Jdsk wrote: ↑3 Dec 2021, 2:59pm
It gives equal length to what cyclists should do and what drivers should do.
An equal length, with consequently an implicit false equivalence. A vastly greater risk
to the cyclist; a vastly greater risk which is
created by the driver, because of the nature of the vehicle (speed, size and mass), which is under the complete and sole control of the driver.
The advice to motorists ought to be given before the advice to cyclists. There is an implicit bias in stating first what the cyclist must do to make themselves more visible, before telling motorists to look out for cyclists. The implication is that cyclists must make themselves more visible, before motorists need to pay more attention.
Again the advice for cyclists is given first. Moreover, whereas there are 10 items of advice for cyclists, there are only 6 for motorists. The guidance for motorists does not include what is probably some of the most important advice for driving safely: don't speed and drive at a speed appropriate to the road conditions.
The guidance for cyclists includes advice for planning their route to avoid roads.
Cyclists are also advised to get Bikeability training. There is no corresponding advice to drivers to get training to improve, despite the fact that the driving standards of many (most?) drivers would probably result in a fail if they were being assessed during a driving test.
Jdsk wrote: ↑3 Dec 2021, 3:27pm
The best method that we have for making these difficult decisions comes from evidence-based medicine. And one of the first principles is to be aware of the level of available evidence.
My own view where the issue in question is one of safety and safe behaviour, is that people behave they way they are trained to behave. A situation where widespread deviation from the trained behaviour is explicitly or tacitly tolerated results in non-compliance becoming more pervasive and ingrained. In professional situations such non-compliance is typically addressed by disciplinary measures and/or further training, combined sometimes with further testing. If someone is guilty of careless driving or (say more than one) speeding offence, they have fallen short of the standard required in order to be permitted to drive on the road, and it would be appropriate to require them to pass the test again (or the enhanced test) to demonstrate that they are capable of meeting the standard again.
'News' articles and campaigns which focus on what cyclists wear - or do not wear - are a distraction from the root causes of the problem and the solutions that flow from focusing on the root causes.