MP’s safer cycling call angers drivers

[Jim_Noir]

I blame sat nav for lazy driving. Folks don't need to realy pay attention of what is going on around them as they have a gadget to do that. What would happen if cars did have radar and told people "You are to close to this road user"? would be a good thing wouldn't it? Yes way off topic but the tech is there.

 

[John the Monkey]

Why should it? If someone in control of 1 tonne of machinery cannot be trusted to not take out one perceived transgression on another vulnerable road user, maybe they shouldn't have a licence.

Exactly.

I was taking issue in another thread with a statement along the lines of "thank goodness the driver was paying attention."

WHAT? Surely that's the very minimum we should expect from someone in control of 300kg or so of speeding metal? It's that unwillingness to make the driver take responsibility that's dangerously ingrained in our culture, I think, a tacit acceptance of preventable collisions, "road rage", lack of consideration for others &c as an inevitable, but worthwhile price to pay for motor transport.

 

[400bhp]

The FULL speech and response is here

I've just read it and it's good to have a public servant championing cycling.

One thing he said which I didn't understand was this:

There are also some specific issues that need resolving. Could the section of the Traffic Management Act 2004 that allows for enforcement of mandatory cycle lanes be brought into force? I believe it is the only bit that has not yet been implemented. Could the law be adjusted so that the presence of a vehicle in a cycle path or on a footway be taken as evidence that it was driven there, rather than appearing magically, as seems to be assumed at the moment?

?

 

[400bhp]

Exactly.

WHAT? Surely that's the very minimum we should expect from someone in control of 300kg or so of speeding metal?

I'd like to see the car that weighs just that.

 

[John the Monkey]

I'd like to see the car that weighs just that.

I've been told off before for saying "a tonne" as that is much too heavy, apparently.

I'll keep revising the guess until no one complains, eh?

 

[400bhp]

I've been told off before for saying "a tonne" as that is much too heavy, apparently.

I'll keep revising the guess until no one complains, eh?

1500-2000kgs

 

[stowie]

I've been told off before for saying "a tonne" as that is much too heavy, apparently.

I'll keep revising the guess until no one complains, eh?

A tonne is a conservative estimate. I think a range rover weigh over 2.5 Tonnes.

300kg is about half the minimum weight allowed on a formula 1 car. So it is very light indeed.

 

[steve52]

as a cyclist and a driver , i suport the cyclist, it is a fairly regular occurance to have a wingmirro conect with my elbow as a car ovetakes me! or to be foced of the road (by foced of i mean a vehicle comes from the rear along side then moves towrds the kerb conecting with me) i chalenge any driver who thinks this is reasonable to walk that close to a moveing vehicle

 

[stowie]

Exactly.

I was taking issue in another thread with a statement along the lines of "thank goodness the driver was paying attention."

WHAT? Surely that's the very minimum we should expect from someone in control of 300kg or so of speeding metal? It's that unwillingness to make the driver take responsibility that's dangerously ingrained in our culture, I think, a tacit acceptance of preventable collisions, "road rage", lack of consideration for others &c as an inevitable, but worthwhile price to pay for motor transport.

Agree completely. There is a culture in motoring that doesn't assign responsibility to the driver in pretty much any circumstance. Only when the driver is drunk will people assume that the driver is at fault. This can be seen in the language used to describe collisions. They are normally termed accidents with cars "losing control". This is just BS. I drive. I know that you either lose control of a car through huge mechanical failure (rare) or much more often through speeding and dangerous driving.

Can you imagine if the aviation industry took the same attitude? I think around 600 people per year die in aeroplane crashes globally (I think this is commercial flights). Road deaths per year in the UK alone is around 3000. We wouldn't expect our pilots to put our lives in danger through carelessness or impatience or boredom, yet accept this for motorists.

 

[John the Monkey]

1500-2000kgs

Well I never. You wait 'til I catch up with the bugger who told me a tonne was too much.

 

[400bhp]

They are normally termed accidents with cars "losing control". This is just BS. I drive. I know that you either lose control of a car through huge mechanical failure (rare) or much more often through speeding and dangerous driving.

That's not true - (based on DoT stats) only a small proportion of accidents are caused by inappropriate speed.

 

[snorri]

One thing he said which I didn't understand was this:
?

I'm no legal eagle, but I believe this relates to a loophole in the law.
Driving on the pavement is forbidden, but a vehicle parked on the pavement is not acceptable evidence in law that the vehicle has been driven on the pavement.

 

[Origamist]

I've just read it and it's good to have a public servant championing cycling.

One thing he said which I didn't understand was this:

?

AFAIK, motorists are not penalised (i.e FPN) for entering a mandatory cycle lane at present. In London, I know that the boroughs do not enforce mandatory cycle lanes.

 

[turnout]

That's not true - (based on DoT stats) only a small proportion of accidents are caused by inappropriate speed.

Urban myth. One report, which is not designed to focus on accident causation, suggested speed is not a large factor in RTCs. This has been endlessly and dishinestly cited by the pro-speeding lobby. This use of statistics has been described by a professional statistician as ‘extremely naughty’ and by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions as ‘mischievous’.

Virtually the only factor that road accidents have in common is that all would have been avoided if those involved had known with certainty, a few seconds in advance, that an accident was about the occur.
Lower speeds provide those few extra seconds.


The ‘robust general rule’ relating crash reductions to speed reductions: for every 1 mph reduction average speed, crashes are reduced by between 2-7%.

 

[John the Monkey]

AFAIK, motorists are not penalised (i.e FPN) for entering a mandatory cycle lane at present. In London, I know that the boroughs do not enforce mandatory cycle lanes.

I seem to recall that this is why they're often supplemented with a parking restriction - local councils may enforce those, I think that they don't (or at least, didn't) have the power to enforce the mandatory cycle lane alone, as the offence of entering one can/could only be dealt with by Police.