Oxfordshire County Council leader pledges zero tolerance on cyclist deaths

Wtf... Despicable and disgusting victim blaming!

Pretty much par for the course button pushing for the OM these days, I'm afraid.

I tend to agree but they do have a part to play in leaning on TVP to act on dangerous drivers in Oxon. 

NOtotheEU wrote:

The local council can have whatever tolerance they like to cycling deaths. Until the Police, CPS and courts start to take bad driving seriously, let alone have "zero tolerance" towards it, sadly nothing will change.

The police, CPS and courts do have a role, but they can only react to illegal driving that has already happened that threatens cyclists; councils can prevent the threat from happening.

I agree they can improve the situation but unless every road in the country has a seperated cycle lane which obviously isn't practical then the only solution is better enforcment. Safe drivers don't endanger cyclists even on dangerous roads or in poor conditions but dangerous drivers will continue to endanger cyclists until they kill someone or are caught and punished. If someone was walking down the street shooting at people we would be pretty upset if the Police responce was to allow them to continue shooting and just make us all stay indoors behind bullet proof glass.

Well hello there channel-widening disuniting person!

NOtotheEU wrote:

I agree they can improve the situation but unless every road in the country has a seperated cycle lane which obviously isn't practical then the only solution is better enforcment. Safe drivers don't endanger cyclists even on dangerous roads or in poor conditions but dangerous drivers will continue to endanger cyclists until they kill someone or are caught and punished. If someone was walking down the street shooting at people we would be pretty upset if the Police responce was to allow them to continue shooting and just make us all stay indoors behind bullet proof glass.

Hmm... not quite, is it?  Even The Netherlands doesn't have that - because it's neither practical nor needed (here's why - [1] [2] [3]).  It's never 100% safe for cyclists to be around cars - nor for pedestrians to be for that matter.  However we understand the dangers very well and with a small amount of extra money / effort * we can reduce the danger to an extremely low level.  Remember - cycling is already a very safe activity in the UK.  Selective segregation, junction fixes, speed reduction etc. actually make it "subjectively safe" to cycle and much more convenient.  This gets you into a virtuous circle where more people cycle so there are fewer car journeys, which lowers the number of accidents.  It may also lower the rate of accidents. That's because with good design there are fewer conflict points between cyclists and cars, driving becomes easier - fewer cars to deal with - and more drivers will have experience of cycling as daily transport.

Your other analogy would be better written as "because people continue to stab each other are you suggesting we ban knives and have to have the police cut things for us?".

I'm all for fewer drastically fewer trips made by motor vehicles.  The answer - from where we are - is both better infrastructure AND better policing. Which costs money. The selling point for that is it's much more effective to spend on this than subsidising mass motoring / commercial road transport.

* Small as in "fraction of the 'road budget', not as in 'we spaffed 80k on consultants then sent the trainees out with some paint and signs so we got two cycle lanes for only 100k!".

I think you missed the point of my analogy. Re yours, yes knives are dangerous but responsible use is allowed and dangerous use carries serious penalties. The Government doesn't try to solve dangerous knife crime by suggesting we all wear stab proof vests when we go out but they do ignore dangerous driving and solve the problem by separating vulnerable 'road' users. And it's not cost either. A stricter driving test would make money from more re-tests and bad driving fines could go directly into road safety enforcement (or infrastructure, although none would be needed if everyone was to drive safely).

Nope - didn't miss the point.  I might have you wrong of course but I was connecting your "... but unless every road in the country has a seperated cycle lane which obviously isn't practical ..." with your later analogy.  That's why I said it's not just enforcement / training but that AND segregation we need. The latter which you appear to be ignoring / are possibly against?

I'm happy if your point is just "we need more enforcement now!".  There are plenty of existing rules we could actually start to enforce (properly, not just "every once in a while in a local blitz").

The law / training side certainly isn't the whole of the answer though. In practice getting a lot of changes through the legal system to support that will take about as much effort / time as getting some decent infra.  That's not just getting new law (which mostly takes ages, even though it can be enacted pretty quickly).  Lots of people will need retraining, "attitude changes" will take some time etc.

Money - well we already hugely subsidise driving overall.  We should be phasing that out.  As to getting money from fines etc. that would be a fair solution but I note the huge pushback against enforcement ("GATSO cash cows!").

I hope I'm wrong but I suspect pulling at any one thread of "culture change" e.g. enforcement / training / law / slower speeds / traffic reduction / infrastructure will not shift things much in the UK.  The one particular plus point with good infrastructure is it actually has the power to attract new / cautious cyclists.  Cycling's already statistically "safe".  People don't feel it is though ("subjective safety").  They're less likely to be persuaded by "drivers are getting better" / "there's more training now" / "it's now more likely someone's convicted after they hit you" than by mostly not needing to be cycling amongst motor vehicles.

That's also why "...infrastructure, although none would be needed if everyone was to drive safely" isn't quite exact either.  It's the "we just need better drivers" idea.  We can certainly get safer driving than now but we rapidly run into a law of diminishing returns because humans are inherently fallible - they sometimes make dreadful mistakes.  That's why "careful drivers" keep crashing into bollards, bridges and each other, giving themselves bad days.  Additionally our road infrastructure is designed for motor vehicles.  It's very much not optimal for cycling.  We can make cycling easier and more convenient with a bit of dedicated design.

"every once in a while in a local blitz"

We dream of a local blitz up here

I think we both want the same outcome but have very different ideas about getting there. I'm not against cycling infrastructure when its good but sadly 99% of the little I've used is terrible, especially shared use lanes which make cyclists safer (until they cross a junction) but put pedestrians in more danger from cyclists. What angers me most is why do cyclists have to be seperated because of the criminaly dangerous behavour of others? When is criminaly dangerous behavour putting innocent law abiding citizens lives in danger ever tolerated in any other situation? I've cycled on the road since I learnt to ride at 5 years old and rode motorbikes as soon as I was old enough and the same poor driving standards have put my life in danger too many times to count. I personaly find our roads an amazingly covenient and well designed way of cycling from one place to another. Of the hundreds of near misses (50+ reported to the Police) I witnessed on the roads in 2021 not a single one was down to bad infrastructure. If cyclists and motorcyclists rode around with the same complete lack of situational awareness that most drivers display an even larger number of us would be dead or in hospital very quickly.

NOtotheEU wrote:

I think we both want the same outcome but have very different ideas about getting there. I'm not against cycling infrastructure when its good but sadly 99% of the little I've used is terrible, especially shared use lanes which make cyclists safer (until they cross a junction) but put pedestrians in more danger from cyclists. What angers me most is why do cyclists have to be seperated because of the criminaly dangerous behavour of others? [...]

(Thanks - and apologies for lengthy rambles - hope you find interesting).  I mostly agree. There is a special place in hell reserved for many UK cycling facility designers (and heaven for these ones).  But I suspect you and I are sort of not "who this is all for" however.  We'd probably cycle regardless of the conditions.  Although my tolerance of danger and hassle declines as I age.  And I wouldn't be comfy taking all of my relatives with me.

Shared use - yeah, UK version mostly an excuse for "stick a sign on a rubbish footpath, tick a box".  But danger?  In absolute numbers - not so much.  Although I do understand pedestrians may feel threatened.  Because we focus on vehicles this leaves everyone else to fight over scraps.  A more positive vision of sensible sharing comes from when designers provide appropriately for each mode.  Then it turns out it's just people cycling and people walking.  And the latter may have just got off their bikes.  There isn't really "us and them" [1], [2].

Quote:

I personaly find our roads an amazingly covenient and well designed way of cycling ... near misses ... not a single one was down to bad infrastructure.

We'll have to disagree there.  I'm fortunate as I live on a "mini-network" of completely segregated infra, with some connections on streets that are dead ends for vehicles.  Rather rare in the UK!  I don't have to mix with cars at all to get to several of my destinations.  So on any of those journeys it's physically impossible to have a "near miss".  Bonus - I don't wait at any traffic lights! Not stopping is faster than racing between lights.  They're only needed when you have motor vehicles anyway!  If I didn't regularly have that experience I'd also be inclined to think "bad driver" for any problems rather than "bad street design".  We're all so used to the default (motor vehicles as the dominant "traffic" everywhere) we simply don't think it could be any other way.

I think if cycling was broadened so that lots more people felt they could do so it would actually be to my advantage also.  Why?  I've been on the good stuff (viewing advised at bedtime - very relaxing).  I found it a very pleasant experience - in ways I hadn't anticipated.  And I didn't find it was "dangerous" to me or to others - after I'd learned the local mores. Or slow (certainly not for this chap) nor any more restrictive than the UK.  I've cycled in a few countries (both those considered "better" and "worse" for cycling) and enjoyed the highs and lows.  What I noticed most whenever I came back to the UK was the disconnect between what we say and what we do.  We've extremely uneven provision.  Our vaunted "laissez faire" attitude is actually very selective.  We build in convenience for motorists and only then think about everyone else.  And often "how can we keep them out the way?"  Then when someone complains that this not safe, efficient or fair the response is a shrug and "well, you can all share it between yourselves..."

'Ramble on' as Led Zep would say. i guess most infra is not aimed at me, I cycle around Spaghetti Junction (the roundabout underneath, not the motorway obviously) and down the A38 everyday in every condition. I could use the canal that is 5 mins from my house and goes right past my work but the road is quicker and i don't want to be stabbed or mugged, this is Birmingham after all. Also the shiny bricks they pave some of the paths with are as slippery as ice in the winter. On a positive note, at least i keep the West Midlands Police busy with plenty of reports and videos. Your local 'mini network' sounds great, I'm a little jealous. 

I don't know Birmingham but "canal path" is normally a trigger warning for me too.  Due to what they were for in the UK that likely won't change in towns, but it need not be so outside major built-up areas.

I'm grateful for you feeding the police, it's a useful and often thankless task. I don't run a cam myself.  On recreational rides I try escape the traffic as soon as I can. I'm sometimes tempted - mostly just in case my relatives one day need closure.  Although reading road.cc has made me doubt that this would necessarily help "justice".

I've stayed in my local area mostly because of the cycling convenience.  For "heavy goods transport" - or just relaxation - for me there's a huge difference in not having the tension / adrenaline of riding on the road.  Bit like coffee - you don't realise how powerful the effects are until you've weaned yourself off it! (I relapsed.)

Also as soon as you escape the city the surroundings and the nearby regions are pretty good on a bike too.  Obviously being urban often gives you wider access to the countryside than living in the countryside because of the main routes / trains.

Enjoy your spaghetti.

eburtthebike wrote:

NOtotheEU wrote:

The local council can have whatever tolerance they like to cycling deaths. Until the Police, CPS and courts start to take bad driving seriously, let alone have "zero tolerance" towards it, sadly nothing will change.

The police, CPS and courts do have a role, but they can only react to illegal driving that has already happened that threatens cyclists; councils can prevent the threat from happening.

yes they can, so do they mean they have a zero tolerance approach to unsafe infrastructure? Headline is misleading, because the actual quote 

“These women who tragically lost their lives while cycling on our roads must not be forgotten and their legacy will be a radical commitment to a transport network where we take a zero tolerance attitude to having anyone else killed or seriously injured,”

does in fact talk about the infra, and not dangerous driving.

I totally agree. If they apply a H&S risk assesment approach to this then they need to analyse what constitutes a near miss and start to work on these.

They then need to go back and look at their risk assesment triangle - Elimination, Substitution and Engineering Controls are probably decades away if you really want to have zero tolerance. Administrative Controls can literally start today.

NOtotheEU wrote:

The local council can have whatever tolerance they like to cycling deaths. Until the Police, CPS and courts start to take bad driving seriously, let alone have "zero tolerance" towards it, sadly nothing will change.

This! British Cycling, Cycling UK, Road.cc etc. can and should continuously campaign and highlight where Police forces and CPS are being inadequate. A petition to get a minimum level of response from all police forces and to ensure that their action taken is available to view by anyone so it can be challenged if found to be wanting. If drivers considered that a dangerous overtake would result in them losing their licence and a huge fine, and the 'need car for job' was never a possible mitigation for leniency, I'm sure they would see a big reduction in 'accidental'  murders  of cyclists 

Muddy Ford wrote:

NOtotheEU wrote:

The local council can have whatever tolerance they like to cycling deaths. Until the Police, CPS and courts start to take bad driving seriously, let alone have "zero tolerance" towards it, sadly nothing will change.

This! British Cycling, Cycling UK, Road.cc etc. can and should continuously campaign and highlight where Police forces and CPS are being inadequate. A petition to get a minimum level of response from all police forces and to ensure that their action taken is available to view by anyone so it can be challenged if found to be wanting. If drivers considered that a dangerous overtake would result in them losing their licence and a huge fine, and the 'need car for job' was never a possible mitigation for leniency, I'm sure they would see a big reduction in 'accidental'  murders  of cyclists 

Totally agree! And don't forget the "momentary lapse of concentration" mitigation. Every jury member thinks "ooh, I had multiple momentary lapses of concentration driving here this morning, that could be me in the dock. Better go easy on them then" 

And don't forget the "momentary lapse of concentration" mitigation

That's what kicked off my camera activities and ceaseless quest for justice from Lancashire Constabulary: a Freelander cut the corner and came down the wrong side of the road on the Sainsbury's access road where I was waiting to leave. LC decided it was 'only a momentary loss of concentration- NFA'

YEStotheEU.

(right?) WING MIRROR!

chrisonatrike wrote:

(right?) WING MIRROR!

Very good  

Although I might have pointed out that it is technically incorrect on at least two points, if I was in the mood to be really pedantic! 

Quite right. Or left. Sometimes you've got to leave something on the table for other pedants though!

WHATWASTHEQUESTIONfromtheEU?