Driver spared jail after killing cyclist in “momentary lapse of concentration”

IanMSpencer wrote:

I wonder what the impact would be on driving standards of licences were withdrawn for far longer periods. How about if the starting point for a driving ban involving death or serious injury was a permanent ban? ... Increase the probability of losing your licence through better enforcement and higher tariffs and I think driving standards would improve.

I'm skeptical. Most drivers drive negligently at least some of the time, but most drivers never kill or seriously injure anyone at all, let alone frequently. From an individual driver's perspective it's a very low probability event, so the consequences are going to be far too uncertain and speculative to reliably affect many people's behavior.

I think part of the solution might lie somewhere around your point about speed cameras. There's a very strong argument to be made that we can and should reliably affect drivers' behavior by aggressively holding them responsible for common bright line offenses (speeding, phone use, too-close passing) that increase the risk of seriously injuring someone, rather than waiting until a full-blown tragedy occurs and then punishing the driver retroactively out of frustration and rage but without much hope of accomplishing anything substantial.

Agree to the actually enforcing the law so there's more than a passing chance of picking up on offenses.  Even where these are "minor".  Several (e.g. speed, mobile use, obvious intoxicated driving) certainly are factors in crashes.  Some would be pretty good "pointers" to risk e.g. going around in an illegal motor.

Again though - and I've never seen the numbers - I wonder whether this will seriously affect the KSIs.  I suspect - just a guess - as well as some obvious wrong-uns wreaking havoc there's also a large contribution from "millions of unexceptional drivers making the normal human mistakes - and it just happening at 'the wrong time'".  In that case I suspect not much would change if penalties or even enforcement were enhanced.

There's also our failure to design vehicles, infra and rules to better prevent or mitigate the consequences of foreseeable situations.  This is not exactly "low hanging fruit" as changes here are clearly difficult and costly.  However we can at least see what we could do and the consequences by reference to other places.  We could see what effects installing good quality cycle infra and lots of it would have, for instance.  Or preventing overtaking on fast two-lane roads, or improving vision from large vehicles...

From a hazard management point of view it's always going to be more effective to remove the hazard (motor vehicles) than try to change the behaviour of the motorists.

Agree that a lot of harm is caused by unexceptional drivers making normal (read: inevitable) human mistakes, and that a big part of the best solution therefore must include improving infrastructure design and cars themselves in order to neutralize the human factor.

Still, I think there is incremental benefit in holding drivers responsible for and attempting to deter them from behavior (such as speeding, phone use, etc.) that increases the risk above the inevitable human baseline, especially since those policies would be relatively (*relatively*) quick and easy to implement, whereas improvements in infrastructure and vehicle design will come around grudgingly if at all (although I am cautiously optimistic that autonomous driving technology will be a big step in the right direction--self-driving cars will still mess up occasionally, but humans mess up constantly, and we shouldn't confuse a lack of perfection with a lack of improvement).

ejocs wrote:

Agree that a lot of harm is caused by unexceptional drivers making normal (read: inevitable) human mistakes, and that a big part of the best solution therefore must include improving infrastructure design and cars themselves in order to neutralize the human factor.

Normal, or nomalised? A lot of horrendoulsy bad driving habits are normalised.

This is exactly how H&S law is supposed to work. Police the circumstances which are conducive to injury and deaths. You fine people for minor things, like not securing ladders etc, rather than waiting for the inevitable before jailing them.

It's such an obvious part of the solution, no? Who wouldn't prefer to stop a tragedy from occurring rather than waiting for the tragedy to inevitably occur and then impotently pointing the finger of blame? And yet the fuckwit police can't be bothered. Granted, like any organization they don't have unlimited resources to pursue every project they might want to pursue, but this clearly beneficial policy strikes me as being firmly within their grasp if only they would give a damn.

Perhaps, given that there are 30 million cars and 130,000 police and 280 billion miles driven (based on the first Google results I could see rather than any serious research) we are asking the police to do a task which is wildly beyond realistic.

Given there are 25,000 KSI per annum, at 1 million pounds per incident, a rough figure that I picked up from a mate who worked at British Rail some years ago, so probably out of date, that's a budget of 25billion per year if you cost it. Why not set up a dedicated road police force with powers to direct the highways authorities to fix accident blackspots and the authority to install whatever surveillance gadgetry they desire as long as it can be shown to have a specific road safety purpose?

Of course the police can't watch every driver and catch every violator. But they don't have to. They only have to watch and catch enough people to make the rest of the drivers take seriously the threat of fines or suspended licenses or worse if they continue refusing to follow bright line laws that are in the clear interest of public safety.

I'm with you on bigger budgets and dedicated task forces, and potentially on automated surveillance too. I've got the usual privacy concerns about the latter, but maybe we've already crossed the Rubicon with regard to technological intrusion into our lives and may as well at least reap whatever benefits there are to be had.

I wonder what police resources are put into the 600 murders a year? How many of those are preventable due to the risk of being caught rather than in the moment?

As a cyclist we are as likely to be killed by a motorist as to be murdered. Perhaps we should be accorded the same priority given the impact is the same?

I guess though, the point is that to get to the position where drivers have the perception of being at risk, there needs to be a step change in resourcing.

IanMSpencer wrote:

I wonder what police resources are put into the 600 murders a year? How many of those are preventable due to the risk of being caught rather than in the moment?

There's little to no evidence that murders are significantly reduced due to the perceived risk of being caught. The circumstances that precipiate murder--inebriation, in-the-moment rage, living deeply within a lifestyle that is dissociated from the values and incentives and opportunities of the wider society--all but preclude making that kind of calculation.

IanMSpencer wrote:

As a cyclist we are as likely to be killed by a motorist as to be murdered. Perhaps we should be accorded the same priority given the impact is the same?

I would argue it's actually worse for us as cyclists. Even if the ultimate rate of death is the same, we're made to fear for our lives every single time out (not to mention all of the severe injuries that don't result in death).

IanMSpencer wrote:

I guess though, the point is that to get to the position where drivers have the perception of being at risk, there needs to be a step change in resourcing.

For sure. I think it's clear that far too many drivers perceive no risk at all to themselves as a result of their own behavior, and that has to change.

ejocs wrote:

There's little to no evidence that murders are significantly reduced due to the perceived risk of being caught. The circumstances that precipiate murder--inebriation, in-the-moment rage, living deeply within a lifestyle that is dissociated from the values and incentives and opportunities of the wider society--all but preclude making that kind of calculation.

IanMSpencer wrote:

As a cyclist we are as likely to be killed by a motorist as to be murdered. Perhaps we should be accorded the same priority given the impact is the same?

I would argue it's actually worse for us as cyclists. Even if the ultimate rate of death is the same, we're made to fear for our lives every single time out (not to mention all of the severe injuries that don't result in death).

IanMSpencer wrote:

I guess though, the point is that to get to the position where drivers have the perception of being at risk, there needs to be a step change in resourcing.

For sure. I think it's clear that far too many drivers perceive no risk at all to themselves as a result of their own behavior, and that has to change.

The problem for the politicians is working out how to sell it as an improvement for everyone in the face of any safety improvement being characterised as a way on motorists.

Simple example of behaviour to target that should have support: I was going down the A1, non-motorway stretch, two lane dual carriageway. Car in front passing lorry at 65mph. I am doing 70 (72 on the cruise control, calibrated by GPS, and a couple of other tests), and wait behind motorist and then return to 70 as they pull in, no hassling. I've seen van approaching behind. I chug past at my 5mph difference as van sits a couple of metres off. I clear car but not yet at safe pulling in, van closes to about a metre. I pull in at my usual point and van skims past, not waiting for me to clear the lane, and passenger is gesticulating wildly. I point to my rear view mirror and mouth camera, confident that they can't tell I don't have one. I do this because there is a high chance of retaliation - from a vehicle demanding to be able to drive at 20mph over his speed limit when I am driving at the maximum I am allowed to do when it is safe. In 4 hours of driving, it was the only incident I had, but as I often say, 1 in a hundred is a reasonable estimate of aggressive drivers who use their vehicles offensively.

The figure for 2017 was £35 billion - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Purely from an economics point of view, spending a few billion pounds per year on prevention (infrastructure, enforcement, education, etc) would pay off massively.

But cycling infra is too expensive...

Of course that's not how people who cycle might see it.  I think the real point is at ***.  Unless we're deluding ourselves we implicit accept - by having "universal driving" - that crashes will happen.  So having any drivers is implicitly not "vision zero"!  However since road travel in the UK is globally very "safe" this allows most people not to encounter this reality, most of the time.

How to change things?  I can see two: monitoring and much better separation of vulnerable road users.  Monitoring - unless we suddenly find triple the police - would be "tech": detect dangerous behaviour before crashes so drivers get feedback or "enhance" the car so e.g. it can spot when you're above to drive into someone.  (Or complete "autonomous vehicle").

I'm going for the low-tech solution - with a ton of "incidental" benefits - better separation.  I may be on the wrong side of history in the UK but I know it "works" in general.

chrisonatrike wrote:

I'm going for the low-tech solution - with a ton of "incidental" benefits - better separation.  I may be on the wrong side of history in the UK but I know it "works" in general.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point, there is neither the budget or the willpower to implement a completely separate infrastructure for active travel users everywhere and if you don't have a complete system the we either have to still share some roads with cars or avoid some places. With the current evidence on climate change we probably don't even have the time if we wanted to, so for me the answer is education of drivers and increased enforcement of the rules of the road either by increased police budgets/priority or technology. 

Disagree on the whole and the parts.  It's a fallacy that infra must be entirely separate to work.  That's not even the case in The Netherlands.  Or are they a failure?

So you're correct - there will be sharing.  Looking at NL, wikipedia says they've 139,000 km of public roads,  35,000 km of which have separate cycle paths, 4,700 km have bike lanes (not separate).  Even allowing for motorways that is a lot of sharing.  And that's NL - other "successful" places have much less dedicated bike infra.

It's about where you put it.  Road danger is not evenly distributed.  Junctions in particular are problems and certain main routes will need fixed.  Paris, Seville etc. show that while far from being as cheap as paint if you start with the right principles (a network, certain minimum standards) you can built relatively inexpensively.  Further some fairly quick changes can make a place where lots of people (not just an extra 1%) *will* make trips.  Now you've a poplation of people who are aware and invested in cycling.

As for expense and political will I agree that's how it looks now.  We've been hearing the same refrain of "prioritising active travel" (with crumbs) for more than a quarter century in the UK.  However that's not set in stone.  Cycling infra costs much less than motor infra.  It's all about choices - what do we prioritise?

I don't think you can police or educate drivers (that is certainly not cheap either!) into making the roads feel safe places to cycle.  People don't cycle because it doesn't feel safe or convenient, not because they're aware of the numbers (it's already a "safe" activity).  So that will have zero impact on climate change.  I'd love more enforcement but I think we'll quickly hit a point of diminishing returns on additional police required per number of crashes reduced.

Detail here:

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/23/it%E2%80%99s-too-expensive-to-provide...

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/16/higher-standards-of-driving-would-mak...

chrisonatrike wrote:

Disagree on the whole and the parts.  It's a fallacy that infra must be entirely separate to work.  That's not even the case in The Netherlands.  Or are they a failure?

I've not been there but from what I've seen and read they have done a good job.

chrisonatrike wrote:

So you're correct - there will be sharing.  Looking at NL, wikipedia says they've 139,000 km of public roads,  35,000 km of which have separate cycle paths, 4,700 km have bike lanes (not separate).  Even allowing for motorways that is a lot of sharing.  And that's NL - other "successful" places have much less dedicated bike infra.

approximately 25%, that's a big chunk of infrastructure even allowing for quick wins by stealing an existing lane, we will be a long time getting there.

chrisonatrike wrote:

It's about where you put it.  Road danger is not evenly distributed.  Junctions in particular are problems and certain main routes will need fixed.  Paris, Seville etc. show that while far from being as cheap as paint if you start with the right principles (a network, certain minimum standards) you can built relatively inexpensively.  Further some fairly quick changes can make a place where lots of people (not just an extra 1%) *will* make trips.  Now you've a poplation of people who are aware and invested in cycling.

we still don't have these minimum standards, a new bypass near me has a cycle lane to avoid a roundabout, it stops at a pile of dirt round a blind bend on a 60mph limit road without even a dropped kerb. I have no faith in the people who think this is acceptable.

chrisonatrike wrote:

As for expense and political will I agree that's how it looks now.  We've been hearing the same refrain of "prioritising active travel" (with crumbs) for more than a quarter century in the UK.  However that's not set in stone.  Cycling infra costs much less than motor infra.  It's all about choices - what do we prioritise?

I think we will see a bigger change in the next 10 years as petrol costs and the price of electric cars prices large numbers of the working class out of cars.

chrisonatrike wrote:

I don't think you can police or educate drivers (that is certainly not cheap either!) into making the roads feel safe places to cycle.  People don't cycle because it doesn't feel safe or convenient, not because they're aware of the numbers (it's already a "safe" activity).  So that will have zero impact on climate change.  I'd love more enforcement but I think we'll quickly hit a point of diminishing returns on additional police required per number of crashes reduced.

Detail here:

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/23/it%E2%80%99s-too-expensive-to-provide...

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/16/higher-standards-of-driving-would-mak...

You're always going to reach a point of diminishing returns on any action you take on road safety but current enforcement is so far below what it was when I started driving that I think we could usefully increase it at the moment. On the education front again I see far more drivers who are not up to the standard I would like to see, most people seem to think that passing the test makes them perfect but I was taught that passing the test meant you had reached the minimum standard and you should continue to learn and improve from that point.

Well I'll agree with anyone who points out that much UK infra is not just not trying but is bordering on evidence of misconduct in public office - a total waste of cash.  I live somewhere (Edinburgh) where it's possible to see the whole spectrum - both the "usual" (awful) but also some good stuff.  Some new but not all of it.  Some surprisingly simple and effective (and no doubt cheap).  From a very selfish perspective I'm on a traffic-free mini-network which connects in to quiet streets and some "historic LTNs" so I can link a lot of journeys with little or no traffic.  It's a UK rarity but it illustrates that you can often start with a relatively small amount of "good stuff" - if done thoughtfully.

As for "we will be a long time getting there" we've been several generations getting all our motor vehicle infra.  Yes, the Netherlands started from a high point and yes they have spent years (and fought for) reversing putting motor vehicle infra first.  I mentioned other places to illustrate that you really can start from where you are.

But you have to start.  I'd say the UK's efforts have never effectively done that.

I agree that I see more terrible driving "in the wild".  It's almost like once you passed that was it.  Plus we have more drivers and fewer police.  And despite not being "able to afford" cheaper cycling infra we're still building plenty more new expensive motor vehicle infra.

As always - unless the external circumstances change as you suggest, someone has to make a first bold move (history says a good way is to ask "what about the kids?").  Without that we'll be a decade or a quarter century down the line saying exactly the same thing.

Not been to NL (or Malmo, or Copenhagen, or Seville, or Bern, or Paris  ...)?  I highly recommend a virtual tour - but with an informed guide.  The detail is important.  Here's a quick "normal person" perspective.  Bicycle Dutch has a wonderful video library.  Ranty Highwayman is an actual UK civil engineer who blogs about how we can and are starting to do this sort of thing in the UK.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Were they carrying out the activity in a manner (up until to the crash) where it was foreseeable that this could happen ***?

I suspect many drivers, and I'd include myself when I'm not taking care, drive on the assumption that they need to scan the road for other cars (and larger). That often leads to assumptions, where it is clear from a limited view of the way ahead that there is no possibility of a car bring present, ignoring the possibility that a cyclist could yet be concealed.

I'm pretty sure that's how most people drive, and most of the time it makes little difference, because you have a complete view ahead. But pulling out of some junctions etc, cyclists can seemingly appear "out of nowhere", which is to say, out of where a whole car could not have been concealed, but a cyclist could.

Kinda points to "system" or "design issues" then, no?  Where the question should not be "is this safe for use by a careful, competent driver?" but "is this safe for use by the average human driver?  How safe it it for the large number of foreseeably impaired drivers?" Or "how do we make a system safer given that is how people drive (and we permit / encourage it)?"

As I've said before I don't know if merely "locking up the real wrong'uns" would be the low hanging fruit.  I suspect it would be equally effective / simpler to look at the mass.  So not homicidal but complacent and only looking for other large motor vehicles.  Frequently distracted - indeed allowed to be on a phone call, kids in the back, in a hurry.  Last read the highway code 30 years ago or more.  They may also not be able to turn their head properly, their vehicle may have multiple "blind spots" (because they're not checking or because even if they did it's physically impossible to see), their eyesight, hearing and reaction times may be far below the "average" (however we judge that).

Basically trying to mitigate a systematic issue at an individual level.  The jury / judge, understanding this, are reluctant to find individuals wholly responsible for this.  (There but for the grace of god go I).  So nothing further happens to improve the situation because it's been to court and been dealt with.

No you numpty. If you're driving around in a 2 Tonne lump of metal and you kill somebody (who really is innocent of committing any crime), due to your driving, then you are guilty of killing that person and you do need to be punished appropriately. Other motorists need to see the appropriate punishment and, only then, might things begin to change.

100% agree. When a driver kills somebody out of pure incompetence/ lack of attention/sun in their eyes whatever they need to be bent double and shafted hard AF. Patricia took somebodies mum, daughter, aunt maybe even nan... 26 weeks suspended and 2 year ban. Fucking joke.

Christopher TR1 wrote:

No you numpty... Other motorists need to see the appropriate punishment and, only then, might things begin to change

That has as much chance of happening as you have of winning the argument by calling your opponent a name. There's emotional appeal to it, sure, but no functionality (or at least not the functionality that's hoped for).