Cyclists "horrified" by Iain Duncan Smith's Telegraph column suggesting "dangerous cyclists should be driven off our roads", as Conservative MP accused of ignoring main road safety issues in latest call for stricter legislation

JLasTSR wrote:

I tend to think we need to have the same laws governing cyclists as govern other road users, it simplifies matters, it will allow us to show stats that are directly comparable. The number of cyclists that will be prosecuted under these new laws will be negligible. This will demonstrate far more effectively than anything else that cyclists as not a danger to the public in fact I suspect it will be quite the reverse. 

Personally I don't think bringing in speeding for bicycles is terribly necessary but then I don't ride anywhere where there is a 20mph zone. Our local limits here in Suffolk are 60, 40, 30 and I am quite happy cycling about with those but I am in no danger of breaking the speed limit.

It doesn't make much sense to use exactly the same laws to govern cyclists and motorists. There's the obvious problem as to how to prevent motorists from using bus and cycle lanes which is one area where the law has to be different. Cycling without MOT and insurance doesn't seem applicable either.

What we should be doing is recognising that there are dramatic differences between 10kgs of bicycle and 1800kgs of car, especially when you consider the difference in speeds that they can go. I would suggest that we prioritise traffic law enforcement based on the danger that is presented by the various riders/drivers i.e. use KSI statistics to inform policy rather than just "hurr durr, everyone's the same".

The MOT and Insurance I agree with you but whether its 100kgs or 1800kgs that kills or injures someone you cannot expect the family of the person hurt to see that there is so much difference, their relative is injured or dead and if the person that caused that was driving or cycling in such a way that caused that to happen then surely they deserve to be dealt with by the courts in the similar way?

I'm sure people will feel the same (or ... they might feel "it was just an accident" in a collision involving a vehicle... ).  However are there not already different laws and "usual penalties" for causing death in different circumstances (ignoring things with greater intent like murder)?  See e.g. guidelines for food safety and hygiene offenses - although of course this might be upgraded to manslaughter.  (Which presumably is available in cases of causing death on the road?)

JLasTSR wrote:

The MOT and Insurance I agree with you but whether its 100kgs or 1800kgs that kills or injures someone you cannot expect the family of the person hurt to see that there is so much difference, their relative is injured or dead and if the person that caused that was driving or cycling in such a way that caused that to happen then surely they deserve to be dealt with by the courts in the similar way?

No, there should be much more responsibility for the more destructive modes of transport. This is why there is a requirement for passing a driving test and holding a driving license for motor vehicles, with even larger vehicles (e.g. lorries) having more stringent tests and requirements. This is also why it is acceptable for a six year old to cycle around and not acceptable for them to be driving a transit van.

True enough about licensing. I tend to think parents should insist that their children do Bikeability before they go out on the road on their own. Largely because mine made me do the cycling proficiency test. I thought it a waste of time because I knew what I was doing on a bike, but it made me look at the highway code and learn a bit about what everyone was supposed to do and when, which was actually really useful.

JLasTSR wrote:

True enough about licensing. I tend to think parents should insist that their children do Bikeability before they go out on the road on their own. Largely because mine made me do the cycling proficiency test. I thought it a waste of time because I knew what I was doing on a bike, but it made me look at the highway code and learn a bit about what everyone was supposed to do and when, which was actually really useful.

I think it's worth teaching kids Bikeability, but it wouldn't be feasible to ensure that every cyclist on the road had done a cycling proficiency test. It'd be better to make the traffic safer for all road users and thus take away some of the requirement for cyclist training. I'd like to see a Highway Code test included in schools' curriculums - that would help cyclists and drivers.

We've apparently got some of these in the UK (though I missed out ...) - just add "dealing with road traffic as a pedestrian, cyclist or (go kart) driver" to the National Curriculum.

In between sessions for schools they can do them for all the drivers over n points.  Don't want to practice slowly and carefully to improve skill (in a pedal car - or maybe a speed-limited electric buggy would be more accurate)?  Don't get your licence back...

chrisonabike wrote:

We've apparently got some of these in the UK (though I missed out ...) - just add "dealing with road traffic as a pedestrian, cyclist or (go kart) driver" to the National Curriculum.

In between sessions for schools they can do them for all the drivers over n points.  Don't want to practice slowly and carefully to improve skill (in a pedal car - or maybe a speed-limited electric buggy would be more accurate)?  Don't get your licence back...

That's excellent. As a cheaper alternative, maybe schools should just use the surrounding roads - close the roads to motorised traffic for an hour or so during non-peak times.

That would be a "surely no one could possibly object to this" idea! Except as we already know it would currently be shot down (because eg. "we support 20mph limits but only where they make sense eg just outside schools"). In fact in Edinburgh at least I'm pretty sure a few *parents* would still object (if they on those streets)...

hawkinspeter wrote:

JLasTSR wrote:

True enough about licensing. I tend to think parents should insist that their children do Bikeability before they go out on the road on their own. Largely because mine made me do the cycling proficiency test. I thought it a waste of time because I knew what I was doing on a bike, but it made me look at the highway code and learn a bit about what everyone was supposed to do and when, which was actually really useful.

I think it's worth teaching kids Bikeability, but it wouldn't be feasible to ensure that every cyclist on the road had done a cycling proficiency test. It'd be better to make the traffic safer for all road users and thus take away some of the requirement for cyclist training. I'd like to see a Highway Code test included in schools' curriculums - that would help cyclists and drivers.

On the other hand, it would be feasible to ensure all new drivers undertake bikeability training as a required component of the driving test. It would also be feasible to make this a requirement for all drivers renewing their licences. Drivers unable to ride a bicycle would be able to select the option of a tricycle or power assist hand cycle and the percentage of disabled drivers unable to operate the latter would be vanishingly small.

OldRidgeback wrote:

On the other hand, it would be feasible to ensure all new drivers undertake bikeability training as a required component of the driving test. It would also be feasible to make this a requirement for all drivers renewing their licences. Drivers unable to ride a bicycle would be able to select the option of a tricycle or power assist hand cycle and the percentage of disabled drivers unable to operate the latter would be vanishingly small.

That would be an excellent idea - not so much for the physical handling skills, but the knowledge of appropriate cycling road positions e.g. taking primary and avoiding the door zone.

hawkinspeter wrote:

That would be an excellent idea - not so much for the physical handling skills, but the knowledge of appropriate cycling road positions e.g. taking primary and avoiding the door zone.

Also general roadcraft. Teach people the basic rules and practices when they are operating a vehicle that is far less capable of harm. Practical experience of hazard perception (children, pedestrians on phones; drivers pulling out; people waiting at lights; Busses + HGV's manouvring; etc, etc); 

Hmm... perhaps?  Cycling (as currently practiced in the UK) certainly demands a high level of awareness and understanding of behaviours on the roads.  Not certain how much translates directly to driving though?  That's why I think the "traffic garden" approach is the best solution - kids get to see things from the perspective of each mode in turn.  All those calling for "understanding" and "more empathy" on the streets should be noisily campaigning to have these build and used everywhere!

We could have both of course... but that's another front to campaign on.

I'm an optimist so I see value in teaching kids to cycle in the UK.  However we should recognise that 90-something percent are going to ditch this immediately they hit driving age.  That is if they ever started doing so by themselves outside of the park.  We haven't made safe routes for kids to cycle and adults don't cycle.

JLasTSR wrote:

I tend to think we need to have the same laws governing cyclists as govern other road users, it simplifies matters, it will allow us to show stats that are directly comparable. The number of cyclists that will be prosecuted under these new laws will be negligible. This will demonstrate far more effectively than anything else that cyclists as not a danger to the public in fact I suspect it will be quite the reverse. 

For some core rules/principles perhaps *.

In general as HP says different modes, different rules.  (Which is already the case - I for one won't be demanding the right to cycle on motorways or insisting that no cyclist may filter past a motor vehicle or that you can't park your bike on the pavement).

I just don't think "we're all following the same rules" will do anything to change people's perception as things are in the UK.  In fact regardless of the reality and of the law some motorists already feel that cyclists are "not playing by the same rules".  So are "cheating" by using the same space.  (I suspect this is part of the motivation for "you don't pay road tax!").

I think the only thing that will change people's perception is cycling being mainstream - so "everyone's doing it" at some point.  Of course to reach that point in the first place we will have had to bring speed limits down on "streets" and removed some of the cut-throughs for motorists.  Then - just like in NL - I predict that drivers will mostly be OK with sharing politely with cyclists in these areas (as they mostly are in NL).

I'm not against having a few cycling police at that point any more than I am against the current road police who will invariably be dealing with the predominant mode of transport e.g. drivers.

* Hence why I'm not too keen on "cyclists get to turn left on red / treat red lights as 'give way' ".  Of course we can achieve something similar with greater safety without needing to create a legal exception.

I might have simplified it a bit. I was thinking one thing and wrote another. The motorway one would never happen since all sorts of vehicles are already excluded, but I used to cycle down dual carriageways quite often when I went to Chelmsford in my youth. I still cycle on the A11 once or twice a year for a short distance but it is a short distance.

JLasTSR wrote:

I might have simplified it a bit. I was thinking one thing and wrote another. The motorway one would never happen since all sorts of vehicles are already excluded, but I used to cycle down dual carriageways quite often when I went to Chelmsford in my youth. I still cycle on the A11 once or twice a year for a short distance but it is a short distance.

I regularly cycle the dual carriageway bits of the A37 in Weston-super-Mud and whilst I can see why those kinds of roads are intimidating to cyclists, they should be safe if drivers ease off their aggression - long straight roads with excellent sight lines and an extra lane to easily enable safe overtakes.

It might be safer in some ways - if only because the number of cyclists is miniscule.  I agree that it should be safer - but perhaps only in the sense of motorways e.g. safer for motor vehicles.  Unless everyone sticks to the speed limits and you're close to their speeds... And like everything I'd guess as soon as the traffic volumes go up it becomes really inhospitable - that "overtaking lane" will disappear (until gridlock slows everyone).

Longer straighter roads may see people switching off (or failing to switch the phone off) -  because straight road / smooth traffic flow.  Or getting tunnel vision - with people swapping lanes and "discovering" slower cyclists hidden by other vehicles.

I'm guessing approx zero of those driving there would places with you (especially not taking their kids / cats / ageing in laws with them)?  FWIW Never going to be 8-to-80 compatible even if there were police at every junction and all drivers had signed a pledge to be very very careful...

As far as I can tell, there are no laws governing motorists. It's like the wild west out there.

But who would create the laws?

But who would administer the laws?

Turkeys will vote for Christmas sometimes but only if they get to define "Christmas".  Or they're sure it's only going to apply to other turkeys.  And generally only if something worse is threatened (they know that sleaze allegations come and go - people do get riled but are remarkably inconsistent about caring).

Needs some very clever and robust feedback loops to keep that doing what you expect, because if one thing is guaranteed it is people who already got to the top know how to work the system and have powerful mates.

Recall "we've had enough of experts" and Liz Truss deciding that advisory boards and then the entire civil service were in fact a fifth column.

chrisonabike wrote:

Recall "we've had enough of experts" and Liz Truss deciding that advisory boards and then the entire civil service were in fact a fifth column.

As I recall, IDS was a supporter of Truss.

You beat me to it  Burt!

On a related (if admittedly superficial) topic, could I ask road.cc to stop plastering this idiot's mug shot across these stories; the additional free publicity really isn't warranted.

OldRidgeback wrote:

 IDS stands for 'is definitely stupid' in the halls of Westminster. 

Apparently known at school as "Wally Duncan Smith" and in the army as "Ian Drunken Smith".