London Calling
New member
Hi David + list,
xxxxxx Smith wrote:
> We're now in that long, depressing dark stretch of the year. There are
> still too many cyclists with no lights or reflective kit. It's really
> dangerous,
"Really? A defence was made at an inquest into the death of a cyclist on
a country road, a while ago, in which the driver's solicitor attempted
to reduce a driver's likely sentence from death caused by dangerous
driving to one of careless driving, by making the case that the dead
cyclist didn't have lights and was therefore negligent.
Eight witnesses said that they had seen the cyclist and agreed that he
didn't have any lights and that this was dangerous. The cyclist's
defence lawyer (then representing the family) pointed out that all eight
drivers had *seen* the cyclist and had slowed down and steered around
him to avoid a collision.
The driver was duly sentenced.
In London there's plentiful street lighting. There are also plenty of
hazards--pedestrian s without lights or high-vis, buses and motorbikes,
lots of people moving about in erratic ways and doing things that
require drivers to pay attention to their driving, hence the need for
good light and careful progress.
David has seen plenty of cyclists without lights--presumably they are
visible because of the street lighting and his headlights. The important
word in that sentence is 'seen' because David clearly pays attention to
what he's doing behind the wheel. The more demanding the situation and
the less forgiving of errors the environment is, the more likely he is
to drive safely. David, if you saw a cyclist wobbling erratically in the
road, what would you do as a driver?
Our problem is not that cyclists are unsafe because they don't have
lights--it's that cars have become mini-environments that increasingly
divorce their drivers from their surroundings and cushion their
carelessness (airbags, roll bars, anti-lock brakes, seat belts), with
the result that some drivers routinely take very significant risks with
the lives of other people.
The response of policy writers and engineers--rather than making seat
belts illegal and making steering wheel spikes compulsory-- has been to
make the road environment more forgiving of bad driving by separating
out 'dangerous' pedestrians and (to a much lesser extent) cyclists, to
the extent that there is a need for a lot of cyclists to put some of the
'risk' back and thereby enforce safer driving (hence as a proportion of
cyclists, cyclist injury collisions go down). For this to work really
well, motor traffic speeds should reduce to 20mph or less so that
cyclists can properly take their place in the traffic, with or without
lights.
'Road safety' professionals join the policy writers and engineers in
their deference to drivers--reinforcin g the message that pedestrians and
cyclists should shoulder almost all of the responsibility for safety by
staying well out of the way and by being visible. That's enough to
discourage too many people from making more use of these modes. You
can't blame road safety officers though--they' ve got ill-formed targets
for reducing the *number* of casualties, the achievement of which relies
on keeping different modes apart and fails to take account of the
subtleties-- that a modest increase in the number of collisions might be
a price worth paying if it is a smaller proportion of more people taking
part in active travel. We need to change the nature of those targets to
reward road safety officers for implementing progressive policies that
increase the amount of walking and cycling and improve people's health
and wellbeing.
It's a natural instinct to say that cycling is dangerous--those people
out there on their two wheeled things in the traffic, in the line of
fire... they should do everything they can to protect themselves, and
engineers should segregate cyclists and pedestrians for their own good.
But no. Actually, as Professor John Adams found, cycling isn't
dangerous... what's dangerous are the the individual motorised wheeled
units weighing in at just under a tonne each, mixed with other motorised
wheeled units that are a good deal heavier, all of which are driven by
people with varying perceptions of their risk to themselves and other
people and varying degrees of self-interest and attention on what they
are doing. The problem with allowing motorcycles in bus lanes is that
their riders--who have a higher risk threshold from the outset--will
compensate for the reduction in risk (of collision and enforcement) by
riding even faster, to the detriment of pedestrians and cyclists.
The science of reducing road danger lies partly in examining what it is
in street design that influences driver behaviour--and making
environments forgiving, not of bad driving, but of 'bad walking' or 'bad
cycling'. There's no hope of eliminating collisions or danger, but good
design can go a long way towards this goal and more generally towards
reducing the severity of injuries. In consequence, more people will have
the confidence to walk and cycle again and our streets will become
better places.
Everyone is responsible for their own safety and that of other
people--some people, moving different vehicles, should shoulder more
responsibility than others, and that responsibility should be properly
enforced. Cyclists and drivers shouldn't need to have lights, air bags,
seat belts, high-vis, helmets or anti-lock brakes in a well-lit city
where everyone moves at a civilised rate"
Richard
xxxxxx Smith wrote:
> We're now in that long, depressing dark stretch of the year. There are
> still too many cyclists with no lights or reflective kit. It's really
> dangerous,
"Really? A defence was made at an inquest into the death of a cyclist on
a country road, a while ago, in which the driver's solicitor attempted
to reduce a driver's likely sentence from death caused by dangerous
driving to one of careless driving, by making the case that the dead
cyclist didn't have lights and was therefore negligent.
Eight witnesses said that they had seen the cyclist and agreed that he
didn't have any lights and that this was dangerous. The cyclist's
defence lawyer (then representing the family) pointed out that all eight
drivers had *seen* the cyclist and had slowed down and steered around
him to avoid a collision.
The driver was duly sentenced.
In London there's plentiful street lighting. There are also plenty of
hazards--pedestrian s without lights or high-vis, buses and motorbikes,
lots of people moving about in erratic ways and doing things that
require drivers to pay attention to their driving, hence the need for
good light and careful progress.
David has seen plenty of cyclists without lights--presumably they are
visible because of the street lighting and his headlights. The important
word in that sentence is 'seen' because David clearly pays attention to
what he's doing behind the wheel. The more demanding the situation and
the less forgiving of errors the environment is, the more likely he is
to drive safely. David, if you saw a cyclist wobbling erratically in the
road, what would you do as a driver?
Our problem is not that cyclists are unsafe because they don't have
lights--it's that cars have become mini-environments that increasingly
divorce their drivers from their surroundings and cushion their
carelessness (airbags, roll bars, anti-lock brakes, seat belts), with
the result that some drivers routinely take very significant risks with
the lives of other people.
The response of policy writers and engineers--rather than making seat
belts illegal and making steering wheel spikes compulsory-- has been to
make the road environment more forgiving of bad driving by separating
out 'dangerous' pedestrians and (to a much lesser extent) cyclists, to
the extent that there is a need for a lot of cyclists to put some of the
'risk' back and thereby enforce safer driving (hence as a proportion of
cyclists, cyclist injury collisions go down). For this to work really
well, motor traffic speeds should reduce to 20mph or less so that
cyclists can properly take their place in the traffic, with or without
lights.
'Road safety' professionals join the policy writers and engineers in
their deference to drivers--reinforcin g the message that pedestrians and
cyclists should shoulder almost all of the responsibility for safety by
staying well out of the way and by being visible. That's enough to
discourage too many people from making more use of these modes. You
can't blame road safety officers though--they' ve got ill-formed targets
for reducing the *number* of casualties, the achievement of which relies
on keeping different modes apart and fails to take account of the
subtleties-- that a modest increase in the number of collisions might be
a price worth paying if it is a smaller proportion of more people taking
part in active travel. We need to change the nature of those targets to
reward road safety officers for implementing progressive policies that
increase the amount of walking and cycling and improve people's health
and wellbeing.
It's a natural instinct to say that cycling is dangerous--those people
out there on their two wheeled things in the traffic, in the line of
fire... they should do everything they can to protect themselves, and
engineers should segregate cyclists and pedestrians for their own good.
But no. Actually, as Professor John Adams found, cycling isn't
dangerous... what's dangerous are the the individual motorised wheeled
units weighing in at just under a tonne each, mixed with other motorised
wheeled units that are a good deal heavier, all of which are driven by
people with varying perceptions of their risk to themselves and other
people and varying degrees of self-interest and attention on what they
are doing. The problem with allowing motorcycles in bus lanes is that
their riders--who have a higher risk threshold from the outset--will
compensate for the reduction in risk (of collision and enforcement) by
riding even faster, to the detriment of pedestrians and cyclists.
The science of reducing road danger lies partly in examining what it is
in street design that influences driver behaviour--and making
environments forgiving, not of bad driving, but of 'bad walking' or 'bad
cycling'. There's no hope of eliminating collisions or danger, but good
design can go a long way towards this goal and more generally towards
reducing the severity of injuries. In consequence, more people will have
the confidence to walk and cycle again and our streets will become
better places.
Everyone is responsible for their own safety and that of other
people--some people, moving different vehicles, should shoulder more
responsibility than others, and that responsibility should be properly
enforced. Cyclists and drivers shouldn't need to have lights, air bags,
seat belts, high-vis, helmets or anti-lock brakes in a well-lit city
where everyone moves at a civilised rate"
Richard
