Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gaffers]

I am starting to get more involved with my local MP and councillors about various subjects and one very dear to my heart (for reasons most of you are aware) is that of road safety.  My intention is to lobby them directly from inside the relevant parties in order to get something done.  This is what my parents did when the 2nd child was killed by 2 motorists who were racing through the village.  Eventually they convinced the late Gwyneth Dunwoody to change the speed limit.

I think it is time to overhaul how we look at road design, policing and education so I have a been drafting something on the quiet for a bit.  I fear that it is heavily biased to ward the cyclists view point and thus I would encourage feedback from the view point of a pedestrian or a horse rider.

I am going to post it here and on cycling forums to gauge responses, thoughts and feedback which may develop the idea further.

THIS IS NOT A CYCLIST BASHING THREAD - there are plenty of other places you can do that (ie get your own thread )  Admins/Mods I apologise in advance if this creates more work

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Road Safety Legislation Proposal

1. Introduction of a Presumed Liability enshrined in law that places the onus of the less-vulnerable road-user to prove they were not at fault.  Currently the system is in reverse placing the onus on the victim and usually results in a long and costly legal battle to get their basic human rights to be upheld.

Why?

• The current system requires the insurers to take a decision, one which could cost them money and they are allowed to make this decision without 3rd party oversight.  If the victim decides to contest a decision they face an uphill struggle and normally end up in court.  This is costly and high-risk yet the insurance companies seem to rely on victims apathy and not wishing to take that on.  More often than not, only those with the determination and respective legal assistance get the compensation they require to make amends.  This should not be the de facto process in order to uphold your basic human rights which are enshrined in European and UK law.  It should be noted that we are often talking about life-changing injuries which seriously affect income and future prospects and this process should not be left to hinge on what seems a purely financial incentive.  Claims between motorists are decided at cross-company, independent panels which are there to avoid every claim going through the courts.  There is no representation for cyclists on these panels.  This is not the case for incidents involving other road users and the decision is left to the insurance company to decide on blame.
• This could see more cyclists getting public liability insurance (above and beyond what they automatically have on other policies such as home insurance) because if they knew that they could be held responsible for a mistake which affected a pedestrian they would want to ensure they are protected.
• The reason so many people use dashboard and helmet mounted cameras is due to the fact that they do not trust the current system.

2. Improving the process of ensuring that new roadways, junctions and traffic features follow a national framework in terms of minimum safety features for all road users.  This would include mandatory measures to provide a minimum of safety measures that allow all road users and pedestrians to safely navigate features which are known to present a danger.  This would be enforced on local authorities at the planning stage and each application should go through a specialist panel ensuring the road safety of all users.  For example:

• A minimum width for cycle lanes on roads that takes in to account drains and manhole covers (metal when wet is extremely slippy and a serious danger to cyclists) or even making it illegal to have such items in a cycle lane (civic responsibility)
• Moving cycle ways a safe distance from vehicle parking spaces.
• At large junctions and traffic lights, ensure that vulnerable road users can turn right safely, either through intelligent road design or by implementing a cycle phase to the traffic lights.
• Provision of a safe crossing point for bridleways and footpaths that intersect with a road.

Why?

• Many features designed to improve road safety actually create an equal or worse danger by consequence.  E.g. Shared cycle/pedestrian ways with tight and blind corners thus reducing the cycle traffic on the road but increasing the danger to pedestrians in the process, not to mention increasing the chance of a head-on collision between cyclists.
• Due to this many cycle ways are not used because they are either not convenient (ie having to stop and dismount 3 times to negotiate a roundabout instead of just riding through like a vehicle) or are a danger to themselves and other users.  This is a waste of resources and only increases frustration between user groups who do not understand the other’s viewpoint.
• Often it seems that cycle ways and other well-intentioned safety infrastructure have been implemented with tunnel-vision and not by envisioning the entire picture
• The current situation sees much funding set aside for road safety either being untouched or wasted by schemes which do little to improve the situation.

[Gaffers]

3. Stricter enforcement of the rules of the road for every sub-section of the vehicle demographic regardless of whether it is powered by an engine or pedals.  Such as:

• Enforcement of cyclists infringing traffic laws in line with penalties given to motorists
• Set a minimum distance for passing a vulnerable road user in to law.  Automatic penalties for those who fail to adhere.
• Include a rule forbidding cyclists to pass between large vehicles and an obstruction (verge, kerb, other vehicle, etc)
• Identify the punishment-pass dealt to cyclists and horses by motorists as a specific offence with a suitably harsh penalty.

Why?

• A common rant of the motorist is that pedestrians and cyclists in particular flaunt the rules of the road and they are not held responsible to the same level as they are.  While a large portion of cyclists conduct themselves in a lawful manner, there are at least two other groups of cyclists which do not; those that believe that they can break the rules for reasons of road safety and self-preservation; and those who know they will most likely get away with it.  80% of cyclists hold a driving license so it can be presumed that many also drive a car, if they knew that they could be held to the same level of punishment as if they were driving a car it would reduce a lot of the risk-taking behaviour seen by cyclists.  More importantly, it could also reduce the frustration of motorists towards cyclists and could help contribute to a safer more respectful environment on our roads.
• Currently Rule 163 of the highway code is ambiguous and states “give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car”.  While well-intentioned this statement is open for interpretation and leaves vulnerable road users dangerously exposed when they are overtaken by larger heavier vehicles often travelling at considerable speed.
• Inexperienced cyclists, and indeed many experienced ones, do not seem to understand the dangers of lager vehicles and their blindspots, thus a new rule should be included that distances vulnerable road users from the dangerous areas around them.

[Gaffers]

Annex A:

A.1  A323 in Aldershot.


 
This section of pavement has been designated a shared foot/cycle path but the markings are not clear.  It is possible that the lines are to increase the separation of vehicles on the road and traffic of the foot/cycle pathway but it can be interpreted as cyclists use one lane and pedestrians the other as the space of the left is not wide enough for a cyclist and pedestrian to pass each other safely.
 
A.2 Fleet road, Fleet.


 
This is an example of a typical cycle lane that was not properly thought through.  It is too narrow and places the cyclist too close to the kerb.  This also takes away from the rest of the carriageway and encourages motor vehicles to pass without leaving sufficient clearance.
It also fails to take in to account drainage covers which are a significant danger to cyclists, as shown in A.3.
 
If the cyclist moves out to avoid they encroach on motor traffic that is already too close and does not understand why the cyclist is moving out of the lane.  Note also how the lack of a centre line when passing parked cars causes motor traffic to move over in to the cycle lane.
 
A.3  Fleet road, Fleet.



This is a classic case of narrow cycle lanes with hazards for cyclists.  Most motorists will not understand why a cyclist has to leave the lane and the misunderstanding could lead to frustration between road users.  Also by defining narrow cycle lanes you effectively prohibit a cyclist from 'taking the lane' when it is too narrow for a motor vehicle to pass.  Lanes like these only increase the danger to cyclists.  Where the road is too narrow for effective lanes there should be none or there should just be undesignated lanes (cycle lane symbols painted in to the street without lines marking the borders) which highlights that all road users should share the space.

A.4  A325 Farnborough



This is where poor planning a lack of forethought (or even a risk assessment it appears) leads to increasing the possibility the pedestrians and cyclists collide with potentially serious consequences for them both.  The blind corner (where it is obvious pedestrians cut the corner) is further made dangerous by confusing and misleading markings for cyclists.  The design takes the cyclists attention away from the dangerous blind spot, and unnecessarily puts pedestrians at risk.

A.5  A325 Farnborough



As per A.4.  Such paths lead cyclists not to use them because of the dangers they present.  Yet by choosing not to use a path (which is 100% legal) can increase frustration with drivers of motor vehicles who may not have experience of using such lanes and be unaware of the dangers they present.

A.6  A325 Farnborough



As per 4 and 5.

To be developed with further case studies of risks to pedestrian and equestrian traffic

[BazaJT]

I would certainly agree that a lot more thought/planning should be given to proposals designed to enhance safety for all road users-and I'm including pedestrians in this.Sadly I think that any measure that requires some form of enforcement would be difficult[at best] to implement what with cut backs to policing and even council services.

[Broomies Mate]

Dear people who like peddling and things,

Roads are for Cars.  Fast ones.  Anything other than a fast car should use the pavement.  I include Wagons, Tractors, Disabled People and Cyclists.  All of you should use Pavements and allow us people in fast cars to go about our daily business.

Furthermore, all roads (solely to be used by fast cars) should be lined with speed cameras.  Anybody, ANYBODY, ANY FECKWIT driving below a set speed for that road (say 70?) will pay a fine and have points on their 'Fast Car' license.  Once a license of a 'Fast Car' owner reaches 12 points, they will be resigned to the Pavement like the rest of the tossers on the road.... erm.... pavement.

This is a very simple thing to enforce.... anybody who wishes to protest should stand in the middle of he ROAD.  The protest will be over within seconds.

Kind Regards

Me 

[Gaffers]

I take it you're not signing a certain petition then

[jimbobmccoy]

IMHO for any progress to be made, and for all parties to be on board with any changes, there needs to be the implementation of parity among all road users. All road users should be licenced, taxed, insured, and moderated equally (obviously 'pro-rata-d' depending on vehicle/method used in the road).

Until this system is realised, you will never get harmony between motor vehicle users and anyone else on the road.

The only way to apportion accountability to other road users is to expand the motorised systems to cover all road users, and work up from there.

I agree that the majority of your suggestions are good, valid, and should be implemented, but you need to overcome the 'us and them' mentality before you have any hope of full scale and meaningful adoption of them.

[05omegav6]

Last sentence written like a true motorist Jimbo

A very reasoned and well planned proposition Matt

You might struggle getting it seen/acknowledged by the powers that be in parish/local government without some sympathetic connections, but certainly has potential imho

[Marks DTM Calib]

Your proposal would only really work on new build, the costs and impacts associated with retrofit is more than likely to result in fewer designated cycle areas to be installed with the potential to result in some being removed.

[Gaffers]

I know it's a bit of a pipedream but rather than just sit and grumble about things I would rather try and do something about it.

WRT retrofitting, these are exactly my thoughts.  It could only work if applied to new roads/upgrades the idea being that over time the effect would permeate across the whole infrastructure.  Maybe I should make that clearer in the wording?

[Marks DTM Calib]

Its the sort of requirement that should be targeted at building regulations and planning type area as this governs new build.

Forget retro fit, we already have a large proportion of old narrow highways and byways and if you started to lace this up, things would just be removed or fall into disrepair resulting in a backwards step. 

[Sir Tigger KC]

1. Introduction of a Presumed Liability enshrined in law that places the onus of the less-vulnerable road-user to prove they were not at fault.  Currently the system is in reverse placing the onus on the victim and usually results in a long and costly legal battle to get their basic human rights to be upheld.

I don't agree with this as it contravenes the basic principal of English Law. ie: Innocent until proven guilty.  My disagreement is nothing to do with cyclists, but if we introduce 'Presumed Guilt' into one area of our legal system, then it might spread to others.   

[Kevin Wood]

I think the majority of cycle lanes / features should be removed from the roads, at least outside major cities where the traffic is most intimidating for cyclists.

Most of them are not fit for purpose for cyclists who ride at more than walking pace anyway due to the aforementioned bend radii, blind bends and the need to dismount every 50 yards, and their presence reinforces the view in some drivers' minds that cyclists should not be on the road / should stick to their lane.

They reinforce the "us and them" issue. Cyclists should be safe using the main carriageway and they shouldn't cause disruption to other traffic if both parties treat each other with respect.

The other issues you raise have some merits, however, IMHO.

[Gaffers]

1. Introduction of a Presumed Liability enshrined in law that places the onus of the less-vulnerable road-user to prove they were not at fault.  Currently the system is in reverse placing the onus on the victim and usually results in a long and costly legal battle to get their basic human rights to be upheld.

I don't agree with this as it contravenes the basic principal of English Law. ie: Innocent until proven guilty.  My disagreement is nothing to do with cyclists, but if we introduce 'Presumed Guilt' into one area of our legal system, then it might spread to others.   

There is a significant difference between presumed liability and presumed guilt

[aaronjb]

1. Introduction of a Presumed Liability enshrined in law that places the onus of the less-vulnerable road-user to prove they were not at fault.  Currently the system is in reverse placing the onus on the victim and usually results in a long and costly legal battle to get their basic human rights to be upheld.

I don't agree with this as it contravenes the basic principal of English Law. ie: Innocent until proven guilty.  My disagreement is nothing to do with cyclists, but if we introduce 'Presumed Guilt' into one area of our legal system, then it might spread to others.   

There is a significant difference between presumed liability and presumed guilt

One bankrupts you and the other sees you in the clink?