Cyclist Defence Fund – Brings Private Prosecution

[dodbinmule]

Cyclist Defence Fund – Brings Private Prosecution

The death of any individual either pedestrian or cyclist as the result of a person using motor vehicle not showing due care and attention or executing irresponsible behaviour is to condemn and that measure need to be put in place in the form of education, enforcement or engineering solutions to reduce and if possible eliminate such occurrences.

Even though there is a degree of responsibility on all road users to use due care and attention IMHO the balance is uneven in this case lopsided.

This private prosecution was limited in it effect in terms punishing the driver of the vehicle, it did highlight this lack of balance, but may have given the impression to some drivers that can get away with bad driving.

What is needed?

Many people are put off from cycling by traffic and reports of poor driving.

We need to campaign for presumed liability, but CYCLING UK appear to give up on this?
In addition, CUK should campaign for local authorities to conform to the 1988 Road Traffic Act, Section 39,

ALL the local authorities have legal duty to provide road safety measures. Unfortunately, this the theory but with little practices.

Road Traffic Act
The 1988 Road Traffic Act, Section 39, puts a "statutory duty" on the local authority to undertake studies into road traffic collisions, and to take steps both to reduce and prevent them.
The pertinent wording from the Act is:
39.2 Each local authority must prepare and carry out a programme of measures designed to promote road safety and may make contributions towards the cost of measures for promoting road safety taken by other authorities or bodies.
39.3 Each local authority -
• Must carry out studies into accidents arising out of the use of vehicles on roads or parts of roads, other than trunk roads, within their area
• Must, in the light of those studies, take such measures as appear to the authority to be appropriate to prevent such accidents, including the dissemination of information and advice relating to the use of roads, the giving of practical training to road users or any class or description of road users, the construction, improvement, maintenance or repair of roads for which they are the highway authority and other measures taken in the exercise of their powers for controlling, protecting or assisting the movement of traffic on roads

http://www.roadsafetyevaluation.com/hel ... trafficact
http://www.roadshare.co.uk/why-presumed-liability
http://www.cyclealert.com/presumed-liability-the-facts/
https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki ... -play-nice
https://www.yellowjersey.co.uk/what-is- ... liability/
http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/1 ... liability/
http://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-cen ... vs-europe/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/sco ... ampaigners
https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/scotsnet/2 ... r-cyclists
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/blog/driver- ... r-presumed
https://www.change.org/p/pass-a-member- ... edestrians
http://lcc.org.uk/pages/presumed-liability

[thirdcrank]

Re s39 RTA 1988 I doubt if there's a highway authority in the land that doesn't have people designated to deal with this. I don't think I'd be the first person to identify the problem as one of equating road safety with casualty reduction.

[Bez]

Key phrases: "promote road safety" and "measures [which] appear to be appropriate".

Not "reduce road danger" and "measures which are demonstrably effective".

Big difference.

[thirdcrank]

But I'm not among those you need to convince.

[dodbinmule]

Many road schemes e.g. the Holbon Theobald’s Road /Bloomsbury Way bus lane. This scheme ban cyclist in the bus lane because it was too narrow even though a similar scheme further up the road in New Oxford Street was narrower and did permit cyclist.

They did not carry out road safety audit on the alternative in the gyratory system that the cyclist would have been forced to use and which had cyclist accident history.

I objected to no effect but after about two years? Cyclist were permitted to use it.

So, my point is that local authorities do always carry the road safety audit on their scheme to cover cyclist and the adjacent area that are effected,

[Bez]

But I'm not among those you need to convince.

I know, sorry, it was a response to the OP.

[thirdcrank]

... So, my point is that local authorities do always carry the road safety audit on their scheme to cover cyclist and the adjacent area that are effected,

I don't understand what you are saying here. They do audits which are rubbish or they do audits when pushed. Or something else. Whatever, the only point I think I can usefully make, or reiterate because I've made it before is that Cycle Audit and Review was killed at birth by the big misters who provide for cars, in that they announced it would only apply to cycling schemes, rather than the road network as a whole. ie If they are not specifically providing for cyclists, they don't check the effect of their antics on cyclists.

In case it's not abundantly clear, I didn't think any of this up. I'm just reporting how I see it. I'm only the messenger.

PS Bez has posted to clarify.

[Vorpal]

So, my point is that local authorities do always carry the road safety audit on their scheme to cover cyclist and the adjacent area that are effected,

Safety audits are performed on schemes which are deemed to be sufficiently changed from previous conditions. They are generally done following either Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) guidance, or local authority guidance (some councils have their own procedures).

Local authorities sometimes depend upon contractors or other third parties to carry out the safety audits.

The main problem is that few auditors have a good understanding of cyclists' needs. They typically only consider the guidance which they are asked to consider, or default to DMRB requirements.

Also the outcomes necessarily depend upon the auditor's judgement, because other than admonition to consider vulnerable users, we have a whole 15 or so questions (and a couple of honorable mentions in the examples) out of 55 pages

I guess that aligns well with the numbers of cyclists on the roads most places.

Road safety audits are not at all designed to consider road danger reduction. They are only designed to consider crash reduction and consequence mitigation.

The closest we get to any discussion of road danger is in an example where a recommendation is made to avoid using raised edge line because it can pose a hazard to cyclists and

It is not uncommon for cyclists to use the marginal strip provided along busy bypasses to avoid being intimidated by other vehicles.

Anyway, as long as they make improvement to accident hotspots, and (mostly) follow DMRB, they generally consider that they have met their statutory obligations.

[MikeF]

It seems audits are usually carried out by non cyclists.

[Cunobelin]

Many road schemes e.g. the Holbon Theobald’s Road /Bloomsbury Way bus lane. This scheme ban cyclist in the bus lane because it was too narrow even though a similar scheme further up the road in New Oxford Street was narrower and did permit cyclist.

They did not carry out road safety audit on the alternative in the gyratory system that the cyclist would have been forced to use and which had cyclist accident history.

I objected to no effect but after about two years? Cyclist were permitted to use it.

So, my point is that local authorities do always carry the road safety audit on their scheme to cover cyclist and the adjacent area that are effected,

The problem is that often those who carry out the audit have never been on a bike.

We worked with our local council, and there was often a massive difference between what was considered appropriate and safe, and what a cyclist would consider

[karlt]

Many road schemes e.g. the Holbon Theobald’s Road /Bloomsbury Way bus lane. This scheme ban cyclist in the bus lane because it was too narrow even though a similar scheme further up the road in New Oxford Street was narrower and did permit cyclist.

They did not carry out road safety audit on the alternative in the gyratory system that the cyclist would have been forced to use and which had cyclist accident history.

I objected to no effect but after about two years? Cyclist were permitted to use it.

So, my point is that local authorities do always carry the road safety audit on their scheme to cover cyclist and the adjacent area that are effected,

cyclists! Cyclists!

Sorry, but it's really bugging me.