Make cycle safety part of new driving test, capaigners urge

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.

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

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[/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)?

[/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.