Anti-cycling focus and risk management

In recent discussions of how to improve road safety and increase cycling I’ve heard plenty of stupid suggestions from people in positions of power who really should know better. The Commons Transport Committee springs to mind (props to Chris Boardman for his excellent response). So I’m surprised that I haven’t seen the risk control hierarchy run out as an argument for investing in decent infrastructure, focussing on the source of risk and generally avoiding babbling on about helmets and hi-vis.

In short, it is the official HSE advice for dealing with hazards. Risk control should be attempted as follows (I’ve adapted it for cycling):

• Elimination: Redesign the job or substitute a substance so that the hazard is removed or eliminated. For example, reduce the number of motor vehicles on the road
  
• Substitution: Replace the material or process with a less hazardous one. For example, use vans instead of HGVs in cities
  
• Engineering controls: Use work equipment or other measures to prevent accidents where you cannot avoid having the hazard in the environment. For example, segregated cycle paths.
  
• Administrative controls: These are all about identifying and implementing the procedures you need to travel safely. For example, extra training for drivers and cyclists, enforcing bans on mobile phones while driving
  

• Personal protective clothes and equipment. For example, helmets and hi-vis.

  What’s most interesting is not these measures themselves, but the associated official advice on how they should be applied. For example,

Risks should be reduced to the lowest reasonably practicable level by taking preventative measures, in order of priority. The table below above sets out an ideal order to follow when planning to reduce risk from construction activities cycling. Consider the headings in the order shown, do not simply jump to the easiest control measure to implement.

...and from item #5...

Only after all the previous measures have been tried and found ineffective in controlling risks to a reasonably practicable level, must personal protective equipment (PPE) be used.
...and finally (rejigged for cycling)...

It is not necessary to implement every measure. For example, in the case of a fully boarded and guarded scaffold properly segregated bike lane, workers cyclists would not be expected to wear personal fall-arrest equipment helmets or hi-vis.

This is really unambiguous and has developed as the recognised best-practice for dealing with hazardous environments, and yet the vast majority of the talk, especially from politicians, skips clean over #1-3 and settles on #4 (training etc.) and #5 (helmets). I think it’s a straightforward indication of just how crap many authorities’ approach is to making cycling safer and more inviting that they are very clearly ignoring their own best-practice advice.

(obviously merge if this has been done, apologies for possibly the most boring thread title ever)

tl;dr: people in government ignoring government advice when it comes to cycling.