Discussion in 'Advocacy and Cycling Safety' started by snorri, 7 Jan 2017.
Improving road safetyby design..
That was so boring I had to stop half way through. Whatever he was trying to explain went right over my head, far too many figures to absorb at this time in the morning.
Whatever it was I don't think he has ever ridden in Denmark or Holland. We need to share our infrastructures and speed bumps and chicanes all over the place is not the way to do it.
The biggest single safety measure that we could introduce? Presumption of liability using the hierarchy of vulnerability.
Penalising potentially innocent drivers won't make the roads any safer. The cycling lobby should pay some attention to the shortcomings of a noteworthy proportion of our own brethren before throwing any stones at someone elses glass house.
Complete waste of time, as Cyclists with Shortcomings are not the source of the harm.
Unless you're seriously suggesting cyclists should take over policing of cycling, because the police do such a c*** job of it?
No-one is suggesting that... nice try at a straw man though.
There are those who argue that as they are vulnerable, but essentially harmless and cars cause the damage that this is not the case
The biggest problem is that any road safety system relies on road users observing the rules.
When you approach a junction you expect the road user joining to give way and let you pass. The problem arises when they don't
When you arrive at a controlled junction you expect the vehicles with a red light to stop and allow you across, the problem arises when they don't
The better the rules are observed, the more predictable the actions of other users are, then the safer threads will be
But I think I know what you mean. Taking a small example of this, it's why it's so important for cycle tracks to cross roads at right-angles, which can mean having the track a car length away from the carriageway it shadows, at least near a side road junction, rather than the common stupid TRL-supported English layout of having the cycle track leave from a shallow-radius corner and trust turning motorists to obey the rules. If the track crosses one car length into the side road and the side road entrance has a tight-radius corner entry that requires turning motorists to slow, then the crossing traffic can see each other coming, look each other in the face, make a better guess at whether the other party is a homicidal/suicidal nobber and the motorist will have to decide to attempt to kill something that's obviously a human with a face rather than an anonymous back of a head on a bike.
But it's disappointingly difficult to get highways designers to put in the necessary gentle carriageway (ideally) or cycle track curves so they cross at right-angles. Most seem scared of leaving any grass between carriageway and track and I don't understand why - even when they squeeze tracks up next to the road, there's still verge outside that has to be mowed and so on. Around junctions, a bit of empty space for all the street furniture (sign posts, lamp posts, traffic light control cabinets, ...) which too often steal cycle track width seems like a good thing.
While I fully support the introduction of PL, I don't see how you can claim it would have such a dramatic effect on road safety.
Is there data from other countries which have introduced it that support this?
From the West Midlands Police Traffic Unit:
(Their approach to cyclists' safety is being adopted in numerous other force areas.)
Yep. Many of our European brethren have done and seen incident rates drop significantly.
Nice sentiments - but bloody awful grammar.
Interesting, do you have any links?
True, but given their pioneering work for our safety, I'm prepared to let that go...
Separate names with a comma.