- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
London cyclist in traffic (picture copyright Simon MacMichael).PNGCheaper insurance for drivers who get cycle training, crackdown on parking in cycle lanes, and a new walking and cycling “champion”
The Department for Transport (DfT) has announced a number of new initiatives in response to its Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS) cycle safety review. Campaigners have welcomed many of the proposals, but expressed disappointment at the lack of emphasis on speed reduction.
The plan comprises 50 measures intended to combat road rage, encourage greater mutual respect between road users and protect the most vulnerable.
Measures include cheaper insurance for drivers who get cycle training; increased powers for councils to crack down on parking in cycle lanes; a new police unit to analyse video evidence submitted by the public; and the appointment of a new walking and cycling “champion”.
A review of the Highway Code could also be carried out to consider its guidance about how drivers should behave in relation to vulnerable road users.
Cycling and Walking Minister Jesse Norman said: “Greater road safety— and especially the protection of vulnerable road users such as cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders – is essential.
“We want to improve air quality, encourage healthy exercise, reduce obesity and boost our high streets and economic productivity. That means more support for cycling and walking, and that’s why these new measures are designed to deliver.”
The Cycling and Walking Alliance – which comprises Cycling UK, The Ramblers, British Cycling, Living Streets and Sustrans – expressed support for the plans, but asked why there was not more emphasis on speed reduction.
“Lowering vehicle speeds around people walking, cycling and horse riding doesn’t just reduce the danger to them, but also their perception of the danger,” said Cycling UK CEO Paul Tuohy. “While the DfT’s proposals for amendments to the Highway Code will help save lives, ignoring the threat and dangers of speeding is disappointing.”
The DfT’s proposals
Research suggests that drivers with experience of cycling are generally safer drivers and Cycling UK has long called for drivers to be incentivised to complete Bikeability training through discounts on insurance.
The action plan will assess whether insurance companies could offer such discounts to drivers and motorcyclists. The DfT says it will also work closely with courier companies to explore incentives for professional drivers to undergo training in driving safely alongside cyclists, pedestrians and horse-riders.
Another initiative aims to address a common bugbear among cyclists – parking in cycle lanes.
Cycling UK’s head of campaigns, Duncan Dollimore commented: “Although it’s already an offence to park in a mandatory cycle lane, the reality is that the decline in police traffic numbers means this has been widely ignored and rarely enforced.
“Giving local authorities the power to enforce this offence with CCTV cameras is one of the simple solutions Cycling UK proposed in our response to the government’s cycling and walking safety review, so we’re delighted that such a long overdue and simple measure is now being implemented”.
Dollimore was however quick to highlight a flaw in the DfT’s message that it would encourage councils to spend 15 per cent of their local transport infrastructure funding on walking and cycling.
“Cycling UK would love to see more local authorities spending more of their transport funding on walking and cycling, but if they’re being asked to spend 15 per cent of their budget on active travel they might well ask what percentage of the DfT’s budget will be committed to this, and whether the DfT will similarly reallocate funding to active travel.”
The DfT also wants to create a new police unit to analyse video evidence of dangerous driving recorded by other road users and to appoint a new cycling and walking champion who would ensure new policies met the needs of road users.
Meanwhile, a study will be commissioned to examine the implications of adopting presumed liability laws.
What won’t be happening
Suggestions that cyclists should be forced to wear helmets and wear hi-vis were rejected.
The DfT said, “we believe that wearing helmets, and also high-vis clothing, should remain a matter of individual choice rather than imposing additional regulations which would be difficult to enforce. We will review evidence and international experience on mandatory helmets for children and provide clear guidance to help parents choose what is appropriate for their child.”
Suggestions relating to bike licensing and number plates were also dismissed. The DfT said that the “safety case for a testing/licensing system for cyclists is not as strong as that for drivers since, by contrast with motor vehicles, bicycles involved in collisions on the highway are far less likely to cause serious injury to other road users.”
Citing the impact on the environment and health, it added that, “the costs and complexity of introducing such a system would significantly outweigh the benefits.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 2 sec ago
No evidence on the video of any interaction between themselves and the cyclist so possibly they simply didn't get the reg number?
- Rendel Harris 12 min 43 sec ago
When I see SLOW HORSES I always think ah, so this is where the ones I bet on are kept...
- ktache 48 min 7 sec ago
The proximity to the Transport Research Labs at Crowthorne means that the area often gets weird new stuff.
- chrisonabike 54 min 11 sec ago
No great mystery in either case, surely? Both US politician and the motor trade say "choose us and your life will be better and easier!" And other...
- S.E. 3 hours 1 min ago
1. It's obviously more aerodynamic, even a small backpack or hydration pack can help, there are studies about this....
- stonojnr 3 hours 6 min ago
theres an attitude I encounter alot locally, and demonstrated in bucket loads by drivers on my commute home tonight, that cyclists shouldnt be on...
- Keesvant 4 hours 25 min ago
If the chains snap that is lack of build quality or material.....
- Hirsute 5 hours 21 min ago
"Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner destroys much good."
- Jaijai 5 hours 46 min ago
His life was only worth shy of 7 years ,that's too lenient in every book .Let alone drugged up and leaving him to die
- webbierwrex 5 hours 51 min ago
I came here to basically write the same thing, the floating bus stop near me has a very narrow cycling lane between a very narrow pavement and a...
Add new comment
25 comments
insurance reduction - a "nudge" policy that solves nothing?
just a throw in I guess - government hasn't consulted with ABI on it
suspect would be full of holes and prone to fraud if introduced and doesn't impact the attitude and behaviour of those drivers that don't have insurance - might give some insight to drivers who want to save money and at moment just don't get it around cyclists
presumably the government intend funding it thru an IPT rebate scheme as ABI point out cyclists cost motorists f'all on insurance claims - would be interesting to see what the estimate for increase in this cost would be if presumed liability did happen and drivers bothered to hand over insurance details to cyclists
Insurance Times - Government considering premium discount for drivers with cycling awareness
"....in 2017 less than 0.1% of motor claims involved cyclists...."
https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/news/government-considering-premium-dis...
on presumed liability the report promises "research" which reads as "no way but we don't want to say that" ..........
Page 29 section 5.7 ..........Over the next two years 5.27 We will take note of good evidence produced from other countries when delivering our Action Plan, in particular from those countries, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, which have high levels of Active Travel and perform well on road safety measures. For example, we will review how civil liability rules function in other countries as part of our research on liability......
Page section 6.41 Switching to a presumed liability system for road traffic collisions would shift the burden of proof, so that the defendant would be presumed liable unless he or she could prove they were not negligent. As such, it would be a highly significant change to the legal system in England and Wales, almost certainly with many unexpected effects and one whose likely costs, benefits and practical effects are unknown. Civil liability law is different in Scotland and responsibility for it lies with the Scottish Government.
6.42 We intend to work together with the Ministry of Justice to commission research to understand the advantages and disadvantages of a change in liability rules. We will discuss with the Scottish Government whether they wish to research the likely impact of changes to Scots law too.
No need to take a test, you can get cheaper insurance now via carinsurance4cyclists.com, call 0800 819 9319 quoting Ride On Cycling. Alternatively, you can get more info here https://www.carinsurance4cyclists.com/?ref=51
Its going to annoy me that to get cheaper insurance i will also have to attend a cycling course.
Don't worry, you'll only have to ride like a good un during the course, back to riding like a twat once you've passed.
I felt the dark cloud of cynicism lift slightly after reading that transcript. There were some sensible, reasoned and evidence based arguments put forward that might actually make a difference. The big question is will these recommendations be acted upon any time soon?
Little answer? no
Big answer? NO
Phil Hammond became Transport Secretary and said 'we will end the war on the motorist'. He's currently chancellor.
The current transport secretary is more concerned with hiding from all the train crises than actually doing anything. We should be grateful for that, given that the last thing he 'did' was royally fuck the probation service, and that he didn't think he'd done anything wrong when he doored a cyclist. Doing nothing is the best service Failing Grayling can give the country.
And of course the entire cabinet is currently using Brexit as disguise for not running the country.
This government doesn't have the political will or capacity to do anything about it.
'review evidence for cycling helmets for children',
oh ffs, this is precisely where the problems stem from. You force helmets on kids, they cycle massively less, you immediately lose a massive chunk of potential future cyclists. Also you create yet more victim blaming, more onus on the vulnerable to armour up despite it being fucking useless. You turn kids forced to wear helmets into helmet wearing adults which is never, ever a good thing as we've seen.
That's not to even mention the fact more kids die of head injuries in playgrounds and cars from head injuries than the total number of child deaths on bikes, the focus on helmets for kids is massively wrong yet again, a simple look at the stats alone says we need to put helmets on kids (and adults) in motors and on foot well before any consideration for kids on bikes.That and forcing motorists to fucking drive massively safer/put in safe routes for kids to get to school/get across town, get to city centres, leisure centres, parks etc which will have vastly greater effect on child cycling safety.
Any chat about helmets comes from bogus types who are ignorant of the issues and facts that have been available for a very long time. How much more fucking evidence do you need to already say, helmet 'advice' for kids is bias, discriminatory and does more damage to cycling as well as the kids themselves. Children have a far greater susceptibility to risk compensation to feeling they are safer, test after test have been done on kids so we know this for a fact.
Typical of government ministers to ignore this and waste time on something that we know is not a solution to safety and never has been!
So no mandatory helmets, Hiviz or licensing, there are your daily mail headlines right there, you can almost feel the gammon based rage building.
Also no reference to the death penalty for any cyclist who’s in collision with a pedestrian. I should think Briggys will be back on breakfast news having a moan about that tomorrow, it’ll probably get more air time than brexit.
Never mind the onus being on the cyclist to take a test how about all drivers have to commute by bike for a week and that would do more than preaching to the converted. Only then would they understand the terror they put upon others.
Thinking about it.... rather than cheaper car insurance if you volunteer to go on a course, how about mandatory driving re-tests every say 10 years, and include awareness of cyclists and other vulnerable road users as part of that?
I know, it'll never happen. Too much cost, war on motorists, blah blah. It's still fairly ridiculous though that you can pass a test at 17/18 years old and be assumed to be ok for the rest of your life.
While we're at it, how about something a bit more concrete to tackle HGV and tipper truck fatalities in particular. All this review seems to be putting forward is extending or continuing with voluntary schemes.
At least Suggestions that cyclists should be forced to wear helmets and wear hi-vis were rejected (although that does imply that there is someone, somewhere, in government, who actually has sense, and I can't believe that...).
double post again.......
And if a driver (who has attended a cycle awareness course) then goes on to be responsible for a collision with a cyclist, will they be dealt with more severely by the Police and will see a significant rise in insurance premium?
Personally, I think that will be counter-productive. That would work to discourage drivers from taking the courses as they could then be subject to stricter penalities.
"Dollimore was however quick to highlight a flaw in the DfT’s message that it would encourage councils to spend 15 per cent of their local transport infrastructure funding on walking and cycling."
The biggest flaw is not that the DfT isn't itself committing to spend 15% on walking and cycling. The glaring problem is that Local Authorities are being "encouraged" to do this, rather than forced.
We all know what will happen. Councils will continue to do exactly as they have done and prioritise road funding. Nothing will happen to them as a result of completely ignoring this "encouragement" from central governement. The DfT not committing to do the same with its own budget is just an indication of the wider issue.
You see the same issue across various different areas of life. Mental health funding is another classic - government issues a nice press release and announces that money is being earmarked for mental health services. Very occasionally, this might even be extra money rather than saying existing funds need to be reallocated (i.e. what the DfT is telling councils to do in this announcement). However, what then happens is sod all. Even when extra money has been allocated, it's not actually ring fenced for mental health care and it goes instead to meeting other health targets.
"The DfT also wants to create a new police unit to analyse video evidence of dangerous driving "
On the face of it, sounds good. Rightly or wrongly, police resources are stretched and essentially crowd sourcing enforcement of poor driving may actually be quite efficient. However, clicking through on the link, the summary of the response says: "invest £100,000 to support police enforcement by developing a national back office function to handle dash-cam footage".
What difference is £100k going to make - That's what, salaries for 3 people? It's certainly not going to pay for decent IT infrastructure...
Edit: I should have said that obviously, this could have been so much worse given the media hysteria after the Alliston case. So against those very low expectations, this is good news??
Good start!
Bit concerned about the mandatory cycle lane comment though. When were they invented?
Rule 140, solid line indicates MUST NOT drive in, often referred to as a Mandatory Lane, as it is mandatory for drivers to adhere to the rule (MUST NOT) compared to a dashed line.
Rule 63
Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). When using a cycle lane, keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
Rule 140
Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOTdrive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
*double post
Been around for a while. Mandatory in that it is mandatory for other vehicles to not enter it, not that they are mandatory for cyclist to use them.
I know that, but concerned that this sort of comment is interpreted by motorists to mean that they are mandatory for cyclists to use them. Some already think that's the case and then give us a "punishment pass" to reinforce their mistaken belief
I know that, but concerned that this sort of comment is interpreted by motorists to mean that they are mandatory for cyclists to use them. Some already think that's the case and then give us a "punishment pass" to reinforce their mistaken belief
It's actually a really stupid name. "Mandatory" usually means it's compulsory to do something, not to not do something. As in "attendance is mandatory" - nobody ever says "non-attendance is mandatory". Should be something like "exclusive cycle lanes".
Ah that's another vague one, in fact it's Mandatory for motor vehicles to stay out it, not mandatory for cyclists to use!
Some good news then. If a council worker in an office can look at a CCTV monitor and go "There's a knobhead parked in a cycle lane - fined! There's a knobhead parked in a cycle lane - fined!" all day long, it's good for council funds, good for us cyclists and bad news for knobheads!
Except, would the council get any proceeds from the fine?
I'd actually welcome privitisation of "simple" traffic offences such as speeding, red light jumping, parking inconsiderately etc. This would take the heat away from the local council and instead make the private firm the target of the motorists' ire. Also, a private firm would very much be interested in known spots where motorists tend to break the law and as such, people would soon learn to drive carefully.
I think it would be similar to Bristol's "littering police" - they target smokers as they know that most smokers will just throw their cigarette butt on the ground (often despite there being bins close by) and they just lie in wait for them to do so. The smokers complain, but it's easy for them to not get caught - just don't litter.