Motorists are at fault in nearly three-quarters of all collisions between cyclists and drivers, according to new analysis of road safety figures in Scotland – analysis which has also suggested that common tropes about ‘dangerous’ cyclists, such as riders “wearing dark clothing”, are responsible for comparatively few crashes.

The data, collated by Cycling Scotland, shows that 54 cyclists were killed and a further 1,836 seriously injured in road collisions throughout Scotland between 2015 and 2021, the Herald reports (link is external).

Analysing the “contributory factors” assigned by Police Scotland to all collisions, Cycling Scotland found that over 70 percent of crashes involving motorists and cyclists were the fault of the driver. For both drivers and cyclists, the most common cause of a collision is a failure to look – though of the 512 “failure to look” incidents, 374 were assigned to the motorist.

“Aggressive driving” and “vehicle door opened or closed negligently” were also in the top 10 reasons for collisions, Cycling Scotland found.

However, in the incidents where the cyclist was deemed to be at fault, “wearing dark clothing at night” was assigned to only 19 collisions between 2015 and 2021, the ninth most common cause of crashes where the cyclist was at fault.

The relative paucity of incidents related to dark cycling clothing stands in stark contrast to Police Scotland’s stance on the issue. In February, we reported that a Scottish chief inspector found herself at the centre of a “victim blaming” row when she urged pedestrians to wear “reflective or fluorescent” clothing, after six people walking were killed after being hit by other road users in just 13 days.

“Pedestrians are considered vulnerable road users and, in winter, particularly when it is dark, pedestrians should wear reflective or fluorescent clothing,” Ch Insp Lorraine Napier said at the time.

“I would also urge pedestrians to be mindful of their surroundings and to ensure they are not putting themselves at risk.”

This mindset – that vulnerable road users are putting themselves at risk in certain situations, and are therefore responsible for collisions – was criticised by Simon Bradshaw, the Cycling Road Safety Manager at Cycling Scotland, who collated this recent data.

“There is sometimes animosity between a minority of people who drive cars and other vehicles and people on pedal cycles, which can sometimes result in conflict,” Bradshaw said.

“This clearly is unsafe, but it also perpetuates some of the myths that surround people on bikes as well: that people on cycles are unsafe, and they are the cause of collisions by going through a red light, or through junctions and not obeying the rules of the road. And obviously, there is a small minority of cyclists who do that, just as there is of people who drive vehicles.”

He continued: “But what the data tells us is that cyclist behaviour isn’t a major factor which is causing people on bikes to be seriously injured or even killed. The biggest risk is from the presence of vehicles.

“What we’re trying to demonstrate by highlighting this data is that on most occasions, where you have a collision between a person on a bike and a vehicle, it tends to be the fault of the person driving the vehicle.

Bradshaw believes that cyclists have been dehumanised by some motorists, creating a narrative in which they are blamed for causing collisions and increasing the danger on the roads.

“A minority of people get behind the wheel of a vehicle but then tend to see people on bikes as sort of not human,” he said.

“Language is very important in these in these discussions, because there’s a lot of emotive language being used in certain quarters.

“We’re trying to make the point that it’s generally not people on bikes who are causing the problem or the greatest risk. It’s people in vehicles and that’s where we’re wanting to focus our efforts, on preventing collisions in the first place.”

The Cycling Scotland representative also called on Police Scotland to introduce a dedicated reporting mechanism for close passes – with the force coming in for criticism in recent months due to the continued absence of an online portal, causing near misses for cyclists to be underreported – and argued that it was difficult to make progress concerning road safety in Scotland due to the a lack of a “consistent overall approach” from the various groups involved, such as the police and local and national authorities.

He added: “We’re trying very hard to do that and Transport Scotland’s road safety framework provides a good structure for everybody to try and work together but it takes actually drawing out the data.

“Because it’s all about being evidence-led. There is no point investing money on road safety interventions that aren’t supported by the evidence and are therefore likely to be ineffective.

“So somebody highlighting the fact that wearing dark clothing at night is not supported in the data as being the cause of people on bikes being killed or seriously injured. And that’s really important, because you would hope then that puts it to bed.

“And you can focus on the real issue, which is actually the people in vehicles posing the biggest risks. But it’s likely to be an issue which never goes away. It’ll consistently pop up and raise its head. And we just have to keep addressing it, I think.”

https://road.cc/content/news/drivers-fault-almost-three-quarters-all-collisions-302565

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Motorists are at fault in nearly three-quarters of all collisions between
> cyclists and drivers, according to new analysis of road safety figures in
> Scotland – analysis which has also suggested that common tropes about
> ‘dangerous’ cyclists, such as riders “wearing dark clothing”, are
> responsible for comparatively few crashes.

Ah, the “it’s only a few” morally-bankrupt argument that highlights the
general sociopathy of the cycling world.

> The data, collated by Cycling Scotland, shows that 54 cyclists were
> killed and a further 1,836 seriously injured in road collisions
> throughout Scotland between 2015 and 2021, the Herald reports (link is external).

Dare one say “it’s only a handful, why bother to do anything’?

> Analysing the “contributory factors” assigned by Police Scotland to all
> collisions, Cycling Scotland found that over 70 percent of crashes
> involving motorists and cyclists were the fault of the driver. For both
> drivers and cyclists, the most common cause of a collision is a failure
> to look – though of the 512 “failure to look” incidents, 374 were assigned to the motorist.

Ah, the “it’s only a handful” morally-bankrupt argument, this time it’s 138
cyclists that couldn’t be bothered to look where they are going.

But how many cyclists and drivers are there in Scotland? If the ratio is
less than 138 to 374 (almost 1 in 3), then cyclists are over-represented in
these incidents.

Come on, Cycling Scotland, get your data together and let us know.

Unfortunately, the 20-odd pages of Cycling Scotland’s Annual Report 2022
doesn’t seem to mention how many cyclists there are in Scotland!

Well, well…

> “Aggressive driving” and “vehicle door opened or closed negligently” were
> also in the top 10 reasons for collisions, Cycling Scotland found.

> However, in the incidents where the cyclist was deemed to be at fault,
> “wearing dark clothing at night” was assigned to only 19 collisions
> between 2015 and 2021, the ninth most common cause of crashes where the
> cyclist was at fault.
>
> The relative paucity of incidents related to dark cycling clothing stands
> in stark contrast to Police Scotland’s stance on the issue. In February,
> we reported that a Scottish chief inspector found herself at the centre
> of a “victim blaming” row when she urged pedestrians to wear “reflective
> or fluorescent” clothing, after six people walking were killed after
> being hit by other road users in just 13 days.
>
> “Pedestrians are considered vulnerable road users and, in winter,
> particularly when it is dark, pedestrians should wear reflective or
> fluorescent clothing,” Ch Insp Lorraine Napier said at the time.
>
> “I would also urge pedestrians to be mindful of their surroundings and to
> ensure they are not putting themselves at risk.”
>
> This mindset – that vulnerable road users are putting themselves at risk
> in certain situations, and are therefore responsible for collisions – was
> criticised by Simon Bradshaw, the Cycling Road Safety Manager at Cycling
> Scotland, who collated this recent data.
>
> “There is sometimes animosity between a minority of people who drive cars
> and other vehicles and people on pedal cycles, which can sometimes result
> in conflict,” Bradshaw said.
>
> “This clearly is unsafe, but it also perpetuates some of the myths that
> surround people on bikes as well: that people on cycles are unsafe, and
> they are the cause of collisions by going through a red light, or through
> junctions and not obeying the rules of the road. And obviously, there is
> a small minority of cyclists who do that, just as there is of people who drive vehicles.”
>
> He continued: “But what the data tells us is that cyclist behaviour isn’t
> a major factor which is causing people on bikes to be seriously injured
> or even killed. The biggest risk is from the presence of vehicles.
>
> “What we’re trying to demonstrate by highlighting this data is that on
> most occasions, where you have a collision between a person on a bike and
> a vehicle, it tends to be the fault of the person driving the vehicle.
>
> Bradshaw believes that cyclists have been dehumanised by some motorists,
> creating a narrative in which they are blamed for causing collisions and
> increasing the danger on the roads.
>
> “A minority of people get behind the wheel of a vehicle but then tend to
> see people on bikes as sort of not human,” he said.
>
> “Language is very important in these in these discussions, because
> there’s a lot of emotive language being used in certain quarters.
>
> “We’re trying to make the point that it’s generally not people on bikes
> who are causing the problem or the greatest risk. It’s people in vehicles
> and that’s where we’re wanting to focus our efforts, on preventing
> collisions in the first place.”
>
> The Cycling Scotland representative also called on Police Scotland to
> introduce a dedicated reporting mechanism for close passes – with the
> force coming in for criticism in recent months due to the continued
> absence of an online portal, causing near misses for cyclists to be
> underreported – and argued that it was difficult to make progress
> concerning road safety in Scotland due to the a lack of a “consistent
> overall approach” from the various groups involved, such as the police
> and local and national authorities.
>
> He added: “We’re trying very hard to do that and Transport Scotland’s
> road safety framework provides a good structure for everybody to try and
> work together but it takes actually drawing out the data.
>
> “Because it’s all about being evidence-led. There is no point investing
> money on road safety interventions that aren’t supported by the evidence
> and are therefore likely to be ineffective.
>
> “So somebody highlighting the fact that wearing dark clothing at night is
> not supported in the data as being the cause of people on bikes being
> killed or seriously injured. And that’s really important, because you
> would hope then that puts it to bed.

That doesn’t ’put it to bed’. It raises the question of why motor-vehicles
need lights at all, enforced by law and rigorous yearly testing. Why have
lights at all if the results of not having any can be ‘put to bed’ as
insignificant?

Cycling Scotland seems to be playing the morally-bankrupt “it’s only a
handful” argument that gets regularly trotted out when it comes to walkers
slaughtered by pavement cyclists.

> “And you can focus on the real issue, which is actually the people in
> vehicles posing the biggest risks. But it’s likely to be an issue which
> never goes away. It’ll consistently pop up and raise its head. And we
> just have to keep addressing it, I think.”

> https://road.cc/content/news/drivers-fault-almost-three-quarters-all-collisions-302565

This whole thing is laughable.

--
Spike

Seems to tally with the ONS/DfT stats from a few years ago that showed that drivers were to blame 2-3 times more often than cyclists in car vs bike KSIs for every age group except children. The DfT report also pointed out that the "partial blame" stats were somewhat dubious, as they contained a lot of Police anti-cyclist bias - cyclists being attributed partial blame for not wearing light/hi-vis on bright, clear days with good visibility, for example.

Of course, the press took this story and spun it in the the most anti-cyclist way they could, combining "partial" fault and "full" fault to get "cyclists to blame in 55% of crashes", but not doing the same for drivers (to blame in ~87% of crashes or whatever it would have been).

Funnily enough, Ashley Neal did a video on this, but because he didn't bother to read any more than the editorialised headline, he marked the release of a report that essentially showed that cyclists aren't to blame in most KSIs with a video shitting all over cyclists, telling us to be better (and he wonders why he isn't particularly popular on here) - let's see if he does anything with this data...

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seems to tally with the ONS/DfT stats from a few years ago that showed
> that drivers were to blame 2-3 times more often than cyclists in car vs
> bike KSIs for every age group except children. The DfT report also
> pointed out that the "partial blame" stats were somewhat dubious, as they
> contained a lot of Police anti-cyclist bias - cyclists being attributed
> partial blame for not wearing light/hi-vis on bright, clear days with
> good visibility, for example.
>
> Of course, the press took this story and spun it in the the most
> anti-cyclist way they could, combining "partial" fault and "full" fault
> to get "cyclists to blame in 55% of crashes", but not doing the same for
> drivers (to blame in ~87% of crashes or whatever it would have been).
>
> Funnily enough, Ashley Neal did a video on this, but because he didn't
> bother to read any more than the editorialised headline, he marked the
> release of a report that essentially showed that cyclists aren't to blame
> in most KSIs with a video shitting all over cyclists, telling us to be
> better (and he wonders why he isn't particularly popular on here) - let's
> see if he does anything with this data...

ROFL at the paucity of those ‘arguments’!

--
Spike

Given that this was taken from police reports of who was at fault and police Scotland don't have a great reputation (not as bad as Lancashire obviously!) this is pretty damning and probably underestimates slightly, after all no accidents are attributed to 'driving a black car at night'.

In other news the Pope is Catholic and bears s**t in the woods.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Given that this was taken from police reports of who was at fault and
> police Scotland don't have a great reputation (not as bad as Lancashire
> obviously!) this is pretty damning and probably underestimates slightly,
> after all no accidents are attributed to 'driving a black car at night'.

I think you missed the fact the car would have hundreds of watts of
lighting in operation…🙄

> In other news the Pope is Catholic and bears s**t in the woods.

--
Spike

I'm intrigued by the 19 cases where the cyclists was deemed to be at fault due to their clothes being dark.

If these cyclists had no lights or reflectors after sunset then I would have thought that would be the cited cause.

But if they were in compliance with lights and reflectors regs, then what they were wearing should be irrelevant.

On 16/07/2023 04:19 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> I'm intrigued by the 19 cases where the cyclists was [sic] deemed to be at fault due to their clothes being dark.
>
> If these chavs had no lights or reflectors after sunset then I would have thought that would be the cited cause.
>
> But if they were in compliance with lights and reflectors regs, then what they were wearing should be irrelevant.

Have you "thought" of asking the people whose stats they were?

I was recently t-boned by a driver on a bright sunny day while I was wearing a fluoro orange shirt and a fluoro yellow gilet and a 320 lumen bright light flashing forward on my helmet and a similar red one on the back. I've always thought that wearing dark clothing wasn't a good idea, but it seems like they're just dumb shits behind the wheel and colour means SFA to some.

In my correspondence with the driver to recover the AUD$3K repairs to the bike, he's crying because he has been fined ~AUD$500. In AUS you'll be fined >$350 for not wearing a helmet. How's that fair. What really annoyed me is that plod spoke of fines >AUD$3k and probably loss of licence, but he backed off. He spoke of charges for negligent driving causing GBH; failure to report the incident; failure to render assistance (he remained on-site but didn't bother to see whether I was OK); and then there was failure to obey the give way sign; failure to give way to a vehicle on his right; etc; you get the picture!

In the meantime I experience the joy of recovering from a fractured collarbone. Fortunately it was a sedan, not a 4WD/SUV which are becoming too prevalent on AUS roads, or it could have been catastrophic.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was recently t-boned by a driver on a bright sunny day while I was
> wearing a fluoro orange shirt and a fluoro yellow gilet and a 320 lumen
> bright light flashing forward on my helmet and a similar red one on the
> back. I've always thought that wearing dark clothing wasn't a good idea,
> but it seems like they're just dumb shits behind the wheel and colour means SFA to some.

And that’s the complete account of the incident, is it?

> In my correspondence with the driver to recover the AUD$3K repairs to the
> bike, he's crying because he has been fined ~AUD$500. In AUS you'll be
> fined >$350 for not wearing a helmet. How's that fair. What really
> annoyed me is that plod spoke of fines >AUD$3k and probably loss of
> licence, but he backed off. He spoke of charges for negligent driving
> causing GBH; failure to report the incident; failure to render assistance
> (he remained on-site but didn't bother to see whether I was OK); and then
> there was failure to obey the give way sign; failure to give way to a
> vehicle on his right; etc; you get the picture!
>
> In the meantime I experience the joy of recovering from a fractured
> collarbone. Fortunately it was a sedan, not a 4WD/SUV which are becoming
> too prevalent on AUS roads, or it could have been catastrophic.
>

--
Spike

Apparently according to a FOI request I dug up, Polis Scotland have put the portal on hold (kicked into the long grass) due to lack of cash. Even with the grant from the govt there is insufficient funds to make it happen.

Even without the portal there seems to be a general reticence amongst a lot of constables to deal with complaints as a 'victim' of road crime and it feels that they're thinking "here we go again, another whinging cyclist". So unless you wind up with a motivated constable you're pretty much stuffed.

On one occasion when chatting with TB about the lack of close pass operations in the area they seemed more concerned about the lack of helmet. I witheringly replied that if I'm hit at 50mph plus by a vehicle they're dealing with a KSI regardless to receive a grudging suppose so.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apparently according to a FOI request I dug up, Polis Scotland have put
> the portal on hold (kicked into the long grass) due to lack of cash. Even
> with the grant from the govt there is insufficient funds to make it happen.
>
> Even without the portal there seems to be a general reticence amongst a
> lot of constables to deal with complaints as a 'victim' of road crime and
> it feels that they're thinking "here we go again, another whinging
> cyclist". So unless you wind up with a motivated constable you're pretty much stuffed.
>
> On one occasion when chatting with TB about the lack of close pass
> operations in the area they seemed more concerned about the lack of
> helmet. I witheringly replied that if I'm hit at 50mph plus by a vehicle
> they're dealing with a KSI regardless to receive a grudging suppose so.

The usual pathetic anti-helmet claptrap.

--
Spike

QUOTE: I've been mulling over todays incident - overtook by an Audi on approach to a mini-roundabout who turned left immediately in front of me.

But ... its Police Scotland, and the driver won't be able to remember it happening (as its probably so common for them as a driver, they'll struggle to isolate the single incident amongst the many) ... so I've decided against it.
What's the fecking point ... nothing will happen (fuck, the guy who changed my life only got 6 points and a 250 quid fine - dealt with by fixed penalty points at the scene); all a visit from the Polis is gonna do, is make the cunt turn up the aggression against cyclists.

So ... instead, I'll just email it over to NMOTD instead, put it on my socials and that'll be that ... might even send it in to all Britain's Got Shit driving...
ENDS

Some forces are very good - it's a postcode lottery. Humberside crushed several illegal motorbike and fined a few drivers on the evidence of my videos..

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: I've been mulling over todays incident - overtook by an Audi on
> approach to a mini-roundabout who turned left immediately in front of me.
>
> But ... its Police Scotland, and the driver won't be able to remember it
> happening (as its probably so common for them as a driver, they'll
> struggle to isolate the single incident amongst the many) ... so I've decided against it.
> What's the fecking point ... nothing will happen (fuck, the guy who
> changed my life only got 6 points and a 250 quid fine - dealt with by
> fixed penalty points at the scene); all a visit from the Polis is gonna
> do, is make the cunt turn up the aggression against cyclists.

While you’re sounding off, don’t forget that Rhiannon Bennett’s cyclist
killer only got fined £2k…and no points…

> So ... instead, I'll just email it over to NMOTD instead, put it on my
> socials and that'll be that ... might even send it in to all Britain's Got Shit driving...
> ENDS

> Some forces are very good - it's a postcode lottery. Humberside crushed
> several illegal motorbike and fined a few drivers on the evidence of my videos.

Who’s a big boy, then?

--
Spike

wycombewheeler | 3996 posts | 1 hour ago
2 likes

“wearing dark clothing at night” was assigned to only 19 collisions between 2015 and 2021"

no surprise really, because every driver I know is quick to regale me with tales of all the cyclists they have seen wearing dark clothes at night.
==============
OOF - TAKE THAT!

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> wycombewheeler | 3996 posts | 1 hour ago
> 2 likes
>
> wearing dark clothing at night was assigned to only 19 collisions between 2015 and 2021"
>
> no surprise really, because every driver I know is quick to regale me
> with tales of all the cyclists they have seen wearing dark clothes at night.
> ==============
> OOF - TAKE THAT!

No mention of lights…take that!

--
Spike

QUOTE: Hirsute replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 7774 posts | 1 hour ago
3 likes

Not very convinced competent drivers make up much of the population of drivers. ENDS

You've noticed as well? That's why they make up the majority at fault. QED

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: Hirsute replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 7774 posts | 1 hour ago
> 3 likes
>
> Not very convinced competent drivers make up much of the population of drivers. ENDS
>
> You've noticed as well? That's why they make up the majority at fault. QED

Supposition.

--
Spike

I’ve always argued that it’s “easier” to emergency brake or swerve in a car than a bike because four wheels are more stable so you can turn the wheel really hard or stamp the brake and leave things up to the computer instead of needing to worry about counterbalancing, shifting weight, feathering brakes, etc. So if a pedestrian steps into your path at a reasonably low speed, a driver can probably avoid them easier than a cyclist.

That being said, I doubt that this is evidence of drivers being better at avoiding incidents than cyclists. I’d say its more likely that, despite the media constantly telling us that cyclists are all lunatics, most people who only have a t-shirt and a Styrofoam hat to protect themselves, will be a LOT more cautious, risk-adverse and observant. Whereas a two-tonne mobile fortress loaded to the brim with personal safety features and a plethora of distractions will breed a certain degree of complacency.

On 17/07/2023 04:20 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> I’ve always argued that it’s “easier” to emergency brake or swerve in a car than a bike because four wheels are more stable so you can turn the wheel really hard or stamp the brake and leave things up to the computer instead of needing to worry about counterbalancing, shifting weight, feathering brakes, etc. So if a pedestrian steps into your path at a reasonably low speed, a driver can probably avoid them easier than a cyclist.

So when you're riding your chav-bike, be far more careful than you would
if driving a motor-vehicle?

> That being said, I doubt that this is evidence of drivers being better at avoiding incidents than cyclists. I’d say its more likely that, despite the media constantly telling us that cyclists are all lunatics, most people who only have a t-shirt and a Styrofoam hat to protect themselves, will be a LOT more cautious, risk-adverse and observant. Whereas a two-tonne mobile fortress loaded to the brim with personal safety features and a plethora of distractions will breed a certain degree of complacency.

Crystal ball or tarot?

Carior replied to BalladOfStruth | 122 posts | 6 days ago
1 like
Of course the flip side to this is that if I am on a collision course to bullseye a pedestrian, I only to alter my course by about the width of a human body to ensure we miss each other completely, so maybe a foot, foot and a half (I'm pretty small) whilst a car needs to alter its path by somewhere between 1 and 1.5m.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Carior replied to BalladOfStruth | 122 posts | 6 days ago
> 1 like
>
> Of course the flip side to this is that if I am on a collision course to
> bullseye a pedestrian, I only to alter my course by about the width of a
> human body to ensure we miss each other completely, so maybe a foot, foot
> and a half (I'm pretty small) whilst a car needs to alter its path by
> somewhere between 1 and 1.5m.

And there you have the cyclist mentality laid bare for all to see.

--
Spike

On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 4:45:14 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> Carior replied to BalladOfStruth | 122 posts | 6 days ago
> 1 like
>
> Of course the flip side to this is that if I am on a collision course to bullseye a pedestrian, I only to alter my course by about the width of a human body to ensure we miss each other completely, so maybe a foot, foot and a half (I'm pretty small) whilst a car needs to alter its path by somewhere between 1 and 1.5m.

BalladOfStruth replied to Carior | 388 posts | 6 days ago
0 likes

Depends how far into your path the ped has gotten, but fair point.

On 23/07/2023 06:37 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

[pretending not to answer other posters, said:]

> On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 4:45:14 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Carior replied to BalladOfStruth | 122 posts | 6 days ago
>
>> Of course the flip side to this is that if I am on a collision course to bullseye a pedestrian, I only to alter my course by about the width of a human body to ensure we miss each other completely, so maybe a foot, foot and a half (I'm pretty small) whilst a car needs to alter its path by somewhere between 1 and 1.5m.

> BalladOfStruth replied to Carior | 388 posts | 6 days ago
> 0 likes

> Depends how far into your path the ped has gotten, but fair point.

And that is the worst offence in the "mind" of a chav on a bike: getting
into his "path".

Especially on a pedestrian crossing. Or on the footway.

Yes - drivers are a sub-set of the population (e.g. no children, some medical conditions disallowed etc). Also a fraction of them have undergone training and passed a test within a decade. (Many of them - it was multiple decades, and we know that some out there have never trained or passed a test....)

OR

Yes - because "better abled" - we have spent a LOT of money and political energy on making driving "safe enough" for drivers while still allowing the majority of the population to carry out this activity ad-lib. Our one exception - you shouldn't be intoxicated. There is reasonable social acceptance of this rule although it's not complete and much less so for some drugs.

So the car "user interface" has seen a ton of work, our car designs, street designs and culture ("don't walk in the road! Always wait for the green man") all work to facilitate mass motoring by indifferent human drivers.

OR

No - because as above we've enabled fairly incompetent driving by ensuring there are few consequences. Some of this is of course to be commended (rumble strips, curves in motorways, traffic lights, speed limits, cats' eyes, energy absorbing crash barriers, air bags etc.) After all humans are fallible, more or less. However we are still overly reliant on drivers doing the right things - and there is very little feedback for those not doing so. (e.g. police.)

So distracted, long-untrained, tired driving is pretty much considered "standard" along with a bit of phone / device use and speeding. We've almost completely trivialised the safety critical tasks of "paying attention" and "driving to conditions" - never mind "driving according to the law".