Yet another Death?

[merseymouth]

Spot on MJR, 100%. Only thing missing is Jeremy Clarkson as Transport Secretary? At least things were going the right way when Barbara Castle held the post, she didn't drive . MM

[Icsunonove]

As a society we make it someone's job to make the road network safer for all users. We give them a significant percentage of the roads budget to spend solely on this aim. We give them the authority to change speed limits where other interventions are not practicable.

And then they refuse to do it for various spurious reasons which I suspect are covers for "won't upset motorists". How do we change this?

My statement was offered as a suggestion rather than as a statement of fact. Are there people whose sole function is to fulfill this role? Do they have significant money to spend? I think not.

[mjr]

Yes, every highways authority has safety auditors. They can block or redirect almost all highways spending, as far as I can tell.

Their changes are often a final step, changing things after consultation had happened, without any public right of reply. Locally, they prevented installation of wide cycle lanes on roads connecting four motor-free cycleways and blocked the use of "no entry except cycles" on at least five roads, for spurious reasons but it seems they can't be overruled, only either convinced or replaced.

[Icsunonove]

Another way of looking at it is certain road users are being totally ignored and hence are being designed out of existence (metaphorically as well as literally). A body similar to the HSE should be able to hold those responsible to account.

I suppose comes down to what society deems to be acceptable. For most road casualties seem to be considered inevitable and worse still, a price worth paying for our chosen lifestyles. We do not accept this in the workplace, in our schools, in our homes.... but when it comes to roads it's just a shoulder shrug and seek to hold the victim responsible.

Make everyone watch 'Stop Killing our Children', https://vimeo.com/361286029

[Carlton green]

In the interests of reasoned discussion I would point out that whilst the U.K. doesn’t have quite the safest roads in the World it does have relatively safe ones - still agreed that it’s far from perfect and there are some places I will not cycle in. See here for independent figures, some surprising results and particularly so when you consider our high population density (so if not everything we must still be doing something right):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... death_rate

[Mike Sales]

In the interests of reasoned discussion I would point out that whilst the U.K. doesn’t have quite the safest roads in the World it does have relatively safe ones - still agreed that it’s far from perfect and there are some places I will not cycle in. See here for independent figures, some surprising results and particularly so when you consider our high population density (so if not everything we must still be doing something right):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... death_rate

Raw data can be misleading.
I understand our road death rate is low for motorists, but high for child pedestrians. Our children's freedom, especially to cycle, is limited too. Many more Dutch children ride to school etc. than British, so crude death rates may conceal dangerous road conditions. Our low overall death rate needs breaking down.
The Road safety establishment is always keen to talk about our low overall death rate, but do you find our roads a reassuringly safe environment to cycle?
More Dutch cyclists per head of population are killed than British and one politician was brazen enough to claim that this shows that our roads are safer for cyclists than the Netherland's! Deaths per mile ridden tells a different story

https://www.bicyclelaw.com/cyclists-three-times-more-likely-to-die-on-uk-roads-than-abroad/

[Pete Owens]

Yes, every highways authority has safety auditors. They can block or redirect almost all highways spending, as far as I can tell.

Their changes are often a final step, changing things after consultation had happened, without any public right of reply. Locally, they prevented installation of wide cycle lanes on roads connecting four motor-free cycleways and blocked the use of "no entry except cycles" on at least five roads, for spurious reasons but it seems they can't be overruled, only either convinced or replaced.

Safety Audits are really a misnomer - they are really just a check that designs conform to the standards - and since those standards are extremely autocentric in the first place then overriding them is pretty much a precondition for anyone seriously trying to make the roads safer that they break those conventions. Any divergence from convention for example your of contra-flow cycling is sure to get flagged in a safety audit. More radical designs such as shared space require a running battle with the safety auditors - which is why there are so few of them

However, the safety audit is not a veto - just a set of recommendations. The responsibility still rests with the designer, who can still go ahead with a design. The audit does however provide a useful excuse if a engineer is not keen on doing something.

[merseymouth]

Hi all, I've just seen a piece of court news in "Rail" magazine - A HGV Driver admitted going through a red traffic light and slamming into a rather large tram in Sheffield in 2018, the tram is still out of service. He was fined the earth shattering sum of £250-00p?
I believe that MickF could tell you that one gets a greater fine for not having a TV License!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Might offer an explanation as to why so many motorized road users fail to see cyclists. Makes me sick! MM

P.S. Of course with most road censuses not including cyclist in their data the statistic are very skewed.