Helmet Cameras

[NRG]

I think many cyclists could usefully take on board some of the aspects of advanced driving from the IAM. Drivers are taught to be observant, to anticipate events, to be courteous, be prepared to give way or stop and to drive defensively all whilst being tolerant of other road users and the mistakes they make! Easy

 

[indalo]

I've watched that video clip several times now and I think the outcome in court was correct. I'm sure amongst forum members, like me, there's a number of big guys who wouldn't have taken any of the van driver's verbals after what had just occurred.

Maybe the cyclist isn't a very physical type and couldn't deal with the aggression he faced; maybe he showed remarkable restraint; maybe, knowing his camera was running, he wanted to collect evidence? Regardless, that piece of film captures what cyclists in urban areas have to endure on a daily basis. For that to change, we need a complete culture change in the UK and the best way to bring about such change, in my view, would be through the creation of a "Highway Patrol" type of police service.

Under existing budgetary constraints, police forces need to prioritise crimes and, sad to say, violations of the RTA and associated crime such as threats to kill, ABH, GBH, even murder on occasions, come way down that list of priorities. It offends me every time I'm on a motorway and see those 4wd machines belonging to the Highways Agency, cruising along, their occupants pretending to themselves that they're police officers. For me, they're a complete waste of space and money.

Instead of those "cardboard cutouts" with no powers worth talking about, a dedicated police force with powers of arrest and seizure, in numbers unheard of hitherto and certain to anger local Chief Constables, directly employed as civil servants rather than local government employees, would repay the massive investment required in a short space of time. In fact, it would be a real earner for the taxpayer as the fines collected, the vehicles seized and subsequently sold, the £10,000 required to purchase a new licence after a DD conviction on successful completion of an extended test after a lengthy ban and so on.

A national police force isn't original or unique as we already have both the British Transport Police and the MOD Police for example. As things stand, our roads are simply not policed and cameras just don't do the job, especially when they have no film! When a driver is removed from his vehicle, the vehicle placed in a guarded compound for 30 days, a fine of £5,000 paid, all for using a mobile phone while driving, then motorists will start showing a little respect for the law.

Equally, those other road users, not least cyclists, who offend should face draconian penalties. It's about respect; it's about politeness and manners and consideration for other people. It's so much more than simply the rule of law.

I don't expect my view on this to find much favour amongst forum members here, given that quite a number break the law through modifying their bikes, (I don't buy "bending" the law a little) and there seems to exist a tacit acceptance that that's ok. There's a degree, or perhaps a lot, of hypocrisy evident in some recent postings. Now, no-one wants a police state but as education and existing penalties clearly don't work, I welcome any better suggestions.

Indalo

 

[Straylight]

Suggestions

Significantly raise the bar in terms of driver training, particularly for commercial vehicles. Driving should be a privilege for the capable/competent, not a universal right. I'd include some form of psychological testing in this, to make sure the candidate is emotionally stable enough to handles the stresses placed upon a driver.

Mandatory speed limiters for all road vehicles, if the law says a maximum of 70, then why do you need to drive any faster? Couple this with GPS based adaptive speed limiting in all new vehicles. The point being to largely take the whole speed issue out of the hands of law enforcement, freeing up resources to police driving standards.

Limit the engine size available to new drivers for a probationary period (say five years?).

Tax breaks for cyclists

 

[Alex728]

Significantly raise the bar in terms of driver training, particularly for commercial vehicles.

a younger friend of mine just did his C series license as he is restoring a Bedford TK as unlike older people he doesn't have this category on grandfather rights. Another chap I know runs a mobile business and workshop and has just attended a mandatory VOSA seminar about his "O license" (for commercial vehicles)

Certainly the use of vehicles over 3.5t is very highly regulated - there is plenty of driver training and education not just in the UK but also in other EU nations (many of which, contrary to popular misconception are even more restrictive of large vehicles and their usage than the UK!)

I suspect what is a major cause of road crashes is simply our ruthlessly competitive society demanding long working hours from everyone - people are trying to get everywhere fast to make the delivery timescale or that business deal and stop caring about who else is on the road until crashes happen.

in reality, there aren't that many real psychos on the road as people might fear, but our society currently encourages competitve and aggressive use of the roads, it is this which needs to be addressed.

 

[Straylight]

Agreed, hence the need for mental testing/training. Anyone with any sense is going to be on their best behaviour for the 30mins it takes to pass a driving test, and you don't need to be a psycho to react inappropriately to stressful situations. I'm not saying that people need the mental strength of fighter pilots, but there should at least be a minimum level of rationale required.

 

[Alex728]

Agreed, hence the need for mental testing/training. Anyone with any sense is going to be on their best behaviour for the 30mins it takes to pass a driving test, and you don't need to be a psycho to react inappropriately to stressful situations.

The same can apply anywhere in life, such as the otherwise respectable family men and loving fathers/husbands who suddenly shoot up their entire family and torch the house after a business failure. This all goes way beyond motor vehicles and roads.

I wholly expect that in the near future when petrol becomes more expensive and more young men take to two wheels (indeed I am seeing this already happening in Ipswich) that minor collisions may lead lead to "cycle rage" and people sorting it out with fisticuffs in the street, especially as neither party has the protection of a metal box. (just imagine the local gary's ending up on bikes but not changing their attitudes, and going to places like Liquid and Envy, instead of "did you spill my pint" it would be "did you knock into my bike at the sheffield stand?")

TBH I'd rather see a wider societal approach to discouraging bullying/agression and the "might makes right" culture starting from the raising of children to adulthood (which should involve families/schools/wider society as much as cops/authority) as well as the adoption of the European law where the "hard" road user is assumed to be automatically at fault in a crash.

Some friends sent me a youtube of a crossing in NL, they have a combined pedestrian/bike crossing with just flashing LEDs on a zebra crossing across 3 lanes of what would be equivalent to the A14 and the drivers just stop as soon as they see a pedestrian or bike.

There aren't even any traffic lights, the drivers just stop and don't seem to care how quickly or slowly the people cross! I don't know what driving tests are like in NL but they don't seem to be doing any "minority report" stuff, but they do educate society everyone has a equal right to roads..

 

[HarryB]

Couple this with GPS based adaptive speed limiting in all new vehicles. The point being to largely take the whole speed issue out of the hands of law enforcement, freeing up resources to police driving standards.

The problem is that the "too thick to drive" would drive with their foot to the floor where ever they went. There would be a majority of drivers who would welcome this transfer of responsibility but the problem is that speed limits are rarely right for the conditions (I think they are right in the same way as a stopped clock is right). Look how ineffective speed cameras have been at removing the bad drivers off the road to give you an idea how much resentment there is about this issue. Anyway no government has got the stomach to remove driver's licences for being incompetent. I am afraid with the spending cuts and present priorities, this issue has got a lot further to go before being resolved, if at all.

 

[flecc]

In general most vehicle speed limits even if observed don't help cyclists anyway.

Only limits of 20 mph and lower are any real help, so I doubt if greater speed control enforcement would help.

As some have already said, it's attitudes that count the most, and we need a very large change in the road use culture in this country. I don't pick on any one group, pedestrian and cyclist poor behaviour is often no better than that of drivers, all UK groups need to change.
.

 

[HarryB]

I think you are right about this Flecc. I think it could largely be done by eduction and TV advertising - I know it wouldn't solve the problem 100% but it would help a lot. There was a TV programme on a year or so ago where they staged a number of bicycle accidents and asked who was at fault in each case. On every occasion the drivers blamed the cyclists - even when a door was opened and took the cyclist out he was blamed for going too close to the door. Of course if he had been out any further and clipped by a car that would have been his fault as well! There is an obnoxious minority but also a larger ignorant minority too.

Not sure what to do with the rubbish cyclists though - some of them seem oblivious to any danger around them or how much they **** off other cyclists and drivers. Personally I think the only thing that would help would be to remove their bike (hopefully not a borisbike) and have it crushed unless a large fine was paid!

 

[allen-uk]

I think many cyclists could usefully take on board some of the aspects of advanced driving from the IAM. Drivers are taught to be observant, to anticipate events, to be courteous, be prepared to give way or stop and to drive defensively all whilst being tolerant of other road users and the mistakes they make! Easy

Abso-blooming-lutely!

Those were my exact thoughts when I saw the FIRST video in the sequence, the one where the cyclist was turning right at a mini-roundabout, and a smallish dark car didn't see him (mate).

Of COURSE it was the cyclist's right of way - give way to traffic from the right. But quoting the Highway Code doesn't cut much ice in the graveyard.

The Institute of Advanced Motorists' take?

a) assume that other driver, approaching the roundabout at precisely the same moment, will NOT give way, and be ready to slow down or even stop.

b) wasn't clear from the clip, but did the cyclist make a HAND signal as he approached the mini roundabout? If not, he most definitely should have done.

c) make EYE contact with that driver. If he ain't looking at you, he's probably not seeing you.

As NRG says, you can drive/ride defensively and still be confident (and when necessary DOMINANT). What you can't do is to assume that every other road user is as good as you!

Allen.

 

[flecc]

There was a TV programme on a year or so ago where they staged a number of bicycle accidents and asked who was at fault in each case. On every occasion the drivers blamed the cyclists - even when a door was opened and took the cyclist out he was blamed for going too close to the door. Of course if he had been out any further and clipped by a car that would have been his fault as well! There is an obnoxious minority but also a larger ignorant minority too.

Yes, I saw that too Hal. I've noticed the same thing in magazines' letters pages, car mag letters alway cast cyclists as spawn of the devil, while cycling mag letters are often rabid in their hatred of drivers.

And of course we are all familiar with the pest who exists in every area who writes weekly to the local papers about the pedestrians he sees seriously injured daily by cyclists riding at furious speeds on the pavements.

And come to think of it, the horse riding fraternity hate everyone!
.

 

[allen-uk]

the horse riding fraternity hate everyone!
.

And everyone hates THEM! Unanimity at last!


Allen

 

[Streethawk]

I don't pick on any one group, pedestrian and cyclist poor behaviour is often no better than that of drivers, all UK groups need to change.
.

I'm not sure you shouldnt pick on motorists here. As a general rule, cyclists and pedestrians are not capable on killing the other party in a collision (yes i know there are rare exceptions).

 

[flecc]

I'm not sure you shouldnt pick on motorists here. As a general rule, cyclists and pedestrians are not capable on killing the other party in a collision (yes i know there are rare exceptions).

I fundamentally disagree with the premise here, and with the use of "motorists" and not drivers.

We choose to ride bikes for example, we aren't made to, so we have chosen that vulnerability.

Cyclist vulnerability is therefore not a reason to pick on motorists. All groups have a responsibility to use their mode of transport with the care it needs. A horse rider has to be aware that their "vehicle" is under the control of two minds and should therefore choose how and where they ride with that in mind. Choosing a route suitable for the temperament and training of each horse is therefore important, but it's not a reason to pick on horse riders as a group of people.

Likewise as you've acknowledged, a cyclist can kill a frail pensioner, a pedestrian can cause a cyclist to go over the bars to their death, a truck driver can crush a cyclist to death, and even a swerving cyclist can cause an avoiding bus to go out of control, run into a building and kill many.

All these are reasons for singling out vehicle types for different safety treatments according to their liabilities, but not their operators who can all be equally blameless or irresponsible.

I certainly don't see cyclists as more responsible than drivers on average. We may see less incidence of their misbehaviour, but that's hardly surprising when they are so greatly outnumbered by driven vehicles. On many roads one can stand for ages with hundreds of vehicle passing before seeing a cyclist and only a minute number of certain city roads exist where their numbers are comparable.
.

 

[Streethawk]

I fundamentally disagree with the premise here, and with the use of "motorists" and not drivers.

I gave quite a bit of thought in which term to use, i chose motorists because it includes all large heavy internal combustion engined vehicles, regardless of their wheels. Drivers excludes motorcycles for example.

We choose to ride bikes for example, we aren't made to, so we have chosen that vulnerability.

I dont think everyone rides by choice, for some its a necessity, for cost reasons. Also, i choose to ride for the advantages, not the disadvantages, such as vulnerability.

Likewise as you've acknowledged, a cyclist can kill a frail pensioner, a pedestrian can cause a cyclist to go over the bars to their death, a truck driver can crush a cyclist to death, and even a swerving cyclist can cause an avoiding bus to go out of control, run into a building and kill many.

Yes, those things could happen. The only one of those scenarios thats happens with enough regularity for statistics to even be produced is the truck crushing the cyclist. The others therefore have to be considered freak accidents, which you can do nothing about via education or legislation.

All these are reasons for singling out vehicle types for different safety treatments according to their liabilities, but not their operators who can all be equally blameless or irresponsible.

My main point is that you must show a great deal more responsibility if you're in charge of a ton and a half of metal that can to 100mph or more. The consequences of your actions are far greater with all that power and weight in your vehicle.

I certainly don't see cyclists as more responsible than drivers on average

Agreed, they're not, but again, the consequences of their irresponsibility are not as severe.

 

[flecc]

I think we largely agree on those points you make, but the choice to ride a bike is still only a matter for the chooser, regardless of the cause. That cause cannot be a cost to others in terms of blame, it's just circumstances.

In my previous post I was just separating vehicles from operators in assessing blameworthiness, ensuring that the nature of a vehicle does not become a cause for generic operator blame, only a cause for responsibility as you say.
.

 

[allen-uk]

It is right to try and point up the logical inconsistencies of BOTH sides of this argument, in the hope that minds will at least be less cluttered by clichés and anecdotes.

One that always makes me sigh is the "well you don't see pedestrians going around wearing helmets and they seem to do all right..." and variations of this.

If that's one of YOURS, then do bear in mind that pedestrians, as a rule, keep to pavements, shops, offices, cafes, and so on; they tend not to dash along at 10-20mph on roads, weaving in and out of traffic.

Allen (and I do wear a helmet, although largely to carry one of my rear flashing lights attached to it, and occasionally the helmet camera stuck on the front...)

 

[flecc]

.....pedestrians...........tend not to dash along at 10-20mph on roads, weaving in and out of traffic.

No muggers in your area Allen?
.

 

[Streethawk]

Or Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon?

 

[allen-uk]

No muggers in your area Allen?
.

Well, if I see someone running through the traffic wearing a helmet, I'll know to keep my hand on my wallet.


A