The ’Niceway Code’ is not just about appeasing cyclists – it is typical of a government increasingly tokenistic and out touch with the challenges it faces.
The Scottish Government recently launched a campaign to improve Scotland’s road safety record called ‘The Niceway Code’. You may have missed this due to the fact that it only has a budget of 500,000 pounds and it is so appallingly lame that Transport Minister Keith Brown’s department seem faintly embarrassed about the whole thing.
The campaign aims to reduce the number of road deaths by asking road users to be nice to one another, which is surprising in that the law already compels people to be nice to and not kill one another on the roads.
The fact that the campaign does not even remind motorists or their legal obligations (and in some cases directly contradicts what road markings tell cyclists to do as shown in the picture below) has incensed active and sustainable transport groups. One Holyrood insider even talked of how an panel of interest groups were left dumbfounded when Keith Brown’s team revealed their grand strategy for preventing death and injury on the nation’s streets. The Scottish Government’s own statistics show that 1 in 14 road deaths each year are cyclists, and only in a tiny minority of cases have the cyclists committed even minor infringements to the highway code.
Don’t go left, even though that’s where the cycle lane is.
The SNP seem to want to keep everyone happy, which is why they seem to view cyclists and cycling as an interest group and not as a genuine means of tackling some of the endemic transport and urban problems of contemporary Scotland. They will happily commit three BILLION pounds to doubling the A9 from Perth to Inverness but cannot muster the couple of million pounds it would require to radically reshape Scotland’s urban and suburban spaces to make them more liveable.
Cycling is not just about lycra and weekend hobbyists – harnessed properly it can create safer streets for children and families in particular, cut air pollution and help meet Scotland’s climate goals. It can save the government and taxpayers money, cut health bills and reduce the strain on public transport networks without extra subsidies. If even a crumb of that three billion were spent on redesigning towns and cities to make them more people-friendly the SNP would be a world leader, but for the time being they’ve just got everyone sniggering into the back of their hand. And I’m being nice.
#1 by Douglas McLellan on August 13, 2013 - 8:23 pm
Whilst I can agree with your comments about how this government prioritises spending as an increasingly militant pedestrian (sold my car a year ago) there is a problem with some cyclists, just as there is a problem with some drivers.
The issue is the epic desire of cyclists to really really believe that two wrongs do actually make a right. Yes cars are dangerous but just because cycles are far less dangerous does not mean they should be used on the pavement. Furthermore, one-way streets are one-way for cyclists as well. Even when we move to shared spaces (say the off street paths) there is a problem with amateur pelotons forming up and struggling to cope with children and pets.
Finally there is the actual sharing of road space. I don’t actually know what to do when cyclists are near by. When making a right turn that crosses over a cycle path I have slowed right down and driven a car lengths behind a cyclist instead of cutting in front of them at the junction. For my consideration I was gesticulated at for driving to near them at 5mph. Even being stationary and signalling my intent to manouver at the next opportunity on the A700 at Melville Terrace (which crosses right over a cycle lane) resulted in being sworn at by a cyclist as he could not see that I had (1) seen him, (2) not begun my manoeuvre as I had seen him, (3) still had my handbrake on and (4) could not move my car anyway as I was bumper to bumper. So when I do drive these days I wait until cyclists pass before advising other drivers of my intent. I dont think this is safe.
The nicewaycode is, I think, a recognition that a certain percentage of road users are basically twats regardless of how they use the roads. The problem is that cyclists are the most vulnerable road users. The nicewaycode strategy will not solve all the problems you have highlighted but if it helps twats be less twattish that will surely help?
#2 by Dave H on August 14, 2013 - 12:26 am
You should see the backslapping going on on The Drum Blog!
Basically its a pile of trite and unfunny copy too clever for its own good, and is widely being seen-through world-wide.
There is one key road safety and goodwill message which I’ve been plugging for at least 15 years, and it is actually getting feint recognition (the AA advice for cyclists and drivers)
The only contact you should make with another road user is Eye Contact – Eyes bring in over 80% of the information we use to get around and eyes also send out subtle non vocal messages to those looking at us. If you can see that I’m looking at you then there is a pretty good certainty that we won’t be bumping into each other, and we might even negotiate who is doing what next.
Now how about spending £0.5m in getting road users to use their eyes (and ears)
#3 by Ian Bradbury on August 14, 2013 - 11:18 am
“Finally there is the actual sharing of road space. I don’t actually know what to do when cyclists are near by. When making a right turn that crosses over a cycle path I have slowed right down and driven a car lengths behind a cyclist instead of cutting in front of them at the junction”
Sounds entirely reasonable to me, although I’d have thought it was more an issue turning left? In that situation it’s fairly much what I’d want as a cyclist or on the road (maybe slightly more than a car’s length if possible – a diesel that close behind can sound a bit off-putting, especially in low gear).
I’m not sure the problem is so much twattishness as fear – the awareness of vulnerability can be scary, and not all drivers are considerate, so there’s likely a fair bit of adrenalin running in some of the cyclists you’ve met.
#4 by Douglas McLellan on August 14, 2013 - 3:18 pm
You are of course right – turning left not right.
That particular example of a cars length can be problematic as if the cyclist is slow I would have to basically part to avoid getting too close. Its a rare combo though of a slow cyclist being close the junction where I would be turning left. The issue for me is that the one time it did happen, I thought clearly of the cyclist and was given abuse for it.
You may be right about the fear affecting behaviour and as I have seen how very timid car drivers can react on the roads. But I maintain that the nicewaycode is a step in the right direction but not a solution.
#5 by Ian Bradbury on August 15, 2013 - 4:56 pm
“But I maintain that the nicewaycode is a step in the right direction but not a solution”.
For many would-be cyclists, proper separated infrastructure is the right direction. For the rest of us reminding drivers that the speed limits are generally maxima, not minima, would be a good start. The idea of “nice” is fine, but I’m not a horse, most RLJers are motorists, and there are often good reasons for nervous cyclists to use footways, carefully. It depresses me that the Scottish Government cares so much about motorists, and so little about cyclists. If this is the better nation I’m not sure I see the point