Priorities for safety
Hi Adelaide Cyclists,
This is my first thread posted to Adelaide Cyclists.
I'm beginning to work with some safety advocacy groups about safety for bike riding on shared roads. I want to test out a little list of priorities for cyclist safety when riding on shared roads (not including infrastructure measures) and I figure this group of experienced and constructive cyclists is just the spot to try the discussion. I'll put together the first draft of the list and I'd invite people to shuffle it, add to it, and discuss any points that are of interest. Mainly I want to see if a list can be ordered and agreed to the satisfaction of the majority, or not. It could turn out that there is some consensus, or that opinions diverge too much. Whatever the outcome, it will be valuable exercise for me and perhaps for others including policy-makers. The list is bound to be contentious. Please keep discussion friendly as possible. I'm not suggesting that every point on this list will get attention from policy makers but there has been talk about item 3 in media of late. My view is that it will never happen without first being preceded by 1 & 2.
NB: in order to avoid a long essay as my first post, I'm not going to defend every point at this time. Summary of my view is the simplest measures for prevention of accidents are top priority. No complex, hard to communicate ideas on the list. Also note it follows fairly closely the measures that are in place for motorcycles. Can elaborate as the discussion progresses. I'm sure that most people who do post on here will also be prepared to discuss/defend their own choices.
You will notice that top of my list is a daytime visible, wide angle flashing light. At this point I've got to disclose to those who don't know me that I am from a company called Niteflux and that we make a product just like this. This thread is not meant to be about our product. Please think about lighting standards in general.
OK, the list. Flame on! ;)
1) Minimum visibility standards (*standards for visibility required to be formally defined)
1a) daylight visible*, wide angle rear flashing light.
1b) daylight visible, wide angle front light +/- flashing
1c) bright clothing, vests etc, a flag. mostly redundant if 1a and 1b in place.
2) Ride straight and steady. Pay attention (never will be a standard for this).
2a) no mobile phones or ipods while riding on roads (can be legislated).
3) legislation for minimum passing distances between drivers and cyclists.
3a) at-fault rules for accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians. ie, pedestrians never at fault, cyclists never at fault against drivers, drivers always at fault.
4) roadworthy bike, (never will be a standard).
5) helmet (standards in place at present)
5a) body armour
6) health insurance, income protection insurance, life insurance.
Tags: safety
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Edward @bikeadelaide on -
Well said.
-
-
Permalink Reply by heather on -
ditto, well said. after REAL driver training, two ways to teach drivers to SEE cyclists:
1. strict liability legislation -- make cyclists a type of threat, in that if you errantly hit a cyclist, you will be charged with risk of fine, demerit points, even loss of licence. motorists are able to see threats of other vehicles, yet unable to see current non-threat of a person minus the steel cocoon.
2. make it policy / procedure for police and courts to act when a cyclist hit -- ac members learnt this month that when a cyclist died after a car door was opened and hit him, the driver was not even charged for the offence of opening the door. was it edward who quoted the road rule?
-
-
Permalink Reply by stephen on -
Good post I agree.
Intrusive and discriminatory legislation by government against bicycle users is the last thing we ever deserved.Letting people make their own decisions is what being free and human is all about, and far to often they deny our humanity and freedom. I am trying to do something to fix that by supporting the Liberal Democrats aka LDP.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Doddsy on -
Compulsory Road traffic education in our school system would also be a great idea.
Was desperately trying to call into a talkback radio show that was pushing for "driver education" in our education system.
Teaching students how to ride bicycles (on street) before they get their drivers license would be a great way to improve driver education. One small excursion/course a year would be a great head start.
-
-
Permalink Reply by stephen on
-
Over 90% of bicycle fatalities involve motor vehicle collisions.
Just cause some cyclists treat the roads like a racing track it's not advisable - a helmet can't protect you from these fatal collisions - would you lie and tell them they are safe if they wear one and then lead them onto the road. ?
Would you teach kids to play soccer, tennis, or football in moving traffic !. Maybe teach them somewhere safe or not at all.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Doddsy on
-
I don't get you Stephen. What are you saying? Wait until they are 16 years old, then chuck them in a machine and send them down a highway at 80- 100k's an hour? Thats a pretty messed up approach (although it is the way we currently do it).
Proper cycle training is generally progressive, it starts off road with theory (road rules and stuff) then moves to off street skill sessions.
The skill session provides people with an opportunity to brush up on skills, such as starting, stopping, swerving, shoulder checking, signalling, riding in groups (too and from drill sites) etc. Off street skills is also a risk assessment (the children/teenagers that don't pass the risk assessment don't get to go on street or around a park).
Only after the risk assessment is passed do you consider going on street.
Kids (primary school) Generally don't go on street, they stick to riding around parks and work on their skills in an off street environment. A kids class should however aim to make children aware of the hazards involved in riding on the footpath.
As year and skill levels get higher, the complexity of the drills increase, In other words, by the time a student is old enough to get a drivers license, they should be a competent on street cyclist.
Some schools (such as in the uk) Do their local Geographical and history lessons by bicycle, it works fine, but you certainly don't throw students in by the deep end.
Such traffic education programs already exist, they aren't compulsory, Its up to schools to sign up for it and its not a yearly thing.
If implemented appropriately, it can ensure people are competent road users before they even consider jumping in a car.
-
-
Permalink Reply by stephen on
-
Sounds ok then - Just sounded a bit worrying starting them off on the actual road when at a young age they should be avoiding them especially busy roads - children as not as visible as adults and often far less traffic savvy.
The staged approach your suggesting is fine.
-
-
Permalink Reply by David Bastians on
-
good to see some new activity on this thread over recent days.
I think that most people will agree that and driver and cyclist training from an early age will help. The effects of infrastructure change are harder to predict. But whatever happens, both these schemes are slow acting, over decades or more.
What action are AC members planning, or wanting, around improving safety in the short term. Over the coming months, or few years?
-
-
Permalink Reply by David Southern on -
Enforcement of standards regarding safe access for cyclists, pedestrians and wheelchairs around/at programmed roadworks and infrastructure works, with the site managers, workers and company principals (including local government and Stete government departments) being penalised, without further warning. Demonstration of non-compliance should be sufficient for penalties to be imposed, and for works to be stopped instantly, until compliance is assured. (A degree of summary jurisdiction is required here.).
-
-
Permalink Reply by Norm on -
Hi,
I am sure many have said, 1, 1a, 1b, 1c forget it, motorbikes had hardwired headlights for about 25 years, statistics showed no difference, why? because a motorist is looking for cars, will look straight at you and not see you.
2) ? most of us do, but I can suggest if I move out to pass parked car and there are other cars say 75m down the road, I won't pull back in but will remain out - much safer than weaving in and out of parked cars.
2a) Australian Road Rules state the driver of a vehicle can't use moblie phone, bicycle is a vehicle, rider/driver means the same thing - so cant use MP.
3) waste of time how do you prove the distance at time of offence?
3a) This has merit, similar to some of the more famous European countries who have high cycling participation.
4) Great idea for motor vehicles but if we get to a society where cycling is expected then no need as the consequences are no where near as dire as a motor vehicle.
5) we have compulsory helmets and many times I have said thank you to the helmet gods.
5a) we are cyclists not motorcyclists, that means we do work and get hot - body armour = death by heat stroke.
6) not sure what you want here, you can do all of that out of your own pocket now.
Education, big publicity campaign showing cyclists riding in the middle of a lane and motorists slowing, indicating and changing lanes to pass. Cyclist riding in the middle of the left lane on multilane roads showing motorists they belong there. Cyclists obeying all the road rules, ie red lights!!!!!! which then is not saying to motorists I don't obey road rules so that means yopu don't have to either.
-
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
© 2013 Created by Gus K.
