Reducing road danger

When it comes to our perception of road danger, what a difference a century makes. Folk in 1916 were understandably horrified with any driver that ran over a child, whatever the circumstances. “If you look at newspapers from American cities in the 1910s and ’20s, you’ll find a lot of anger at cars and drivers, really an incredible amount,” says Peter Norton, the author of Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City. “My impression is that you’d find more caricatures of the Grim Reaper driving a car over innocent children than you would images of Uncle Sam.”

And yet, a century later the subtext to any story about a school age child being killed on the road is that the parents must have somehow been negligent. Worse still is the cultural shift that now allows a motor insurer like Churchill to blame a child for being struck by a speeding car while that same child is walking on a grass verge.

Our attitude to cars is deeply ingrained because it took hold over generations. While our great-great grandparents would have been horrified by the threat posed by cars, we were soon indoctrinating our own children with the idea that they should defer to cars – with the misguided belief that the streets where we live are for motorised traffic not people.

In order to accommodate cars, our towns and cities required not only a physical change, but a social one: streets had to be socially re-engineered as places where motorists, rather than pedestrians, belonged. It was a change that was fiercely resisted. In 1930s America an anti-car campaign framed motorists as road hogs and cars as “death cars.” These messages were countered by the car makers. A promotional film titled “The Safest Place” describes cars as a ‘solid living room’. The irony is that cars of the time were a veritable death traps for their occupants in the event of a crash. The film is most interesting because it focuses on driver behaviour as the primary factor in reducing road danger; it’s inconceivable that a contemporary car advertisement would be devoted to the need to stop for children, stay within speed limits and drive courteously.

The thrust of today’s car ads is adventure, freedom and speed – who cares if it’s at the expense of people in the event of a crash?

The second film is aimed at keeping cyclists safe on the roads of 1936. The streets are eerily empty of traffic by today’s standards, but the threat to vulnerable road users was already very real. The footage appears quaint to us now, but the portrayal of that cyclists as second class road users who should count themselves lucky to arrive alive is already evident.

Today’s attitude in Britain is, for the most part, that pedestrians and cyclists should defer to motorised traffic if they want to stay safe.

A blog launched by West Midlands police and aimed at cyclists hints at a promising change in attitude towards vulnerable road users.

The police force explains that: Should a driver not give a cyclist the time and space necessary or fail to see them completely they should expect to be prosecuted. In other words the carrot goes out the window and in comes the stick. Why some might ask? Well if drivers expect to be prosecuted for committing offences they suddenly stop committing them, unsurprising correlation I know but it’s the truth. Once drivers become aware that an infringement involving a cyclist is one they should expect to be prosecuted for, they suddenly become more aware of them on the road and in turn start giving them the time and space they should lawfully have as an equal road user. Cyclists suddenly occupy a drivers attention, they actively look out for them and so are less likely to miss them at junctions and contribute to our KSI statistics.

Any offence that would contribute to a driver failing to see a vulnerable road user needs to be enforced, and as has been considered of late, some say needs a greater penalty. Whether that be excess speed that doesn’t give the motorist time to see or react to the vulnerable road user, distraction offences such as mobile phone use, or drug and drink driving.

So drivers need to expect a zero tolerance approach for any offence involving a vulnerable road user, or an offence that could contribute to a collision involving a vulnerable road user. The only way to change driver behaviour and concentrate minds on looking out for vulnerable road users and change driving habits is through enforcement, and the resulting fear of being prosecuted.

It’s policy that should be adopted nationwide and without delay.

Environmentally friendly cycle insurance

On the face of it, one bicycle insurance policy is much like another, but the devil is the detail. How much excess you will be charged is just one of the things that varies wildly between providers. Another is so called ‘new-for-old’ replacement – many insurers use this term, but if your bicycle is more than a few years old, devalue it severely. This means you are left out of pocket when you come to replace it. Read our insider guide to cycle insurance.

ETA cycle insurance has a low standard excess of 5% (minimum £25) and offers a new-for-old for life – however old the bike, if it’s stolen you get enough to buy a new model. Furthermore, every cycle insurance policy you buy from us helps support the work of the ETA Trust, our charity campaigning for a cleaner, safer transport future.

For 25 years we have been providing straightforward, affordable bicycle insurance. Whether you use your bike to commute, shop, race or amble in the park, ETA Cycle Insurance has you covered. We never devalue bikes no matter their age, allow you to buy your replacement bike wherever you like, replace stolen quick release components and handle claims in-house.

The Good Shopping Guide voted us Britain’s most ethical insurance company 2016.