To ask how we stop dangerous cyclists

[Everythingisnumbersnow]

Why do the most dangerous ones wear those stupid little headcams too? YOU'RE the problem, guy.

I think that the constant feeling of being under attack (whether from the internet, the tabloids, or worse physically by an SUV) prompts a very defensive culture. This is why clickbait threads like the OP has set up make matters worse.

With limited money and resources, it makes more sense to fight for the thing that poses the most danger. Fighting for both splits resources and dilutes any affect.

Your socialist friend was, imo, misguided because lack of women’s rights does more societal harm, but I imagine she would have had a good argument for her way.

There is no possibly argument for thinking cyclists do more harm than drivers.

It isn’t correct to equate frequency with overall risk.

One single car jumping the red whilst you were crossing in 20 years would have caused you much more harm if they had hit you. Cyclists jumping reds, whenever they do it, are unlikely to hit you, because they are smaller, more agile. If they do, they are less likely to injure or kill you because of the weight and speed.

I’m not saying it’s right to jump lights in any vehicle, but overall, cycling is much less dangerous to society than car driving.

Allocation of public resources on harm reduction is done by looking at the problem at a societal level. That’s why an expensive, hard to administer and all but impossible to enforce cycle registration scheme won’t happen.

The bad actors would still be bad actors - see illegally modded cars, unlicensed and uninsured drivers for an example of how it doesn’t work in motoring.

The plates would be either so large they are unsafe or so small they are unreadable by ANPR systems.

Any extra barriers to active travel will have negative affects on overall health, costing the NHS more money.

Enforcement won’t happen - see all the drivers on mobiles or jumping reds.

The junction you mentioned - does it have cameras? Do you think all the drivers who jumped ‘just a little bit’ on red got points and a fine? Doubtful - so how would it work for cyclists?

Someone has to install, maintain and monitor the cameras, then send the letters and collect the fine - or maintain the computer systems that automate it. If they aren’t spending that money on cracking down on motorists who actually kill and injure in the thousands every year, do you honestly think it’s available for cyclists who are 1/400th of the problem?

I don't know how many more times I have to keep saying this, but yes, badly-behaved motorists are a big problem.

And as I said, a car hitting me on that junction could kill me.

But frequency does matter. If I'm more likely to be hit (or even narrowly missed) by a cyclist, even if they don't kill me my overall risk of harm is greater from cyclists than the risk of a car hitting me, because that's more unlikely to happen.

As people get older, they are less steady on their feet, and more likely to break bones than younger people. So a cyclist who narrowly misses an older person, because they are "more agile", could well startle them enough that they will fall, potentially with life-changing consequences (e.g. a broken hip).

Yes, there are cameras at that junction. And I don't know to what extent a licensing scheme for cyclists would be feasible, but if it could be made to work, I would support it, because it would force cyclists to take responsibility for their own actions.

Possibly education campaigns would help to make it less socially acceptable for cyclists to blithely ignore laws and endanger other people, although as with motorists, some will always think they're above the law.

With limited money and resources, it makes more sense to fight for the thing that poses the most danger.

By that logic, we shouldn't spend money on research into motor neuron disease, because it's far less common than cancer. And we shouldn't fund research into ovarian cancer, because it's far less common than breast cancer.

Of course there need to be priorities in spending, but we don't ignore lesser problems because other problems are more serious.

It's possible to find solutions to reduce the amount of bad cyclist behaviour, as well as solutions to reduce the amount of bad motorist behaviour.

Yes, there are cameras at that junction. And I don't know to what extent a licensing scheme for cyclists would be feasible, but if it could be made to work, I would support it, because it would force cyclists to take responsibility for their own actions.

Possibly education campaigns would help to make it less socially acceptable for cyclists to blithely ignore laws and endanger other people, although as with motorists, some will always think they're above the law.

In the hierarchy of hazard controls, administrative controls (i.e. rules and signage) are second-least effective (after PPE, for all those who witter on about helmets and hivis). Consider how effective rules and signs are with cars? Speeding is endemic, no matter how many signs are up.

Engineering controls (so traffic calming and decent cycle infrastructure) are far more effective at changing behaviour and this has been proven in the Netherlands. If speeding is a persistent issue on a Dutch street, the Dutch traffic engineers don't just stick up a camera and some more signs. No, they rebuild the street from the ground up, modifying the surface and the layout to make speeding feel unnatural to drivers.

More effective than either of these are the elimination and substitution of hazards. In other words the more car journeys you can eliminate or replace with active travel or public transport the safer the roads will be.

But you won't find a solution by licencing and registering bikes. There's a reason no democracy does this, it's not effective. We need to learn from successful countries like the Netherlands and Denmark, as well as cities in other countries like Freiburg im Breisgau, Basel and Malmo.

Well the only place in the world that has one is North Korea, to my knowledge.

Again, I’m not saying it’s ok for cyclists to jump lights or cycle on the pavement or any of the other road rule breaking - but we should be realistic and pragmatic about dealing with the situation we have.

There aren’t enough resources to deal with the more serious issue (cars) so I’m not in favour of diverting any at all to something that, on a population level, confers less risk than cows.

To your point of MND v cancer - it’s not the same thing. Investigation, scientific endeavour has more benefits than just to the specific disease. There are also lots of other factors at play in how scientific research is funded - where the diseases hit (how deep the pockets of the potential recipients), what researchers want to devote their lives to, availability of subjects etc.

More appropriate would be looking at how policing resources are allocated. With so few officers and so little money, I support the use of them for more serious & violent crimes, rather than phone snatching and burglary.

Do I think those lesser crimes don’t matter? Of course not - they are abhorrent and can deeply affect the victims. But when you have to make a choice, which sadly we do, it must, imo, be to help prevent the most serious injuries and deaths.

@DdraigGoch has explained much better than I how to actually address dangerous cycling.

We can all quote examples, these are just this month.
The school children killed in Essex by a driver who failed to stop on 1 Feb
13 Feb a driver of a smart car killed a 41 year old woman and failed to stop
A woman in her 20s was killed on 11 February after being struck by a lorry
A pedestrian in his 30s was killed on Feb 2nd following a collision
yesterday morning a man in his 50s was killed when he was hit by a lorry.
I stopped looking after I found five, I’m sure there are more.