Abstract
As a judge remarked long ago when the railways posed a new hazard: if all traffic were limited to a maximum speed of 5 mph there would be fewer accidents – but the pace of life would be unacceptably slowed down. (No inverted commas are needed as I am paraphrasing.) Motorised vehicles soon posed new road hazards but public acceptance of the new conveyances soon dispensed with the man walking ahead waving a warning flag.
We have had over one hundred years to adjust to living amongst the growing numbers of ever faster cars, longer lorries and speeding motor bikes, yet road traffic accidents (or “incidents” as the police prefer to call them) regularly happen on our crowded roads. While fatalities have reduced, arguably thanks to better and safer cars and improved and skilful medical treatment, with the seriously injured sometimes helicoptered to the most specialist A & E centres in the UK, there are still many very serious and long-term injuries happening on our streets. How should we deal with these? It is a given that recognised “black spots” should be urgently tackled with junctions and traffic management improved. It is not only that the number of personal and family tragedies could and should be reduced along with at times devastating emotional and physical trauma – it makes good economic sense. A serious injury is expensive not only for the sufferer and his/her family but also for the public purse. A stitch in time saves nine. Prevention is better than cure.
But what stitch should we put in place? We already have speed limits – but they should be more effectively enforced? Do we need more speed humps? Is there some way of rewarding good and safe driving (not only by insurance companies) as well as punishing selfish and bad driving more effectively – a stick and carrot approach?
And what about bicycle safety? How best to stop cyclists from taking foolish and unnecessary risks? Why do many regular and keen cyclists choose to be barely visible from a car and most particularly in twilight or after dark? Why do they so often wear black (usually lycra) with no or minimally reflective strips? Should cyclists need to obtain a licence (available online or at the post office) to ride on the public highway? This licence could be revoked if they collect too many points or commit a major offence that disqualifies them. Should they be required to take out personal injury insurance? Should there be developed readily-available inexpensive self-inflating waistcoats that protect the ribs and spleen and other organs in case of collision or a bad fall?
As a child, I seem to remember that riding a bicycle without a light at night time was an offence which was enforced by the local bobby on the basis that the cyclist without lights was a danger both to himself and others using the road. What has changed? The hard-to-see till the last minute cyclist is still a danger to himself and to others. And if riding without lights at night is still is an offence why don't the police pull cyclists over any more?
And while I'm on the subject, pedal cyclists should be required by law to have fitted a working warning bell and working front and rear lights if they use their bikes on a public road between dusk and dawn and when visibility is poor during daylight hours. Failure to comply should be an offence that carries a fine, points and ultimately disqualification. Should it be an offence to sell or offer for hire a bike without lights and a bell for use on our public highway? Should bikes be required to have regular “MOTs” to ensure brakes, lights and steering are adequate? Should cyclists be pulled over by the police more often for careless or dangerous cycling, for example, going the wrong way up a one way street?
Most regular cyclists wear helmets, but a few months ago I heard a member of the pro-cyclist lobby complaining on the radio that promoting the wearing of a helmet suggests that cycling is a dangerous activity (which he said it wasn't) and the intimation that there were dangers with cycling would put people off doing it who could gain great benefit by becoming fitter and more active and thereby extending their lives. I do not buy this. People who take up cycling need to know what is involved and how best to deal with it and wearing a cycling helmet is a sensible precaution.
We need properly protected cycle lanes that do not just peter out when you reach a major junction. In Holland, Belgium and Denmark cycling is truly valued as a way of commuting or travelling around and their roads and cycle paths reflect this. Why cannot we achieve this in the UK? While there are no doubt some areas which are excellent there are too many that are not. In London, where so many people commute and would love to avoid using the tube and bus and get some exercise at the same time we need to improve the situation and make it safer not only for cyclists but also for pedestrians who are frequently put in fear by speeding bikes and occasionally knocked down and seriously injured. Take for example the front page of the Hampstead and Highgate Express of 15 August 2013: “Pensioner hit by bike on crossing”, where it was alleged by an eye witness that the bike had gone through a red light.
On the other side of the coin are the many fraudulent claims for whiplash injuries that are apparently connived at by insurance companies and cold calling lawyers or claims agencies that are presently unregulated. As we proposed in a previous Editorial1 “… more stringent requirements of the evidence and proof (are) needed to substantiate a claim.” On 31 July 2013 a parliamentary inquiry reported on the issues concluding, inter alia, that “Insurers must immediately get their house in order and end practices that encourage fraud and exaggeration…. If not the Government should take steps to protect motorists” from bogus claims for whiplash that could be adding as much as £90 a year to premiums. Louise Ellman MP, the committee's chairwoman said “the Government should consider requiring claimants to provide proof that they have either been seen by a doctor or attended A & E shortly after the accident”. The committee supported measures to introduce a “whiplash accreditation scheme for medical practitioners” to reduce concerns that doctors feel pressured into giving unduly sympathetic evidence. A Justice Minister said the Government had consulted on what further measures it could take to curb bogus whiplash claims, including improving diagnosis and ensuring that questionable claims can be challenged in court. It would need to be a very simple and cheap process – and who will do the challenging in court?
1 “The Rise of Dodgy Insurance Claims and the Huge Price of Negligent Medical Treatment to the NHS” vol 80 Part One page 1.