Cheaper insurance for drivers who get cycle training, crackdown on parking in cycle lanes, and a new walking and cycling “champion”

insurance reduction - a "nudge" policy that solves nothing?

just a throw in I guess - government hasn't consulted with ABI on it

suspect would be full of holes and prone to fraud if introduced and doesn't impact the attitude and behaviour of those drivers that don't have insurance - might give some insight to drivers who want to save money and at moment just don't get it around cyclists 

presumably the government intend funding it thru an IPT rebate scheme as ABI point out cyclists cost motorists f'all on insurance claims - would be interesting to see what the estimate for increase in this cost would be if presumed liability did happen and drivers bothered to hand over insurance details to cyclists 

Insurance Times - Government considering premium discount for drivers with cycling awareness

"....in 2017 less than 0.1% of motor claims involved cyclists...."

https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/news/government-considering-premium-dis...

on presumed liability the report promises "research" which reads as "no way but we don't want to say that" ..........

Page 29 section 5.7 ..........Over the next two years 5.27 We will take note of good evidence produced from other countries when delivering our Action Plan, in particular from those countries, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, which have high levels of Active Travel and perform well on road safety measures. For example, we will review how civil liability rules function in other countries as part of our research on liability......

Page  section 6.41   Switching to a presumed liability system for road traffic collisions would shift the burden of proof, so that the defendant would be presumed liable unless he or she could prove they were not negligent. As such, it would be a highly significant change to the legal system in England and Wales, almost certainly with many unexpected effects and one whose likely costs, benefits and practical effects are unknown. Civil liability law is different in Scotland and responsibility for it lies with the Scottish Government.

6.42 We intend to work together with the Ministry of Justice to commission research to understand the advantages and disadvantages of a change in liability rules. We will discuss with the Scottish Government whether they wish to research the likely impact of changes to Scots law too.

No need to take a test, you can get cheaper insurance now via carinsurance4cyclists.com,  call 0800 819 9319 quoting Ride On Cycling. Alternatively, you can get more info here https://www.carinsurance4cyclists.com/?ref=51

Its going to annoy me that to get cheaper insurance i will also have to attend a cycling course.

I felt the dark cloud of cynicism lift slightly after reading that transcript. There were some sensible, reasoned and evidence based arguments put forward that might actually make a difference. The big question is will these recommendations be acted upon any time soon?

'review evidence for cycling helmets for children',

oh ffs, this is precisely where the problems stem from. You force helmets on kids, they cycle massively less, you immediately lose a massive chunk of potential future cyclists. Also you create yet more victim blaming, more onus on the vulnerable to armour up despite it being fucking useless. You turn kids forced to wear helmets into helmet wearing adults which is never, ever a good thing as we've seen.

That's not to even mention the fact more kids die of head injuries in playgrounds and cars from head injuries than the total number of child deaths on bikes, the focus on helmets for kids is massively wrong yet again, a simple look at the stats alone says we need to put helmets on kids (and adults) in motors and on foot well before any consideration for kids on bikes.That and forcing motorists to fucking drive massively safer/put in safe routes for kids to get to school/get across town, get to city centres, leisure centres, parks etc which will have vastly greater effect on child cycling safety.

Any chat about helmets comes from bogus types who are ignorant of the issues and facts that have been available for a very long time. How much more fucking evidence do you need to already say, helmet 'advice' for kids is bias, discriminatory and does more damage to cycling as well as the kids themselves. Children have a far greater susceptibility to risk compensation to feeling they are safer, test after test have been done on kids so we know this for a fact.

Typical of government ministers to ignore this and waste time on something that we know is not a solution to safety and never has been!

So no mandatory helmets, Hiviz or licensing, there are your daily mail headlines right there, you can almost feel the gammon based rage building. 

Also no reference to the death penalty for any cyclist who’s in collision with a pedestrian. I should think Briggys will be back on breakfast news having a moan about that tomorrow, it’ll probably get more air time than brexit. 

Never mind the onus being on the cyclist to take a test how about all drivers have to commute by bike for a week and that would do more than preaching to the converted. Only then would they understand the terror they put upon others. 

Thinking about it.... rather than cheaper car insurance if you volunteer to go on a course, how about mandatory driving re-tests every say 10 years, and include awareness of cyclists and other vulnerable road users as part of that?

I know, it'll never happen. Too much cost, war on motorists, blah blah. It's still fairly ridiculous though that you can pass a test at 17/18 years old and be assumed to be ok for the rest of your life. 

While we're at it, how about something a bit more concrete to tackle HGV and tipper truck fatalities in particular. All this review seems to be putting forward is extending or continuing with voluntary schemes.

At least Suggestions that cyclists should be forced to wear helmets and wear hi-vis were rejected (although that does imply that there is someone, somewhere, in government, who actually has sense, and I can't believe that...).

double post again.......

And if a driver (who has attended a cycle awareness course) then goes on to be responsible for a collision with a cyclist, will they be dealt with more severely by the Police and will see a significant rise in insurance premium? 

"Dollimore was however quick to highlight a flaw in the DfT’s message that it would encourage councils to spend 15 per cent of their local transport infrastructure funding on walking and cycling."

The biggest flaw is not that the DfT isn't itself committing to spend 15% on walking and cycling. The glaring problem is that Local Authorities are being "encouraged" to do this, rather than forced. 

We all know what will happen. Councils will continue to do exactly as they have done and prioritise road funding. Nothing will happen to them as a result of completely ignoring this "encouragement" from central governement. The DfT not committing to do the same with its own budget is just an indication of the wider issue. 

You see the same issue across various different areas of life. Mental health funding is another classic - government issues a nice press release and announces that money is being earmarked for mental health services. Very occasionally, this might even be extra money rather than saying existing funds need to be reallocated (i.e. what the DfT is telling councils to do in this announcement). However, what then happens is sod all. Even when extra money has been allocated, it's not actually ring fenced for mental health care and it goes instead to meeting other health targets. 

"The DfT also wants to create a new police unit to analyse video evidence of dangerous driving "

On the face of it, sounds good. Rightly or wrongly, police resources are stretched and essentially crowd sourcing enforcement of poor driving may actually be quite efficient. However, clicking through on the link, the summary of the response says: "invest £100,000 to support police enforcement by developing a national back office function to handle dash-cam footage". 

What difference is £100k going to make - That's what, salaries for 3 people? It's certainly not going to pay for decent IT infrastructure...

Edit: I should have said that obviously, this could have been so much worse given the media hysteria after the Alliston case. So against those very low expectations, this is good news??

Good start!

Bit concerned about the mandatory cycle lane comment though. When were they invented?

Some good news then. If a council worker in an office can look at a CCTV monitor and go "There's a knobhead parked in a cycle lane - fined! There's a knobhead parked in a cycle lane - fined!" all day long, it's good for council funds, good for us cyclists and bad news for knobheads!