“Poll after poll has shown that the biggest reason for people not wanting to cycle is perceived danger. And anyone who has dared to ride a bike on unprotected roads will soon discover that a large part of this danger comes from pure illegality, not least the vast proportion of drivers who speed, especially on residential roads.

This neatly leads us to the other factor highlighted by the report, and its reaction to it: the howls of outrage if people politely suggest that people could perhaps be less of a danger to others when they drive.

Before the report’s launch, the only one of 10 recommendations highlighted in the media was the idea of removing the so-called tolerances in speeding offences, whereby you can currently go about 10% plus 2mph above a limit and not be penalised.”

The link to the parliamentary group report (.pdf file) is here.

27 points

This reminds me of two recent posts that I got involved in here.

The first was about Wales’ upcoming 20mph zone, where people were complaining that “they’re just trying to generate revenue”. Well, only if you decide to break the law, surely?

The other was a discussion on the cyclists who were “caught” speeding in Devon. Drivers were outraged and wanted cyclists to adhere to the speed limits (good luck without a speedometer). But they would get apoplectic when you suggested that they should do the same.

As a cyclist it always strikes me that we probably don’t need any new laws to make the roads safe, we just need the current laws to be enforced and obeyed. If every driver gave every cyclist 1.5m of space, priority at junctions, kept out of the cycle lanes, etc. as they’resupposed to then the roads would be a lovely place to cycle.

permalink
report
reply
9 points
*

The other was a discussion on the cyclists who were “caught” speeding in Devon. Drivers were outraged and wanted cyclists to adhere to the speed limits (good luck without a speedometer). But they would get apoplectic when you suggested that they should do the same.

Motorists Break Law To Save Time, Cyclists Break Law To Save Lives, Finds Study

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

From your link:

“Beanland’s study concluded that “cycling experience is associated with more efficient attentional processing for road scenes.” She suggested that road safety would be improved for all if more motorists also cycled.”

I suspect they’re right.

Before I took up cycling I also used to review my car dashcam footage and reflect on what could have been done better.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

I lived in the Netherlands for a few years. One of the main reasons I believe it is such a safe place to cycle is that basically every motorist is also a cyclist.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

A similar trope is tossed around in motorcycling communities.

(Supposedly) Motorcyclists make better drivers, not only in themselves but also in their friends, family and neighbours by virtue of awareness “my neighbour Jim is a motorcyclist, I should look out for him when I’m driving”.

Some groups are advocating that the CBT (basic motorcycle training) should be a requirement for new drivers to capitalise on this.

Some level of mandatory other-road-user immersion requirement could be a good way a good way to boost safety.

Fuck, driver licensing is too relaxed anyway, bring in mandatory retesting and increase the skill requirements gradually. Literally force the shit drivers out of their cars. You do it for commercial/heavy vehicles why not personal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Or they could at least make cycling awareness part of driver’s training.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=4SgtlwTGAz8

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Same guy, same publication a year prior found that not only do cyclists break the law for different reasons, they also do it less frequently than motorists.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

About 20 years ago, I was caught by a copper using a radar gun and was ticked off for speeding on my bicycle. I admit, I was just having fun. But yes it was dangerous.

He was mainly tickled ar the idea of being able to charge someone with ‘cycling furiously’. He didn’t just told me off

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Drivers were outraged and wanted cyclists to adhere to the speed limits (good luck without a speedometer).

I’ve found myself dragged into online conversations several times over the years regarding speed limits in Royal Parks, especially Richmond Park which is notorious for its rat running drivers.

Motorists always managed to work themselves up into a frenzy over “speeding” cyclists, no matter how many times it was pointed out to them that in the park the speed limit applies to motorised vehicles only. Cyclists could not possibly be speeding as there was no speed limit applicable to them on those privately managed roads.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That sounds silly. Why on earth is that duality in place?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I don’t know. Maybe because as a rider you cannot be expected to know your own speed without a speedometer, maybe.

Still, given that this is the rule and it’s well documented and publicised, it’s a bit boring to having to explain to yet another gammony armchair warrior on those forums. So I stopped going there.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

They have been given out tickets to speeding cyclists for a while now, at least according to a friend who cycles a lot, so I think it applies equally but is just exceptionally harder to enforce. You need multiple police officers physically stopping and giving tickets.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Enforcement of existing rules would go a long way; the parliamentary group also advises increasing tariffs for breaking the law and tightening the what counts for “exceptional circumstances” when it comes to defence.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
*

Driver training and awareness campaigns and reduced speed limits are all tinkering around the edges. They don’t make any meaningful change. The Netherlands and Denmark proved this is a solved problem: build dedicated cycleways with a curb separating them. Yes it’s expensive, but it works. Anything else is virtue signalling. Cars and bicycles are wildly different modes of transport. Asking them to share the same space is dangerous. Much more dangerous than asking pedestrians and cyclists to share the same space.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

And Dutch residential roads discourage speeding. Also, their rollout looks really cool:

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Agreed. And compared to the build and maintenance costs of a car road, cycling infrastructure is incredibly cheap.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

I live in a moderately sized British town which is completely flat and would be perfect for cycling, but it’s so car focused it’s ridiculous. There used to be a cycle lane at some point but it’s completely washed out and no one bothers to fix it. If you cycle anywhere you expect to be killed any moment, because people are annoyed by you and overtake by the smallest margin. Just recently there was this absolute bastard complaining in the town’s Facebook group about people doing less than 60mph in the b-roads around town, the same b-roads that are super twisty and barely fit two cars side by side, and should really be 40mph.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

Small twisty residential roads should really be 40 KM/H or less

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

The B roads the poster mentions are very likely rural and not residential, which default to the national speed limit of 60 mph for singe lane roads. Residential roads in the UK are usually 30 mph, sometimes 20 mph.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

Here are the 10 recommendations (there’s a lot of text surrounding these explaining and justifying them which I’ve trimmed out):
A1) the Government consider the introduction of escalating penalties for repeat traffic offences.
A2) the Government seek consistency by requiring re-testing for anyone wishing to drive following any period of disqualification.
A3a) the Government increase the maximum sentence for dangerous driving to four years.
A3b) the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) guide police forces to bail drivers whom they arrest for dangerous driving with a condition not to drive.
A4) the Sentencing Council revisit its 2020 guidance on the totting-up disqualification, to reinforce that exceptional hardship should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances.
A5) tolerances in the enforcement of speeding be removed.
B1) the development of guidance based on best practice, with the intention that it is adopted as widely as possible by Police forces.
B2) the implementation of a standardised system across police forces for submission and processing of third-party reporting, based on best practice and supported by adequate resourcing.
B3) the Government appoint a UK Commissioner for Road-Danger Reduction.
B4) Police and Crime Commissioners should consider all crash victims as victims of crime.
B5) the Government launch a very extensive and ongoing communications campaign designed to increase greatly both understanding of and compliance with the changes

permalink
report
reply
3 points

Just the first of these would be massive. If after your 9 points wear off and you are back to 0 any further offence instantly is 9 points instead of 3 for 5 years then you aren’t going to speed are you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I’ve been trying to get my local council to enforce the law on the road near me and have just been fobbed off repeatedly.

It’s a 30 road, with a school and loads of pedestrians and cyclists using it yet we see people running the red lights, speeding well over 50 and doing crazy overtakes DAILY

I’ve driven and cycled in 3 other countries and England is by far the scariest, feels like every other driver is trying to kill you

permalink
report
reply

United Kingdom

!unitedkingdom@feddit.uk

Create post

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think “reputable news source” needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

Community stats

  • 2.1K

    Monthly active users

  • 2K

    Posts

  • 19K

    Comments