Safe Drivers and Vehicles

IAM feeds the tabloids with spurious claims of red light jumping cyclists

By Chris Peck on 14 May 2012

Both the Guardian and BikeBiz have broken an embargoed press release from the Institute of Advanced Motorists claiming that the majority of cyclists jump red lights.

Occupying an advanced stop line is also technically 'jumping a red light'

"57% of cyclists jump red lights" screamed the headline on the press release from the IAM.

London cab firm boycotted by cyclists

By Chris Peck on 3 May 2012

16 April 2012

The owner of Addison Lee - a minicab company that operates in central London - has got into hot water with cyclists after a series of belligerent statements about cyclists and bus lanes.

It started in early April when John Griffin, head of Addison Lee, writing to his 3,500 drivers, suggested they have a right to use London's bus lanes and offered to pay any fines they might consequentially incur. That move - which comes on top of Transport for London's (TfL) decision to formalise motorcycle access to bus lanes - triggered howls of anger from cyclists.

Cycle helmets: An overview of the evidence

By Cherry Allan on 20 April 2012

What is the evidence for opposing moves to make cycle helmets compulsory in law? And why aren't promotional campaigns a good idea either?

This briefing sets out the case, backed by evidence.

See also our policy briefing on cycle helmets, which explains CTC's views.

Files:

Cycle helmets: An overview of the evidence

Cycle helmets

By Cherry Allan on 20 April 2012

CTC is not anti-helmet and does not take sides on whether or not it is a good idea for individual cyclists to wear them. However, there is no justification for making helmet-wearing compulsory - it could undermine levels of cycle use and, in any case, the effectiveness of helmets is far from clear.

Headline Messages:

CTC is not 'anti-helmet' and we do not take sides on whether or not it is a good idea for individual cyclists wear them.
There is no justification for helmet laws or promotional campaigns that portray cycling as a particularly ‘dangerous’ activity; or that make unfounded claims about the effectiveness of helmets. Cycling has very substantial health and other benefits, whereas the risks of cycling are not especially high. By reducing cycle use even slightly, helmet laws or promotion campaigns are almost bound to cause a significant net disbenefit to public health, regardless of the effectiveness or otherwise of helmets.
The effectiveness of helmets is in any case far from clear. They are (and can only be) designed to withstand minor knocks and falls, not serious traffic collisions. Some evidence suggests they may increase the risk of cyclists having falls or collisions in the first place, or suffering neck injuries. Whilst helmet laws have reduced cyclists’ injury numbers, the evidence suggests this is wholly or mainly due to reductions in cycle use, not improvements in safety for the cyclists who remain. Reduced cycle use may itself explain why the remaining cyclists are more at risk, due to the loss of the benefits they previously gained from ‘safety in numbers’.

CTC View (formal statement of CTC's policy):

Government and other bodies concerned with health or road safety should simply aim to encourage people to cycle, regardless or whether or not they choose to wear helmets when doing so. Enforced helmet laws cause deep and enduring reductions in cycle use, undermining its very substantial health and other benefits. Given that the risks of cycling are low – they are not greatly different from those of walking or other forms of active recreation – even a very small reduction in cycle use would be counter-productive to health and other public policy objectives, regardless of the effectiveness or otherwise of helmets. In practice, this disbenefit is potentially very substantial, not least because the deterrent effect is likely to be strongest among key target groups for physical activity promotion, e.g. women, teenagers, less well-off communities and ethnic minority groups.
Cycle helmets have in any case not been shown to be an effective way to reduce cyclists’ injury risks. Indeed they might even be counter-productive, by encouraging drivers or cyclists to behave less cautiously, and/or by increasing the risks of neck and other injuries. By deterring people from cycling, they may also reduce the benefits that cyclists gain from ‘safety in numbers’.
Enforcing helmet laws would require levels of police activity that would be grossly disproportionate to any possible benefits. Conversely, unenforced helmet laws make no long-term difference to helmet use, and therefore cannot provide benefits in any case.
Road safety policies should prioritise measures that reduce the risks that deter people from cycling – traffic speeds, hostile roads and junctions, dangerous or irresponsible driving, and lorries – and offering quality cycle training for people of all ages, to give them the confidence and skills to ride safely on the roads.
Individuals should be free to make their own decisions about whether or not to wear helmets, with parents making these decisions in the case of younger children. Their decisions should be informed by clear information about the uncertainties over the benefits or otherwise of helmets.
Schools, employers and the organisers of non-sporting cycling events (e.g. sponsored rides) should not seek to impose helmet rules for their pupils, staff and participants respectively. These rules are not justified in terms of health and safety, they are likely to reduce both the numbers and the diversity of people who take part in cycling, and they may in some circumstances be illegal.
There is limited evidence on the risks involved in different types of off-road recreational cycling (from family riding to downhill mountain biking etc) and cycle sport. Likewise, evidence on the potential for helmet use to mitigate (or exacerbate) these risks is equally limited. These are in any case not matters for road safety policy.
For sporting events, CTC recognises the right of governing bodies to require the wearing of helmets in line with their own and international regulations for these events, given the different types of risk to which sport cyclists are exposed.

Download full campaigns briefing:

Cycle helmets (CTC policy)

Publication Date:

April 2012

Alcohol and the law - which road users are worst?

By Chris Peck on 19 April 2012

Drunken cycling is an offence and a very bad idea. But is it much of a road safety problem? Police enforce some traffic laws, but seldom drunk cycling. CTC examined data for 5 years to see how many fatalities involve alcohol and cycling in this country.

A police officer carries out roadside checks but probably not on cyclists

For some months I've had an irregular correspondence with a Polish cycle campaigner who relates that the police treat drunk cycling under the same laws as they treat drunk driving.

In Poland - as with most of the rest of Europe - the legal blood alcohol limit is far lower than in the UK: you can be fined at over 20 mg/100ml of blood and jailed at 50. In the UK the limit is still 80, despite a recent report recommending reduction to 50.

Sorry mate, I didn't see you...recording near misses while cycling

By Chris Peck on 16 April 2012

CTC's Stop SMIDSY campaign is gathering examples of where and when crashes occur between road users and will document the reactions of the criminal justice system, ranging from the police to prosecutors and the courts. But there are hundreds of 'near misses' that occur for each actual crash.

There's one junction that I must use regularly that I find really scary. It's a roundabout above a major trunk road. Motor vehicles come off the trunk road at 70 mph but the design of the roundabout means that they only need to slow down to around 45 mph if they want to enter the roundabout and leave at the first exit.

Cycle Swap - cab and bus drivers get lessons in cycling in Reading

By Javed Saddique on 11 April 2012

Inspired by the phrase 'putting the shoe on the other foot', CTC Cycling Devleopment Officer Javed Saddique is planning to deliver cycle training to professional drivers in Reading in an effort to get them to understand how road conditions affect cyclists.

Cycle Swap will start with an awareness exercise involving cab and bus drivers in Reading. Participants will be given cycling awareness skills throughout the morning and in the afternoon they will be provided with helmet cameras to document how they navigate through the varied conditions in Reading. This exercise will raise awareness and help build a better relationship between road users and cyclists.

Who's to blame in crashes between cyclists and motorists?

By Chris Peck on 10 April 2012

Columnists in the tabloids - and sometimes the quality press as well - often blame cyclists for crashes with motor vehicles. Figures obtained from the Department for Transport reveal that cyclists - especially adults - generally aren't to blame and, in fact, more often the driver is.

A graph showing who is to blame - cyclist or driver?

At CTC we're constantly being asked to go on TV or radio to be the punch bag for someone's anti-cycling rant.

One of the recurring issues in amongst the you-don't-pay-road-tax type drivel is the suggestion that cyclists are themselves to blame for crashes. Happily, we now have some data which we can use to refute such wild speculation.

Level crossings

By Cherry Allan on 27 March 2012

When it comes to level crossings, cyclists need to be assured of at least two things: that they will get across safely; that convenient crossing points are kept open or created.

Safety

Incidents at level crossings have a particularly serious impact on the operation of UK railways.

Whilst the number of signals passed at danger, trains derailed and workers injured have all been going down, level crossings - the only place where the closely controlled movements of trains meets the random and less regulated activity of other transport modes – are still the main, high risk locations. Indeed, there has been no effective solution to cutting the 'crash rate’ amongst road users, who have, unfortunately, included cyclists.

Compensation for injured cyclists

By Cherry Allan on 26 March 2012

A pedestrian, cyclist, horse rider or someone with a disability is much more likely to be hurt in a collision with a motor vehicle than its driver. However, the current law can make it very difficult for them to claim compensation - a situation that often leads to serious injustice.

Headline Messages:

Please note: the following is an extract from CTC's current Policy Handbook, which is undergoing revision at the moment. Our updated policy on compensation for injured cyclists / driver liability will be published here in due course.

Driving a motor vehicle is an inherently dangerous activity which, in principle, should impose a high duty of care on drivers towards other road users.
The risk of injury on our roads is borne most heavily by those groups who impose the least danger on others – pedestrians and cyclists, children and those with impaired mobility (we refer to these groups as Vulnerable Road Users, or VRUs).
The need to correct for similar imbalances of power or vulnerability is recognised by the law in areas such as employment contracts, employee or public health and safety, and consumer protection. Yet traffic law makes no such provisions, and treats all road users as equals. Consequently the motorists’ duty of care towards other road users is under-recognised, both in law and more generally in public attitudes.
In France, Belgium and the Netherlands, the legal position of VRUs is enhanced by laws which effectively mean that, in collisions between them and motor vehicles, liability for personal injury damages suffered by VRUs rests with the drivers involved, unless they can show that the VRU acted in a way that was clearly illegal and/or seriously negligent.
This arrangement means that vulnerable road users can obtain compensation for damages without it being necessary to find a driver to have committed a tort or criminal offence, nor to attach criminal responsibility to the driver as a result. However, it reflects the fact that drivers should expect to share space with all legitimate street users (including children and other untrained VRUs) and therefore have a duty of care to drive in a way that allows for the possibility of unexpected or erratic movement by those users.
Such a law would not (and should not) give vulnerable road users “carte blanche” to act irresponsibly – CTC would not support it if it did. However, assigning the “default assumption” of liability for personal injury damages to drivers reflects the fact that, in motor vehicle / VRU collisions, VRUs are far more likely to be injured than vehicle occupants; moreover (and consequently) they are far less likely to recall how the collision occurred with the clarity needed to be a “good witness” in court. Hence VRU crash victims often find it very difficult to obtain compensation for damages.
This current situation regularly leads to grave injustice, far more serious than anything that could possibly result from reversing the burden of proof in such cases. To give an example, the injustice suffered by a child who cannot claim damages despite being maimed for life by a dangerous driver, because s/he cannot provide adequate witness evidence that the driver was at fault, is far greater than the injustice that an entirely blameless driver might suffer in the reverse situation – this would usually be no more than the loss of a “no claims” bonus.

CTC View (formal statement of CTC's policy):

The law on driver insurance schemes should be changed, so that, where a driver is in collision with a vulnerable road user (VRU, i.e. a pedestrian, cyclist or person with impaired mobility), the drivers’ insurance would be required to cover the costs of personal damages suffered by the VRU, unless the driver could show that the VRU had acted in an illegal or negligent manner such that their standard of road behaviour fell well below what would normally be expected of a person of their age and intellect, or that another driver involved in the collision was wholly or partly liable.

Publication Date:

March 2012

Safe Drivers and Vehicles

IAM feeds the tabloids with spurious claims of red light jumping cyclists

London cab firm boycotted by cyclists

Cycle helmets: An overview of the evidence

Cycle helmets

Alcohol and the law - which road users are worst?

Sorry mate, I didn't see you...recording near misses while cycling

Cycle Swap - cab and bus drivers get lessons in cycling in Reading

Who's to blame in crashes between cyclists and motorists?

Level crossings

Safety

Compensation for injured cyclists

About CTC

Cyclists' Library

Links

Archive

Terms and Conditions