Ah, we have more terrible Halloween-themed safety campaigns to dissect on the live blog now, as Road Safety GB – you know, the mandatory helmet poll group – have this afternoon published some advice on how to keep children safe as they go trick or treating on a night when the risk of a “car accident” is heightened (and spoiler alert – the advice has very little to do with the responsibilities of motorists, and a lot to do with reflective stickers on Halloween costumes. Yep).
In the post, Road Safety GB quotes a survey from Road Angel – a company that makes speed camera detectors for motorists, no less – which found that “just” 18 percent of parent use reflective tape on their children’s costumes (who are these people?), “leaving kids susceptible to not being seen by other road users on dimly lit roads”.
> Road safety group runs mandatory cycling helmets poll... 85% reject proposal
“Despite Halloween being a fun time for kids going trick-or-treating, the dark night increases the risk for children on the roads,” Road Angel’s founder Gary Digva said.
“The combination of decreased visibility due to darker evenings and nighttime festivities, the excitement of trick-or-treating, and increased pedestrian activity can heighten car accident risks.”
Yes, Gary, nothing to do with the drivers, eh?
He continued: “With kids being four times more vulnerable to being involved in a road accident on Halloween night, we’re urging parents and drivers to do what they can to ensure a safe and enjoyable experience for everyone.”
Surprisingly, none of Gary’s subsequent advice touches on what drivers can do to ensure a safe and enjoyable experience.
Instead, he says: “Children should be accompanied by an adult when trick-or-treating, as navigating the streets at night can pose significant risks.
“Before allowing older children to go trick-or-treating on their own, parents should consider if their kids are sufficiently educated about road safety rules…
“It’s also important to consider costumes with reflective elements or add reflective tape to enhance visibility, especially as evenings grow darker following the end-of-October clock change.”
The Chair of the Road Danger Reduction Forum, Dr Robert Davis, was quick to criticise what he calls Road Safety GB’s decision to “uncritically” report “non-evidence-based victim blaming, here by a dashcam company (which alerts drivers to speed cameras) and adds sloppiness by using American lingo (‘crosswalks’). Sheesh.”
Sheesh indeed, Robert.
Add new comment
21 comments
Shooting past at speed, or passing too close, can pose a real risk to a cyclist and we hope this video serves as a reminder of the need to slow right down when travelling behind a cyclist and wait for the appropriate time to overtake
Northamptonshire Police needs to tell Lancashire Constabulary, because they haven't yet accepted that it's possible to pass cyclists too closely so they just ignore all such cases. As far as it's possible to tell, LC has never prosecuted anybody for close passing a cyclist- how do you get any closer than this?
https://upride.cc/incident/pe62eom_focus_closepass/
As for the 207 prosecutions out of 284 OpSnap submissions! They're fixing the figures obviously. It will be something like discounting all the submissions they didn't consider 'suitable'
Re Northamptonshire Police video and stats.
207 prosecutions from 284 submissions. That's got to be some sort of record surely. It's either a sign that things are improving for cyclists or cyclists are only submitting the very worst (although from this sample many don't look anywhere near as bad as some NFAs I've had), or WTJS's explanation which I'm sure will be forthcoming.
2 cases of dangerous driving which even killing a cyclist doesn't usually end up with.
It's a shame they don't tell us what each of the incidents resulted in but a link to this video in our own future submissions, as with the recent WMP one, may be useful.
Northants do publish results. The white van driver who failed to give way at the traffic calming on Birchfield Road East got sent on a 'What's driving us' course.
and here's January's outcome data, filtered for 'DASHCAM' camera type and the offence codes for careless driving. It's mostly courses, which is I think appropriate in some cases. Northants really do seem to be doing much better in this regard than a lot of other forces.
Thanks for the link and the analysis. I know many disagree but I agree that driving courses will have the desired effect provided repeat offenders are dealt with robustly.
Do you know the difference between WDU and Retraining?
https://www.ukroed.org.uk/courses/
There are a number of different courses. The retraining course could be the one that involves a practical element, but I'm not sure...
I just want everyone to know that the SaddleSpur is not on my Christmas list.
You've already bought one, haven't you?
I suppose I arsked for that.
Is the SaddleSpur on a seatpost with the spur in front?
Either that's a deliberate (humourous) typo, or you've been reading too many EastEnders scripts
But why wouldn't you want a doughnut holder?
Phil Broadhead, is of course absolutley right that anyone who cycles is having such a great time, that working is the last thing they would want to do. Only drivers work.
It is very disappointing reading about the elderly being fined for tootling around town centres on bikes whilst also seeing motorist after motorist on London roads using their mobile fines whilst driving.
Councils and the police need to make sure that their enforcement regimes tackle offences that have the most serious consequences rather than those that are the easiest to enforce, and that they are joined up.
The local TV news had a piece on this in Grimsby the other day. I didn't bother listening to the drivel that the reporter was spouting but from the images seen the pedestrian areas were wide open, not many people and all of the cyclists appeared to be of the slow, utilitarian variety on old mountain/ hybrid bike shaped objects with a couple of carrier bags. In other words they were doing no harm other than annoying the better off who had been forced to park their car and walk a few feet.
As far as I can tell, illegal phone use by drivers is not being tackled at all. At least not in a way that puts people off doing it. I see it every day despite my commute being only around 10 minutes long.
If they can't distinguish between good and bad cyclists how do they even know that bad cyclists exist?
It was a joke of course. "Good cyclists" is clearly an oxymoron...
They don't have to know. Anyone cycling in a PSPO area must be a bad cyclist by definition as the PSPO doesn't distinguish.
Indeed.
Perhaps they haven't noticed but it can be a problerm distinguishing between good and bad people in general; and in discerning all sorts of other human proclivities that remain hidden until they .... aren't.
The general solution used to be: make laws prohibiting certain kinds of actually harmful behaviours along with processes to deal with those who ignore such laws. The informing principle used to be apprehension of the guilty with not that much about prevention of crime before the fact, other than the exhortations to lock up your bike shed, house and - in some quarters - your daughters.
These days "the authorities" seem keen on prevention, with a number of laws making it a crime to look like you might be planning a naughty act. Being tooled-up for burglary has been one-such law for a long time. Being in possesion of a bike might be heading that way.
It's long been "a dream" of certain authoritarian types to have a technology and process for identifying "criminal-types" before the fact of them committing crimes. These authoritarians, though, soon slip into one or both of these modes:
* Set up agent provcateurs to stimulate the "criminal types" into committing a crime.
* Assume certain large categories of pariah status are all criminals then persecute, restrict or otherwise curtail their freedoms.
Those with "the wrong" colour skin or nose shape will recognise the second category all too easily, as will various folk of a certain religious bent or idealogical inclination. For some time now, it's been evident that cyclists are being groomed, in the media and in certain political circles, as another handy pariah-class who are inherently "criminal".
Meanwhile, large classes of actual criminals are free to go about committing one crime after another, often several a day - motorists: rapists; Toryspiv politicians, for exampe ..... not to mention the polis themselves.
Rule of law? It's been well twisted and curled into summick rather different. We even have wee brownshirts persecuting old folk on bicycles about the town squares, now. How long before we have the full Iranian polis model, bashing not just protestors and cyclists but anyone not fully and obviously supportive of the latest gang of political hooligans in power and their nasty doings?
They'll find us all with social media trawls, face recognition cameras and the mobile spy in your pocket. See China for details.
hmmm, according to Government figures, up to 80% of drivers speed in 20 mph zones, with over 50% speeding in 30 mph zones. Perhaps we should ban drivers from 20 & 30 mph zones?