New cycle safety campaign says: it's everyone's responsibility

 

A cyclist at night outside King's Cross London, UK. Photograph: Ashley Cooper/Alamy

The Department for Transport (DfT) has launched a new campaign for cyclist safety on the roads which, in summary, tells us: look, why can't everyone just get on?

That's something of a parody, as despite its distinctly fluffy official title – "Let's all look out for each other" - the campaign from the DfT's Think! road safety arm has, at its heart, an eminently sensible message, and one I and many other on this blog have long argued.

The DfT's point is that it's silly and divisive to discuss "cyclists" and "drivers" as if they're separate species. As the campaign points out, according to the National Travel Survey 80% of cyclists have a driving licence while one in five drivers ride a bike at least once a month.

Stephen Hammond, the Tory MP who took over as road safety minister in the recent reshuffle from the reliably hapless Mike Penning, has been wheeled out to provide equally sensible quotes to the effect that everyone had better get used to more cyclists being on the roads, what with the oft-cited "Wiggins effect" and all that.

 

The DfT's new safety poster

First, the praise: it's great that the DfT are trying to highlight cycle safety, and it's a very good idea to highlight the false divide between cyclists and drivers, which the poster released today does very well. On that point, when in this post I refer to "drivers" or "cyclists", read it as "humans who happen to be driving/cycling at that moment and are not necessarily defined by it and use other forms of transport on other occasions".

Now, inevitably, the quibbles. Firstly, while a campaign using such tactics can hardly avoid dishing out advice to both drivers and cyclists – both are given six advice points each – the inescapable fact is that when it comes to incidents in which cyclists get seriously hurt, it is drivers who are more likely to be the problem.

The joint advice, "Look out for each other, especially when turning", simply has that much more resonance when you're potentially on the receiving end of half a tonne of metal travelling at 30mph.

This is borne out by statistics. The gold standard for this argument in the UK is a 2009 study by the DfT-affiliated Transport Research Laboratory, which studied several years of accident data and concluded that in serious collisions involving adult cyclists, the driver was found to be solely responsible in about 60%-75% of cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

It's likely this is an underestimate of the true picture for two reasons. Firstly, those attributing fault were the police, who tend not to be overly pro-cyclist. Secondly, some of the accidents were fatal, meaning, of course, only the driver's account was heard.

Whenever cycle safety gets mentioned debate tends to be dominated by complaints about cyclists running red lights. However antisocial or irritating this might be – I'd say very – it's not really a factor in this debate. The TRL statistics, which are to my knowledge by far the best UK evidence on this subject, found that where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users, them jumping lights or stop signs was a contributing factor in only 2% of cases.

To return to the main subject, this is arguably a pointless quibble. You can't very well have a campaign highlighting the congruity of cyclists and drivers while pointing the blame finger mainly at one group. But it's worth mentioning, I think.

My second worry is more specific, and was noticed first by cycling journalist Carlton Reid on his BikeBiz website. While the bulk of the advice to drivers in treating cyclists with courtesy is eminently sensible stuff, one line stands out. It reads: "Give cyclists space – at least half a car's width. If there isn't sufficient space to pass, hold back."

Half a car's width is really not very much. That most typical of cars, the Ford Focus, is 1.8m wide, excluding wing mirrors. A car passing 90cm from you at 40mph – let alone 60mph – doesn't sound like fun.

As Reid points out it also seems to go against advice to drivers in the Highway Code. This reads: "Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car." The example photo shows a driver overtaking a cyclist with a gap of more or less a whole car's width.

I've asked the DfT about this and they've promised to get back to me.

But overall, let's give a muted cheer for the DfT. They've even gone to the trouble to get the heads of the RAC and AA to point out how many of their members also cycle, and the overall message really is long overdue: cyclists can't be dismissed or marginalised as an "other" group. Like Mitt Romney's 47%, we're not always the people you might think.

The DfT, or rather a private PR company employed by them, has answered my query about the advice for drivers to leave "at least half a car's width" when overtaking cyclists, as mentioned above. They say:

"It's important when you're driving to give other road users plenty of space. The Highway Code doesn't specify how much space as it's important that road users take all the circumstances into account when overtaking. However, we would expect cars to give at least half a car's space when over taking a cyclist, which is why THINK! promotes this message."

That doesn't really add anything, does it? Personally, I'm a bit alarmed the DfT seems to think about 90cm is sufficient overtaking room.