploit child deaths to further their cause. The vast majority of the UK population isn't ready to be educated about obesity rates, NHS funding, driving causing pollution and shortening lives, and cycling doing the opposite (a few consecutive days earlier this year had all those headlines, and not even politicians joined the dots between them. Nudging isn't working. Twatting with a blunt instrument can't do any worse). We're not going to win hearts and minds via the 2% of the population that regularly cycles, and we're not going to get to critical mass as long as most people are petrified of going out on a bike. 'We' are pretty far from everyone. Strict liability would appear to give redress to those who think the biggest threat to humanity is pavement cyclists; an antidote to the moral panic about out-of-control bikers is a campaign the Daily Heil could get behind. Everyone is a pedestrian at some point, and there's our route to critical mass.

As for drawbacks...? I'm betting you've been to other European countries. Were peds chucking themselves under bikes, cars or trams in any of those (there's us, Romania, Malta and Ireland as the only countries in the EU that don't have some sort of liability. Exalted company indeed.)? No, because it doesn't reverse physics or stop pain. All it does is rebalance the equation - a bit.

davel wrote:

Seas of pedestrians being able to just walk across streets in city centres, rather than having to wait for a few single-occupancy cars carrying lazy, entitled shits to their offices. I'd buy that for a dollar.

I'm not talking about anything changing in behavior, I'm talking about legal changes. I would bet it would make little diffrence to drivers, because, as you say, physics. Where it would hurt would be incidents like the e-bike crash in the news now and Kim Briggs. No more arguing. If no CCTV appears cyclist at fault. I'm not saying pedestrians will walk out more, but that we will see lots of cyclists ending up paying for hitting pedestrians that walk out without looking where as now it is 50/50 unless proven otherwise.

davel wrote:

I'm right behind your suggestions. Thing is, we're trying them, aren't we... we have been , for a while, haven't we... and are we there yet? Are we anywhere near there yet? Any idea when we will get there?

Of course we need proper education, and proper infrastructure, but they're all long-term, win-by-a-thousand-cuts-if-at-all approaches.

Not in any serious way. Half arsed attempts to publish a few posters and planning guidence with zero comback when builders decide that they have run out of money before they had time to include the cycle parking or infrastructure, but have managed to finish the lovely new multistory carpark (see westgate center in Oxford)

John Smith wrote:

davel wrote:

Seas of pedestrians being able to just walk across streets in city centres, rather than having to wait for a few single-occupancy cars carrying lazy, entitled shits to their offices. I'd buy that for a dollar.

I'm not talking about anything changing in behavior, I'm talking about legal changes. I would bet it would make little diffrence to drivers, because, as you say, physics. Where it would hurt would be incidents like the e-bike crash in the news now and Kim Briggs. No more arguing. If no CCTV appears cyclist at fault. I'm not saying pedestrians will walk out more, but that we will see lots of cyclists ending up paying for hitting pedestrians that walk out without looking where as now it is 50/50 unless proven otherwise.

Not sure I'm following you: the headline cases you mention yourself wouldn't be impacted in any way. Charlie Alliston was charged and found guilty. What exactly do you think a liability law would have done there? How would that have been *worse* for Alliston in Liabilityland?

Ebike guy in Kingsland... Handed himself in... CCTV footage (ie proof) emerged that the ped ran into him. Again, how do you think that would be different?

Meanwhile, think about the hundreds of KSIs on cyclists and peds by drivers - that's where the big impact lies.

John Smith wrote:

davel wrote:

I'm right behind your suggestions. Thing is, we're trying them, aren't we... we have been , for a while, haven't we... and are we there yet? Are we anywhere near there yet? Any idea when we will get there?

Of course we need proper education, and proper infrastructure, but they're all long-term, win-by-a-thousand-cuts-if-at-all approaches.

Not in any serious way. Half arsed attempts to publish a few posters and planning guidence with zero comback when builders decide that they have run out of money before they had time to include the cycle parking or infrastructure, but have managed to finish the lovely new multistory carpark (see westgate center in Oxford)

London's serious for the UK. hasn't exactly set the rest of the country alight, but let's see what happens in Manchester: Sir Lord St Chris is behind it and the right noises are being made. If - *if* - that takes off, and *if* other towns and cities follow that model...

But I'm hugely skeptical about how successful education can be on a population that just doesn't see themselves as cyclists, and see cyclists as 'others'. We need to get more people cycling first.