Ok...here goes, a thread on where the focus should be in infrastructure design, and why we've all been hoodwinked. I’m playing a little fast and loose with ages/numbers but I’m confident these are close enough to make my point.

It's long, I'm not sorry.

Transport users are grouped into categories, most people will identify with only one of these categories but the truth is most people fall into multiple, and those that genuinely only occupy one are being left out.

So let’s start this with defining our categories and working out how much of the UK population falls into each. First off, “Drivers”

For the purposes of this thread a “Driver” is someone who holds a valid driver's license and can, therefore, drive if they choose to, so…

There are 66.7 million people in the UK. The RAC Foundation estimate that ~32.7 million people held a full driving license in 2019. We could go into how many vehicles there are and the number of actual drivers, but this is enough for our purposes. So on to “Cyclists”

Similar to “Driver” we use a simplified definition of “Cyclist”. So “Possessing a license” qualifies “Driver”, “Has access to a cycle and has used it at least once in the last 12 months” qualifies "Cyclist" this is stricter than our “Drivers”, where we ignored driving frequency.

By this definition 33% of the UK Population fit “Cyclist”, that’s 22 million people. If we expanded the definition to “Has access to a cycle” that number goes up to 28 million, and if we went with “Has ever cycled”…well I think you can hazard a guess at the number.

Now, there are other categories of transport user, we'll get to those, but for now let’s look at these 2, which are mortal enemies (apparently). ~85% of cyclists over the age of 18 also fall into the “Driver” category, as they hold a valid driving license. That’s a BIG overlap.

The reverse isn’t quite such a big overlap. Of the 32.7 million drivers something around 14 million don’t cycle. That’s 42.8%. That’s...well, possibly less than expected.

These first two groups share something in common, although a lot of people might not like to admit it.

What thing? That they both use the road? Well, yes. But it's more than that.

While there is a significant portion of both groups that would presumably think of themselves as a “Cyclist” or a “Driver” and that only, they are wrong.

No-one on the planet is only one of those things in terms of transport user. There are “Public Transport” users, but even they fall into this other group.

In fact, everyone on the planet from the age of ~12 months falls into this category.

It’s “Pedestrian”. We are ALL “Pedestrian”. Every. Last. One of us. Unless you cycle or drive around your home or the shops, you are a “Pedestrian” in addition to your other “Transport User” groupings. So why do we put “Pedestrian” last in infrastructure design?

Now seems a pertinent time to summarise the above, particularly if you don’t like numbers.

All cyclists are pedestrians, not all pedestrians are cyclists.
All drivers are pedestrians, not all pedestrians are drivers.
All humans are pedestrians.

So, why aren’t we prioritising the thing that benefits EVERYONE? Why have we let ourselves be convinced that we are “Driver” or “Cyclist” first when it simply isn’t the case?

I think marketing is to blame, at least partially.

Through clever marketing, it seems we have been convinced that pedestrianism is the reserve of the young and the poor. If you are old enough you do everything you can to have a car so you can stop being viewed as young and/or poor. (I'm generalising, )

We forget that even owning a car, we are still a pedestrian, just a pedestrian that owns a car and sometimes drives. Or owns a cycle and sometimes cycles. This isn’t unique to the UK, but some countries seem better at remembering the fact that Human = Pedestrian before all else.

If we put that fact at the centre of our designs and policies we might actually be able to start lowering the number of KSIs on our roads (I still prefer calling them Shared Use Carriageways). Until then, the status quo will continue and the death toll won’t change.

I think the first step to shifting our focus back to designing for the 100% is a change in liability on the roads. The Pedestrian should be king. Presumed faultless in all collisions with others, be they cycle, car, or other.

The onus is on the larger/faster vehicle to prove that they weren’t responsible, guilty until proven innocent as it were. There are many options for the larger/faster vehicle to prove their innocence, dash cams and “black boxes” spring to mind.

Insurance companies could incentivise these easily through lowered excess/premiums and who wouldn’t want to pay less for their insurance?

Presumed liability isn’t a new idea, it already exists in other countries, and it could be implemented in the UK, or anywhere for that matter

The only reason I can think of for not changing is defining ourselves as “Drivers” first and seeing this change as an attack on our "identity". We don't want the threat of being held more accountable because we are "good drivers".

The fact is, a "good driver" needn't worry about the change.

But until our definition of ourselves changes. Until our measure of worth isn’t linked to the mode of transport we prefer or the cost of the vehicle we choose to utilise, we will continue with the status quo.

The status quo of ~5 deaths per day on our roads.
The status quo of growing vehicle footprints
The status quo of less road space for movement as it gets used more and more for storage.

And all of that at while reducing the safety of the 100% of the population, drivers included, who are at risk of injury or death as a result of careless driving.

I’m not saying don’t drive. I’m saying remember that you are a pedestrian first and let’s design for the majority.

Oh, and stop parking on the pavement.

@gdcampaigns - I hope you don't mind my "borrowing" your image. Happy to remove it if you like.

@JohnBaker1975 - as requested, you are tagged. I hope it's not a disappointment.