Cycling UK Forum

skidd wrote:The Times has launched a campaign for safer cycling. see http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3306502.ece This thread is to discuss it. I am fascinated by the issues surrounding transport, and percieve that although the motives may be admirable, the methodology is fundamentaly flawed, a bit like drawing up legislation in 1780 to be nice to slaves, as opposed to treating all humans with respect, and offering them all the same chances.

There is no getting away from the cold fact that in a typical year 100 cyclists will die in 'accidents' with cars, and no car drivers will die in 'accidents' with bikes. Until such time as we adopted a 'guilty until proven innocent' approach to transport casualties, favouring the more vulnerable users, we will always have a slew of fatalities where the dead cannot defend themselves. This approach is fundamental to continental approaches. People don't just cycle in Holland 'cos it's flat. (30 counties in this country are flatter). People cycle because cyclists are not treated like second class citizens to be patronised.

I couldn't agree more; driving is utterly selfish and dangerous, and those who are irresponsible enough to do it should only be allowed to do it on the basis that any collision is automatically their fault. I would actually go further than "guilty until proven innocent"; I don't think you can be "innocent" as a motorist. If you collide with a cyclist, then, whatever they may or may not have done leading up to the collision, the collision is invariably your fault, because you're the one who chose to go speeding around in two tons of metal cage when you didn't need to. As with slavery and everything else of that ilk, there is always a more responsible and humane alternative to motoring, and those who claim otherwise are just making excuses to give themselves a lazier and easier life at the direct expense of others, which I find totally deplorable.

The only reason we don't all see motoring as barkingly, madly dangerous is because it is so widely practised and accepted. (This is almost always the case where you find otherwise reasonable and respectable people doing something fundamentally unreasonable; take religion as another example.) Those of us who are more enlightened, and are able to think independently, owe it to all road users to set about changing this terrible perception which causes so many thousands of completely avoidable and senseless deaths. In the meantime, until we can educate everyone, we need to discourage motoring as much as possible by creating new offences, extending existing ones (e.g. by lowering speed limits and bringing in more speed cameras), and coming down very, very hard on infringements (we need much more in the way of instant lifetime bans, 4-figure and 5-figure fines, and prison sentences). We need to close the motorways, narrow other roads (where this would not endanger cyclists), and generally be as much of a pain to drivers as we possibly can, and we shouldn't be ashamed of doing so. This approach ought to force drivers to consider cycling, even where they are too selfish to do so because of mere "unimportant" reasons like not being a lethal danger to vulnerable, legitimate road users.

Sorry if I'm ranting, but it's a subject which I feel very strongly and passionately about. Every time I go cycling or walking, it makes me incredibly angry to see all those cars speeding past, especially when you consider that so many journeys are under 2 miles in length. It's one of the very worst things about today's society IMO.

For a long time, I have been of the opinion that the greatest benefit by far of, say, speed cameras and low speed limits is not that they save lives (let's face it, this is unproven, even though we'd all like it not to be), but that they make driving markedly more unpleasant, which should in theory result in modal shift towards cycling. If you accept that at least 95% of drivers speed at least once a month (even if it's "only" 31mph just before the end of a 30mph zone), and that that's unlikely to change in practice, then that means that the presence of the cameras is a constant message to those drivers that "You shouldn't be driving, and if you carry on then you could be fined and maybe banned on a technicality at any moment".

I think that this message is a powerful motivator to stop selfishly driving and start cycling instead, since of course once one cycles one no longer needs to worry about the limits, cameras, or other restrictions which are designed primarily to make motoring or rat-running more uncomfortable (literally in the case of speed humps!) I also think that this message becomes more powerful as the number of speed cameras and "unreasonably low" (i.e. "I want to drive as fast as I like") speed limits increases.

What I find strange is that few advocates of speed cameras seem to see discouraging driving as one of their benefits (or at least they don't say that they see that as one of the benefits). We are effectively putting all of our eggs into one basket by claiming that cameras are there exclusively for safety reasons. I can understand this approach: people can argue the toss about whether it's really a good idea to discourage driving, but no-one will dare to argue on the safety point, and those who do can easily be demonised as monsters who don't care about children dying etc.

But...the only trouble with that approach is that if cameras are eventually shown not to save lives, then the loony petrolhead lobby will seize upon this discovery with great delight and use it to demand the immediate removal of all cameras, and by then it will be very difficult to put a stop to that course of action. So I think it would benefit us all if we start to sell the discouraging of driving as one of the main benefits of cameras, both to politicians and the public. Yes, cameras are there to catch drivers out, and that's exactly the way it should be, because they shouldn't be driving at all. That way, if the awful day arrives when some awkward bar steward shows that cameras are not effective in reducing KSIs, it won't be the end of the world, as people will say "But shouldn't we keep cameras anyway since they result in more cycling?"

So, IMO the way forward is to plaster the country with, say, at least 10 times the number of cameras that we currently have, slash speed limits everywhere (including national speed limits, although generally these should be overridden by lower limits anyway), and, crucially, be upfront about why we are doing it: to make car use less attractive and encourage cycling, which as we all know will in itself save an innumerable number of lives in the end. Cars cause the vast majority of KSIs, so it stands to reason that if we are to ever seriously reduce KSIs then we need to get most if not all cars off the roads. Surely this is best done by declaring outright "war on the motorist" and being loud and proud about that fact, instead of skirting the issue and pretending that there is no such war. Having a war on the motorist is most definitely nothing to be ashamed of; quite the opposite. It is absolutely necessary if we are ever to seriously lower KSIs.

So, fellow cyclists, let's please have the courage of our convictions, tell the cagers in no uncertain terms that we want them and their dangerous, nasty, polluting machines off our roads, and use any non-violent means necessary to accomplish that task (including speed cameras and speed limits which are as low as possible, on motorways as well, since we need to take a holistic approach). Imagine not having to find a traffic-free route because they're all traffic-free; paradise, no? I firmly believe that that dream is within the grasp of all of us, sooner rather than later, if we all pull together and approach the issue in the above direct, unabashed way. We shouldn't be so coy when we are right. Cars have had their day and are not compatible with 21st Century life; let's make sure everyone gets the message, and that the cagers are well and truly cornered with our undeniable logic that driving on public roads is simply far too dangerous, and cycling and (where necessary) public transport are the responsible and unselfish ways of getting around.

Thanks for your time; I hope some of you will agree with me. With those who don't, I would be interested to hear why.