We hope to be writing an extensive review of the Department for Transport’s major programme of studies carried out in 2008, 2009 and 2010 on Cyclist Safety. We think that there are a number of serious problems with what was produced and how the programme was structured – most notably the emphasis on the work on helmets, which we see as being fundamentally misconceived and executed.

 While preparing this I was reminded of some DfT-commissioned evidence-review of the (in)effectiveness of road safety education: The Development of Children’s and Young People’s Attitudes to Driving: A Critical Review of the Literature by Kevin Durkinand Andy Tolmie

 “Children may learn to respond to wearing safety equipment by increased risk compensation (Morrongiello, B. A., Lasenby, J. and Walpole, B. (2007) Risk compensation in children: why do children show it in reaction to wearing safety gear? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28(1), 56–63). This is a familiar phenomenon to analysts of road-user behaviour. Risk homeostasis theory (Wilde, 1998) holds that individuals maintain an acceptable level of risk and that, if the risk is moderated in some way (e.g. by the intervention of a safety restraint) then they adjust some other aspect of their behaviour to restore the acceptable risk level. While this model is controversial and it is uncertain how extensively children’s behaviour conforms to the predictions of risk homeostasis theory (cf. Pless, I. B., Magdalinos, H. and Hagel, B. (2006) Risk-compensation behaviour in children: Myth or reality? Archives of Pediatrics and adolescent Medicine, 160(6), 610-614. ), it is very plausible that patterns of balancing risk/preferred behaviour are established in the course of development.

Morrongiello et al. (2007) found that children (ages 8 to 11) offered a range of reasons to explain why wearing a helmet when bike riding would be protective, all of which indicated a risk compensation bias. These included suggestions that they were more competent when wearing safety gear (‘Because when you are wearing a helmet you have more balance’), or that they were invulnerable (‘Because you just wouldn’t fall off your bike or get injured’), or that the protection would reduce injury severity in the face of an accident (‘Because if I fall, I wouldn’t get hurt as much if I wore a helmet’).

Interestingly, Morrongiello, B. A. and Major, K. (2002) Influence of safety gear on parental perceptions of injury risk and tolerance for children’s risk taking. Injury Prevention, 8, 27–31 found that parents tended towards the same biases. Thus, parents allowed their children to engage in greater risk-taking in activities such as bicycling when wearing safety gear than when not, and the parents’ explanations showed that they assumed the gear would fully protect their child – including even parts of the body not covered (e.g. a bike helmet would protect limbs) – and prevent injury regardless of the child’s level of risk taking. This optimistic, almost magical, reasoning seems to be shared by children and their parents during periods that may be formative in the development of safety orientation. (my emphasis)”

And yet other sections of the report still make the assumption that it’s important to persuade children to wear helmets…!

This book, one of the main sources of evidence for the road danger reduction approach, is now out of print.  A few copies are available from the author. Here are what reviewers have said:

“Another book which is so interesting that it makes my head hurt is by Robert Davis… I’ve been reading it for ages. A couple of pages is enough for me to put it down and reflect. It’s chock full of facts and references, as well as thought-provoking observations about the role of the car in our societies.” Mikael Colville-Andersen, Copenhagenize, 2010

 “This book is a compelling assemblage of the evidence for the danger to civilization posed by the continuing unrestricted use of the private car. Written lucidly ‘from the heart’ the documentation is wide-ranging and meticulous.. A book to be warmly recommended” H.S. Eisner, Safety Science 17 [(1994) 227 - 230]

 “If I had sufficient funds, I would give everyone who reads a copy of Death on the Streets. Please do read it and then take up the cudgels with your MP, your District Councillor and your Chief Constable and do not stop until matters are sufficiently improved to enable us all to share our roads in safety” Peter Cannon, British Horse (British Horse Society), [Autumn 1993]

 “Highly recommend as reading for those associated with roads and road safety”. Karl Briggs, New Civil Engineer [12/19 August 1993]

 “A totally brilliant book, which will go down in history as a classic….fully referenced in one invaluable work…. chockful of useful quotes……The issues it raises should dominate our thoughts”. Don Mathew, London Cyclist [April/May 1993]

 “Personally, I shan’t be reading his book.” David Benson, Motoring Editor, Daily Express (6/11/92) Possibly my favourite review, RD.

 “Even if you regard yourself as environmentally aware and safety conscious this book will raise your consciousness still farther….the statistical information is presented in a lively, readable way….His arguments, backed by statistics are very convincing….an excellent antidote to most of the rubbish written on road safety..” CILT Journal (Centre for Independent Transport Research in London) [1,1, April 1993]

“This is a radical critique of road safety policy and practice written with a strong vein of polemic and bound to irritate many readers. Yet I feel it should be read, not just to become familiar with a position which is critical of our own, and relate work, but because there are some good arguments which should be listened to.” Inroads (Journal of the Institute of Road Safety Officers)[15,1, July 1993]

 “This enlightened and detailed book…spares no-one. This book….should be made compulsory reading before one can join the Institute of Road Safety Officers, the judiciary, become a motoring correspondent or even drive a car. If it fails at all it does so only because it is too comprehensive to be read by sceptical road safety professionals and attitude shapers. Highly recommended.” Colin Graham, Cycletouring and Campaigning, April/May 1993.

 “..as powerful as Mick Hamer’s “Wheels Within Wheels”….the way he presents his argumentation and evidence will make many readers change their minds about many things we take for granted. As such, this book should be essential reading for anyone interested or involved in transport safety and environmental issues. Chris Bowers, Going Green (Environmental Transport Association) [Spring 1993]

 “…makes sobering reading for those seriously concerned about road safety….A challenging read..” ‘The Hawk’, Commercial Motor  6 – 12 May 1993.

 “This is a book which does for road safety what Galileo did for astronomy. For pedestrians concerned about the literally deadly threat they face from motor vehicles, it is no exaggeration to say this is probably the most important book ever published on the subject….a devastating book…. Davis seems to have read every book and paper ever published on transport and road safety.. he writes in a lucid but scholarly manner, with all the facts at his fingertips….Death on the Streets is, quite simply brilliant. it amounts to three-hundred pages of stunning argument and authoritative analysis that takes the road safety industry and our car-dominated transport status quo apart. If readers of WALK only ever buy one book on transport, this should be it. Ronald Binns, WALK (Pedestrians Association), Summer 1993.

 “..I would recommend this book to any road safety practitioner, especially to those who believe in engineering as the great cure-all. It is a book which should also be made available to every teacher who covers road safety in his or her classroom.” Richard Doherty,  Care on the Road (RoSPA) August 1993.

 “This is an important book…..I remain both scientifically impressed by the sheer weight of evidence and emotionally swayed by the contrast between adjacent photographs showing children playing in the streets 30 years ago and the barricaded truck routes of today.” Richard Mayou,  The Lancet  Vol 342, July 24 1993, p.226.

‘Death on the Streets; Cars and the mythology of road safety’, by Robert Davis, was published by Leading Edge Press. ISBN 0-948135-46-8. (1993) at £11.99. As it is now out of print and there are only a few rare copies left, I am charging£25 (inc. p&p in the UK ) for private copies (signed if wished). Send cheque made out to Robert Davis at  P.O. Box 2944, NW10 2AX    

The continuing saga of Blackfriars Bridge has revealed a more high profile and combative London Cycling Campaign, preparing a new strategy for the organisation the year before the Mayoral elections. Will this be the way towards getting “the cyclised City”?

Consider LCC CEO Ashok Sinha’s approach as described in London Cyclist June-July 2011 (pp.16 – 18). Having stated that London is indisputably not a cyclised city, and not on a trajectory towards becoming one, how are we to remedy the situation (an issue we have addressed before here , here ,  and here ? The answer for him is “everything”

“Everything means (hold your breath) more money for cycle promotion, more road space for cyclists, lower volumes of motor traffic, slower motorised traffic speeds, more cycle training, safer lorries, more cycle awareness training, for drivers, better wayfinding, more segregated tracks, more mandatory lanes, no one-way streets for cyclists, ending rat-runs, providing ample and secure cycle parking, integrating cycling targets into planning gain, zero-tolerance cycle theft policing, opening up greenways, car-free routes, places and/or times, integrating cycling into public health, air pollution abatement, climate change strategies, and stricter liability for insurance claims purposes. You get the picture”.

Basically, I have four problems with Ashok Sinha’s “everything”.

1. “Everything” becomes “one thing”. Following up from the wish list of “everything”, we get an account of how we might get the political leadership to make this happen. In his article (London Cyclist June-July 2011,pp.16 – 18) he moves on to arguing for  the need for LCC to run “a popular, positive single-issue campaign …If we can target a single totemic issue that, while not a panacea, is big enough to help pave the pathway towards a cyclised city, then we may have traction.”  So now we are on to what is not “everything” – but the single totemic issue, with options such as ”Getting 100,000 children cycling to school regularly”.

 2.      What “everything” actually means. Looking a bit closer you see that it gets a bit more complicated – the peril of a thrown-together shopping list. So, in more detail:

(a)    Infrastructure: the debate about segregation is going again, so what exactly is it that people want? If it is to be fully segregated tracks, then that may be opposed to other kinds of engineering, and raises a host of issues about changes in motorist behaviour at junctions, costs, and how the space necessary is to be removed from parked and moving motor vehicles. If we are to remove road space from motor vehicles, do we want it to be for segregated cycle tracks? Just saying we want more of mandatory cycle lanes, greenways, car-free routes/places/times may raise possibilities but doesn’t provide actual objectives. What would a small amount of road space being re-allocated in one part of London actually mean for cycling on the vast majority of London’s roads?

(b)    Cycle awareness training for drivers. An important area for not just lorry, but all drivers at work. But what proportion of drivers can actually be reached by working through Councils (the main thrust of the LCC campaign on lorry driver training)?

(c)    Secure cycle parking. A desirable aim, but how does this fit in to the almost unrecognised area of home parking?

The problem with a shopping list like this is you can easily end up with some small local improvements at the expense of more important things elsewhere. I suggest we need a whole more than the sum of its parts: but shopping lists can end up with not many parts, let alone a whole that is more than the sum of them.

Also, some key areas of “everything” have been missed out:

3.         Not enough of “everything”.  Elements that have been missed out:

(a)    I refer above to home parking: about half of London’s homes are flats, mainly with inconvenient or insecure cycle parking – and many houses have the same problem. LBs Lambeth and to a lesser extent Hackney, Southwark and Ealing have made attempts to improve this.

(b)    Adequate retail facilities. In large areas of London there are no specialist cycle shops – a necessity for novice cyclists. Government can help retailers through business tax exemptions and/or assistance through apprenticeship schemes. There is an obvious demand for cheap bicycles which can be addressed through recycled, recovered and second-hand bike outlets.

(c)    Support with equipment and accessories, particularly in winter. One of the reasons for the middle class preponderance in cycling is that cycling, particularly with more reliable equipment and clothing, can be expensive. There is also a very distinct reduction in cycling in the winter months which may be alleviated if assistance is given with “winterizing” cycling with support for purchasing wet and cold weather accessories, as carried out to a small extent in LB Ealing’s “Keep Riding in Winter” programme.

(d)    A sea change in law enforcement for careless and dangerous driving. Of value to all road users, and hardly on the agenda.

4.      An overall organising principle.

Road Danger Reduction is essentially about reducing danger at source as part of a sustainable transport policy.  The principle is actually simple. What the LCC is not doing is stating what the problem is.

 For RDRF the problem is: danger from a transport system excessively based on motor vehicle (particularly car, motorcycle, van and lorry) use, with sustainable and more benign modes, particularly cycling, discriminated against.

 The answer is to oppose this through making accountable and reducing the source of danger as part of a more sustainable transport policy. Discrimination is opposed by an equitable approach to the different transport modes. This means equity – fairness – with regard to two basic elements: resource allocation and danger. Instead of “everything” we have the simple response of equity, or fairness.

 The merit of the fairness approach is that it is simple and based on the idea that we are not asking for anything special, just an equal deal without discrimination against cycling. It is based on an idea of natural justice which is morally difficult to oppose.

 Of course, it will be opposed because the motoring lobby sees itself as oppressed. That is an ideological battle which will have to be joined. Let’s look at the two basic elements we need to consider.

Resource allocation.

Essentially every transport user both pays for their mode of transport (in fares, purchasing vehicle, VAT etc.) and also inflicts costs on society through use of the transport mode of choice. This is a hotly contested matter, not least because of inevitable argument about how to calculate the costs of, for example, pollution – and whether we should do so in the first place. In fact monetary forms of calculation are traditionally used in cost-benefit analyses which tend to reinforce the transport status quo.

Nevertheless, we can argue that private motoring has net costs to society and the environment even after all the various forms of motorist taxation are paid – and that there is a good case for requiring motorists to pay more, primarily through increased costs of fuel. http://rdrf.org.uk/2011/01/266/  But even without discussing car and road freight costs, we have to remember the subsidy to public transport.

While Mayor Johnson has been cutting TfL’s expenditure, subsidy for public transport is still far higher than spend on cycling. Roughly speaking, a typical bus passenger gets at least 80p per trip, or some £350 per commuting year, subsidy. Tube and rail passengers get more, and that’s without the extremely expensive (£15+ billion) Crossrail scheme.

By comparison, without the Bike Hire and  Cycle Super Highway (CSH) schemes, undefined TfL spend on cycling is supposedly about £20 million annually (it is unclear whether this includes Borough LIP spending on items such as schools cycle training)

If cycling were to get more or less the same amount of subsidy as bus transport, we could expect a ring fenced amount approaching £100 million per annum. (£350 x 275,000, the number of cyclists daily). That is for a mode which is generally far healthier and environmentally benign, as well as being more convenient in outer London. Cycling England (the now abolished advisory body to Government) gave a figure of a £10,000 (over a lifetime) as the benefit of an extra regular cyclist.

In addition, where highway infrastructure is the target for expenditure, one can argue that costs should be borne out of general highways budgets.

And still £100 million annually would be a very small part of even a much reduced TfL annual budget – some 1% of the 2009/2010 budget of £9.2 billion.

Before getting too bored with figures, it is worthwhile reminding ourselves that – before he got to power – Ken Livingstone’s advice to cycling campaigners was to aim for more than 1% of the transport budget. Under his regime it never got to half of that – and then mainly for the “LCN+”. And then there is the additional massive subsidy over-60s get with public transport – what about free bikes for over-60s?

What would equitable resource allocation actually mean?

Above I have tried to show that it makes sense in terms of equity for cyclists to expect a substantial tranche of ring-fenced funding of some £100 million per annum.  This represents a tiny proportion of the existing TfL budget which – whatever the climate of economic austerity – could be diverted from the massive general budget with minimal detrimental effect to other modes. All of this is without comparison with, for example, the Dutch model of 25 Euros per head of the population annually for investment in cycling, or some £170 million in the London context.

Where would it go?  A range of areas of support are mentioned above:

• Support with subsidised equipment, wet and cold weather clothing and other necessary accessories to individual cyclists.
• Support for cycling retailers and second hand / recovered bikes schemes.
• Subsidised home parking; on-road confidence and maintenance skills training.
• Anti-cycle theft programmes including secure parking at workplaces and in public places.

The idea is to actually assist people who want to cycle by dealing with obstacles that will occur whatever kind of danger there is on the road or whatever kind of infrastructure exists. Programmes like LB Ealing’s Direct Support for Cycling make a minimal effort to achieve this. The loss of cycling culture means that a variety of groups, such as women in black and ethnic minority communities is particularly distanced from cycling and can benefit from specific support.

This equitable resource allocation could include the financing of necessary highway and off-road infrastructure and policing- although these should arguably be financed out of general budgets.

Danger

The RDR approach is to address the reduction of danger at source for the safety of all road users, by making those responsible for that danger accountable. That can mean real accountability for whoever is considered responsibility for danger from motor traffic – highway authorities, vehicle engineers or individual motorists. It ranges from the volume and flows of motor traffic to specific vehicle manoeuvres and ways of reducing them by whatever means are necessary.

The approach has to be based on the fact that the kind of rule and law infractions by motorists implicated in endangering other road users are commonplace, and that current levels of law enforcement do not even scratch the surface of the iceberg of motorised rule and law breaking. Furthermore, the idiot-proofing of the road and car environment by “road safety” professionals has exacerbated the danger posed by the motorised to other road users.

The shopping list of danger reduction initiatives normally wheeled out (enforcing existing speed limits, more 20 mph areas or zones; higher levels of police enforcement, pressure on national government to reduce lenient sentencing, specific HGV measures etc.) has  to be looked at through this perspective.

What this means is that we become aware that the initiatives will not only have minimal impact, but that they may occur in an environment with danger increasing elsewhere. RDR also suggests that pressing down on road danger in one area leads to it appearing elsewhere: it is crucial to keep the overall picture in mind and not allocate all the effort in a few specific areas. Urban cyclists know that there are a number of potential manoeuvres by motorists which can lead to collision with cyclists (or pedestrians), and there is little – if any – advantage in concentrating on just one or two.

Some reminders on road danger

• Speak English, not “roadsafetyese”. Very often all you have to do is invert the speech to get the real road safety meaning. For example, more crashworthy cars which encourage less careful driving are not “safer”, but more dangerous. A “safe road” which has few reported casualties may be one where there is a lot of motor danger which reduces pedestrian and cyclist traffic. Check up on these basics when engaging with the official “road safety” paradigm presented in local and central government. Always remember the “who kills – or just endangers – whom?” question.
• Safety on the road is above all a moral and political question involving a pronounced hierarchy of danger. Inevitable attention to cyclist (or occasionally pedestrian) rule/law breaking can create the space to draw attention to the more important kinds of danger which tend to evade media and public consciousness.
• The aim of real road safety is reducing danger at source (e.g. primarily from motorised traffic) and holding those responsible for it accountable. The numbers of people reported as injured is another issue – even the better indicator of casualty rates (per journey or distance travelled) is less important than reducing danger and holding those responsible for it accountable.
• Always remember that people adapt to perceived danger. This can be in both the short and long term, with cultural change accepting practices previously thought unacceptable. The strategy is to get adaptation so that danger is reduced at source.

Raising the real road safety agenda

The kind of measures we could have for real road safety are not on the agenda yet – although they could be – and discussion needs to involve suggesting what we might require if we are to have safe roads for all:

• Call for black box recorders for motor vehicles to establish cause for post-crash criminal and civil law investigation.
• Call for a shift to driver liability for collisions involving cyclists or pedestrians for both civil and criminal law – based on (a) the fact of the “iceberg” of motorists rule and law breaking (b) the assumptions by “road safety” professionals of the inherent danger posed by the motorised and (c) the insurance industry actuarial estimates of danger from motorists compared to cyclists or pedestrians.
• Consideration of technologies (pedestrian activated motor vehicle braking systems, citizen road user camera users, on-board speed governors etc.) not so much for actual implementation, but for raising the issues of RDR.
• Use targets and indices should not just be the “rate-based” (casualties per journey or distance travelled), but should move on to rates assessing whether a third party is at fault. Indices relating to perception of safety can also be used.
• Give proper evidence-based information on supposed “safety” initiatives such as helmet and hi-viz advocacy

These are the thoughts of someone who has been cycling in London for 35 years and a member of LCC for most of them. Your comments to chairrdrf@aol.com will be considered.

The latest episode is simply part of this tradition. Of course, it is par for the course in a world where “road safety” is often about victim-blaming and avoiding motorist responsibility, despite lack of evidence for supposed benefits: it can be telling your potential victims to get out of the way – for their own good, of course. But that’s no reason to accept this nonsense, as it is part and parcel of maintaining unacceptable levels of danger on the road.The AA President Edmund King (and former head man at the RAC – there is little difference between the two organisations) says that: “Cycling has always been a part of the AA’s history.”, because the first AA patrols rode bicycles. This has been drawn attention to by pro-cyclists like BikeBiz, who should know better. As the clip shows, these patrols functioned to “trap the trappers” – to help law-breaking motorists get away with it. So some people riding bicycles helped to promote law-breaking motoring – hardly pro-cycling. In fact, the official history of the AA proudly describes how the scouts would warn motorists of “speed traps” set by the police – a move which led a senior Home Office official of the time as “like an association of burglars employing scouts to warn them which houses are and which are not watched by the police”. ( “Death on the Streets: cars and the mythology of road safety” Robert Davis, 1992 , p.240). 

We largely agree with Mikael Colville-Andersen of Copenhagenize.com, quoted by BikeBiz “as an arch opponent of helmet promotions, especially from motoring organisations. He said: 

“While it’s great that the AA president is also a cyclist, this is merely another case of placing the responsibility on the vulnerable traffic users instead of tackling the rampant bull in our society – the automobile. It also sends dangerous signals that bicycle helmets are effective in collisions with cars, which they’re not. They’re not even designed for that kind of impact.If the AA wants to be taken seriously, it should consider promoting motoring helmets and, for example, fight for strict liability and back initiatives like the Dutch one of making external airbags on cars to protect pedestrians and cyclists a standard accessory.”  

Of course, we assume Mikael is being ironic about motorist helmets: while the excellent cyclehelmets.org site shows how they would be more relevant for those concerned with head injuries among people hurt in road crashes, we wouldn’t want motorists to wear them – drivers become less careful with all manner of “safety aids” and we wouldn’t want it even worse. Also, I don’t think the RDRF really gives a hoot whether the head of the AA rides a bike or not – the RAC in the 1930s always used to argue that it could not possibly be threatening the safety of pedestrians because its members were also pedestrians! 

Let’s take a look at some of the comments by Mr.King: 

*  ”Bicycles are part of the ‘two-wheeled’ strategy at the AA, following the reintroduction of motorbikes to tackle congestion and emissions in London.”. Motorcycles and bicycles are completely different forms of transport, with motrcycling far more dangerous to others, inherently hazardous, polluting and unhealthy to its users compared to cycling. 

* “The use of cycle helmets and vests by all cyclists could significantly reduce the number and severity of injuries that occur each year“ . No. Take a look at the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation site www.cyclehelmets.org to see why this is not the case for helmets. There is also no published peer-reviewed evidence that hi-viz can reduce the chances of cyclists being hurt or killed – particularly when it slots in to the Sorry Mate I Didn’t See You (SMIDSY) culture of motorists not watching out which is backed up by hi-viz promotion. 

*”We also hope that AA engaging more with cyclists may help to break down some of the ‘them and us’ barriers that still exist but shouldn’t.” The RDRF constantly stresses – against much of official “road safety” ideology that there is a fundamental difference between rule-and law-breaking by cyclists or pedestrians on the one hand, and the drivers of motorised transport on the other.  The former have little potential to endanger, hurt or kill , the latter a lot. this should be obvious, but is constantly glossed over, neutralised, cooled out and frozen out of discussion by the “road safety” establishment. The motorised habitually pose a threat to all other road users in a way which cyclists tend not to – quite apart from being more likely to suffer from this threat. 

And that is without the other health and environmental problems posed by the motorised, and the solution to them which cycling provides. If that means a “them and us” attitude, then that’s exactly what we need. Of course, a large proportion of cyclists are also motorists. That is even more of a reason to stress that – although they are the same person – they need to think of themselves as a problem when driving and far less so when cycling. 

But never mind the evidence – this is just the latest red herring in a long history of motorists avoiding responsibility.

So what should a motorists’ organisation be promoting?  

If the AA/RAC are serious about safety on the road, they need to get hold of the right end of the stick, not the wrong one.  We note that the RAC’s “Road Safety Foundation” (both the AA and RAC have tax-avoiding wings with benign sounding names) has called for road engineering to be more “forgiving” (i.e. to connive with motorists who can’t or won’t drive properly) in a recent report. Changing this worn-end-of-the-stickery means accepting responsibility for the danger created by motorists,  for the benefit of all road users. 

What would that look like? Pretty much the opposite of what the AA/RAC spend their time effectively lobbying for, and highly unlikely to happen. Not least would be the effect of proper enforcement of the law – even with the current lenient sentencing for careless and dangerous driving, the AA and RAC would lose an awful lot of their members. But still, there are some things we can ask them to consider: 

1. Explode the “Road Tax” myth .A crucial part of anti-cyclist prejudice here: tell your members that they DO NOT pay for the road, and that the external costs they incurr are far higher than they pay for. Also, the costs of motoring have got lower, so stop complaining about the rise in fuel prices, which can easily be accommodated by more fuel-efficient driving, let alone more careful driving, let alone some sensible use of alternatives to your travel patterns. Cyclists are costing LESS than you are. 

2. SMIDSY. If you didn’t see a cyclist the odds are you’re driving too fast or not watching out. the crucial rule in the Highway Code is “Always drive in such a way that you can stop within visible distance”. the AA/RAC could also campaign to have the 0.5 million – 1.5 million drivers who can’t pass the existing eyesight test banned from driving. 

3. You’re worse than you think you are.There is a  long history of surveys showing that most motorists think they are above average in their driving behaviour. So remember, on average, you are worse! A substantial proportion of motorists break laws like that on speed as a matter of course – these laws are important and should not be broken. Remember that your third party insurance is dozens of times higher than that which those cyclists who wish to have it will pay through their organisations, which shows that motoring is far, far more dangerous to other people and property than cycling is. And that’s got to be one of the most important things about your mode of transport. So: 

4. Watch out and back off  from cyclists. Do the things that you should be doing: Expect cyclists to take the primary position and NEVER hoot or harass them if they do so or other things they are entitled to do; use your wing and other mirrors, give the right amount of room as specified in the Highway Code when overtaking (you don’t know? – try reading the Highway Code); watch out for cyclists when coming out of or going into junctions; expect cyclists to swerve to avoid other road users or faulty road surfaces etc. 

5. Obey the law and the recommendations of the Highway Code in general. Blimey, I’m going a bit crazy here, but let’s go for it!  Yes, and that means you , not other road users. Of course, if the RAC/AA and the “road safety” lobby treated safety on the road in the same way that safety is treated in aviation, maritime , workplace or railway safety regimes, they would be calling for police to have random crack downs on visible examples of rule and law breaking (without warning) on use of phones. speeding, unregistered vehicles and those involved in car crashes. They could also have random testing on the less visible problems of drink and drug taking, Alzheimers and visual impairment. And re-taking the driving test every few years. 

Will the RAC/AA go down this path of civilsed behaviour? I don’t think so, or at least not very far – even though a lot of their members wouldn’t mind some of the recommendations. That’s why, if you’re a motorist and want roadside assistance, consider the superior Environmental Transport Association .

You couldn’t make it up 

A few decades ago the AA giving out helmets to cyclists would have been more likely to be seen – correctly - as a sick joke. What analogy could we use to illustrate it? The “association of burglars” telling householders to use more (ineffective) locks on their homes? The representatives of gangs of violent thugs telling passers-by to wear body armour? That may be pushing it: but partly because the perpetrators of these crimes would be more likely to end up arrested than law breaking motorists, and the “safety measures” advocated more likely to give protection. 

Of course, the antics of the AA are in many ways just part of “road safety” ideology – which is why it should be opposed and replaced with Road Danger Reduction.

Death on the Streets: cars and the mythology of road safety by Robert Davis. The publication of this book in 1992 led to the conference which generated the formation of the RDRF. Still relevant, although the references are from twenty years ago.
Hopefully this will be online on this site by the end of 2011, meanwhile copies are available by contacting chairrdrf@aol.com

The work of John Adams has been pivotal to the RDR agenda. Through painstaking analysis of the effects of “road safety” interventions, study of the macrosocial work of Reuben Smeed and the evidence for adaptive behaviour in risk taking of various kinds, Adams has elaborated on the significance of adaptive behaviour (risk compensation). Luckily most of this work is available free online: go to http://john-adams.co.uk/books/ .:
Risk and Freedom: the record of road safety regulation is the classic text. Risk is an update which moves in to a wider consideration of how we can consider ways of analysing risk. If you read through these texts you should be well equipped to understand risk compensation and be in a position to develop the RDR imagination!
Transport Planning: Vision and Practice from 1981 is a radical interpretation of what we would now called “sustainable transport”. The easiest of the works is One False Move (with Hillman and Whitelegg) the evidence on declining independent children’s mobility with the increase in motorisation and road danger.
Finally, don’t forget he essays on the Adams website as well.

Mayer Hillman’s work is on http://www.mayerhillman.com/ see the Key Publications on Transport, Cycling and Walking and Climate ChangeFor a good site presenting the evidence on a crucial issue, go to the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
For something easier: for bite-sized pieces of evidence on the benefits of cycling and walking, go to the Essential Evidence website www.bristol.gov.uk/tpevidencebase .

And of course, regularly updated www.rdrf.org.uk ….

Take a look at this report from the Transport and Health Study Group: http://www.healthandtransportgroup.co.uk/research/research20_july2010.php. Health on the Move: Active travel – a preliminary report from the THSG. February 2010, by N Cavill, A Davis, M Wardlaw, S Watkins, J Mindell.

So far just the first three chapters are published, but we understand the whole report will be out later this year. The health benefits of the “active travel” modes are a key argument in the sustainable transport case, and are presented here by some of the top experts in the field in the UK.

The chapter on cycling has some carefully argued evidence-based work which should at least dent the case of arguments of helmet advocates, as well as making a good case for the “Safety in Numbers ” approach. A key point made is the  low level of risk of cycling : it is important to remember that the exaggeration of the levels of risk of cycling in places like inner London is part of the oppressive “Fear of Cycling” culture which is very much part of the problem for cyclists. That doesn’t, of course, in any way diminish the urgent need to reduce danger for cyclists (and other road users) at source: from inappropriate use of motor vehicles.

We look forward to recommendations on reducing road danger when the final report is out. Meanwhile, whatever your views on highway infrastructure, read your way through good quality research on key issues relating to cycling, walking, sustainable transport – what every transport professional needs to know about!

Surely there is no need for detailed statistical discussion about this event, still less questioning what has become a – or the – major triumph for those officially charged with safety on the road?

But no. A recent debate has seen the proponents of compulsory bicycle helmet use drag the issue out again – and this time some revealing facts have been shown up. Some uncomfortable truths about the effects of the seat belt law in the UK  and the  “road safety” establishment  have critical relevance to everything that those of us working for safety of all road users should be aware of.

So, if you’re interested in real road safety, do read on…

It all started with a debate on whether mandatory wearing of cycle helmets by child cyclists would be desirable, featuring the main theorist or risk compensation, Emeritus Professor John Adams at the College of Emergency Medicine. His opponent,  Dr. Andrew Curran,  justified mandatory cycle helmet wearing on the basis of the supposedly unqualified success of mandatory seat belt wearing.

 Leaving aside the point that seat belts are undoubtedly effective after crashes in mitigating serious injury, whereas the evidence for cycle helmets after road crashes in mitigating serious injury is dubious, this comparison is extremely instructive. But against, rather than for, both seat belt and cycle helmet compulsion – particularly if you walk, cycle, or are simply interested in reducing danger at source anyway.

 It is also instructive to examine this comparison properly if you value scientific enquiry. Or if you think it wrong to endanger the more vulnerable (and less dangerous to others) road users in the name of safety. Or if you think it wrong to kill cyclists and pedestrians in the name of safety, even if the number killed is supposedly “not high enough” to count.

 I strongly suggest that you read all the contributions of Professor Adams in September and October of 2009. In particular, his letters to a leading figure in Britain’s “road safety” lobby, Rob Gifford of PACTS, which I suggest Mr. Gifford was unable to satisfactorily answer – but, of course, decide for yourselves. (The third letter may be difficult to follow all the way through for users of IE7, try Firefox, Opera or Safari)

 I intervened with two sets of comments to the second letter by Professor Adams:

http://john-adams.co.uk/2009/09/30/second-open-letter-to-executive-director-of-pacts/

reproduced below. They refer to matters which are central to safety on the road – here they are:

 on 30 Sep 2009 at 1:06 pm   Dr. Robert Davis

“The seat belt law experience is highly relevant today in respect to matters other than cycle helmets: however much eyes may roll at the prospect of statistical analysis of a law passed decades ago, this matter is highly pertinent.

Firstly, the obvious truth of adaptive behaviour or risk compensation is central to contemporary discussions of some very positive episodes: the good experience of safety with “shared streets” and the decline in casualty rates among London cyclists as just one example of “safety in numbers” with numbers of cyclists approaching “critical mass”.

Secondly, the obvious truth of adaptive behaviour or risk compensation indicates that the relentless idiot-proofing of the driver environment – whether of the vehicle or highway – has produced idiots in such a way that the “road safety” lobby is hardly well qualified to pontificate on matters of cyclist or pedestrian safety – of which cycle helmets is just one. No doubt this is a main reason for the denial of such effects from the “road safety” establishment.

Thirdly, the obvious truth of adaptive behaviour or risk compensation indicates that supposed progress in declining RTA fatalities and other casualties may have resulted from adaptive behaviour by the most benign and vulnerable road users, as opposed to “road safety” interventions, including migration from the road environment entirely. Again, this might explain some denial from practitioners of “road safety”.

Finally, the obvious truth of adaptive behaviour or risk compensation indicates that some changes in fatalities are due to changes described by the Smeed and Adams curves, and are independent of interventions claimed by “road safety” professionals.

All of this suggests that denial on their part is understandable, but not acceptable to those of us concerned with the safety of all road users and the truth.”

1. on 30 Sep 2009 at 1:10 pm   Dr. Robert Davis

“Can I make another comment which seems rather crucial?

You say:

“In your Significance article you are clear that the law has saved the lives of people in cars at the expense of vulnerable road users: “The picture shows a clear reduction in death and injury to car occupants, APPRECIABLY OFFSET BY EXTRA DEATHS AMONG PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS.”(MY EMPHASIS – Rob Giffords words).

John, you then go on to give a (blackly) amusing analogy. One can put this in a less dramatic way: doctors – and doctors are among the main proponents of such types of intervention – are required by their ethical code (the Hippocratic Oath) to “First, do no harm”. You appear to admit that this is precisely what they have not done – that they have killed people in the most vulnerable, and least dangerous to others, road user groups in the name of “road safety”.

For this reason those of us who are supporting the most benign and healthy forms of transport are unlikely to trust PACTS, RoSPA and others supposedly concerned with safety on the road ,of which bicycle crash helmets are just one issue.

If Gifford values his reputation among those concerned with the safety of all road user groups and the genuinely scientific community, I suggest he reconsiders as John suggests.”

+++++++++++++