Photos: Norman Baker MP; Mike Pennington MP; Addison Lee’s Mr Griffin with staff: (DfT; Daily Telegraph; Cyclists in the City)

Above are the two Government Ministers responsible for cycling and road safety and the Chairman of Addison Lee (with members of his staff). They all claim to be concerned for the safety of cyclists: indeed all have signed up to The Times campaign.

It may seem unfair to link the author of a tirade against cyclists with elected politicians nominally committed to supporting cycling. But I think it is there. Essentially all three start off with assumption that cyclists are “vulnerable road users” – so-called because they are outside motor vehicles when travelling, as is most of humanity – and are a problem because of this.

As explained in the last post , the way that the two Ministers – expressing traditional “road safety” ideology – measure the safety of cyclists actually works against more and safer cycling. It does so because a road user who is more likely to be hurt in a collision because they are outside a motor vehicle – namely cyclists and pedestrians, particularly if they are elderly or children – are a particular problem because of this vulnerability. This is echoed by Mr Griffin of Addison Lee, with his implication that being inside a crashworthy vehicle involves fulfilling some sort of responsibility.

(Somehow this doesn’t extend towards the most hazardous form of road transport, namely motorcycling, but let’s not go there now).

What is missing is, as usual, the elephant/gorilla in the room. The Bull in the China Shop. There is little, or no mention of the failure of motorists to fulfil their responsibilities towards other road users. One of the failures of The Times campaign is the absence of commitment towards relevant law enforcement and sentencing with regards to errant driving.

Indeed, The Times editor’s outing at the evidence session at the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport’s enquiry into road safety appeared to present motorists as equal victims in an “adversarial” road context. It sometimes appears difficult to work out who is endangering whom when looking at this kind of narrative.

On a brighter note, your Chair attended the Big Ride on 28^th April – what may be the biggest political gathering of cyclists.

PHOTO: Piccadilly on April 28th (RDRF)

Plenty of enthusiasm shone through the rain. Let’s hope it is directed effectively. And that is likely to mean finding ourselves at odds with those in power who claim to be on the side of cyclists.

But then we get another resounding clang against any kind of civilised approach to real safety on the road for cyclists (and others). Yes, it’s the words of the two minsters responsible for the safety of cyclists – no less. This has led various commentators to parade their gob-smackedness, including “Minister for road safety loses his marbles live on parliamentary TV”  from the normally restrained Carlton Reid  . But actually there is nothing new here. From the point of view of traditional “road safety” ideology, this is completely rational and no marbles have been lost at all.

What we have seen in their estimation of levels of “cyclists’ safety” is a grotesque inversion of reality. And this is not just a technical issue about measurement: in turning the truth on its head they place yet another obstacle in the path of achieving cyclists’ safety.

 WHAT’S WRONG…

For those who have missed out on this episode, both Ministers claimed (in evidence session at the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport’s enquiry into road safety)   that the UK record on cyclists’ safety was superior to that in the Netherlands. This is based on measuring reported casualties per 100,000 people rather than per journey (or distance travelled, or time spent travelling) by bicycle.

Now – take a deep breath – there are many times more people cycling every day in the Netherlands (anything between 10 and 15 times as many depending on location). So, if the share of journeys by bicycle (cyclist modal share) is this much higher, if 10 – 15 times as many journeys/kilometres travelled are made and 10 – 15 times as much time is spent cycling per head of the population , then reported casualties (using deaths for convenience and reliability) per head of the population are going to be higher. They will be higher unless the chances of having been killed are 10 – 15 times lower per journeys/kilometres travelled/time spent cycling. 

(To be precise, we are dealing with retrospective analysis, so it is actually the chances of having been killed which we are talking about.) These chances – the rate of deaths per journey or distance travelled seem to be about 2 – 3 times lower in the Netherlands than in the UK. This is better, not worse.

It depends which rate (a numerator divided by a denominator) you think is better. Most people concerned with cyclists’ safety would choose casualties per distance/journey travelled by bicycle or time spent cycling.  It tells you something about the experience of the average cyclist. The road safety industry chooses per head of the general population – which does not.

The RDRF thinks that the road safety industry is wrong.

AND WHY IT’S IMPORTANT…

I don’t want to get into a discussion about Dutch infrastructure or the reasons for larger numbers of journeys by bicycle in the Netherlands. All I have been doing above is to show that the traditional decision of the rate which is chosen to measure success is one which is biased towards a society where there are as few as possible journeys made by bicycle.

(An aside: Critical Mass and Safety in Numbers. We do think that, in accordance with the principles of risk compensation/adaptive behaviour, there is a tendency for the casualty rate amongst cyclists to fall with increased amounts of cycling. However, this decline in casualty rate – that’s casualties per cyclist journey or distance travelled, NOT per head of the general population – will not be enough to result in an overall cut in casualties per head of the population if there is an increase in the amount of cycling up to anything like Dutch levels.

So: in London since 2000 there has been  a level of KSIs (reported casualties as deaths and “Serious Injuries”) of roughly the same order, with an increase in cycling of  2 – 3 times. If this level of cycling were to be – for example – trebled to some 7 – 8% of journeys in the capital, the overall number of KSIs of cyclists in London would decline significantly (and may even increase), even with a cut in the casualty rate (of the kind we want to use) of some 40 – 50%).

What this all means is that, as far as the relevant Government Ministers are concerned – and this is, one should repeat, just part of the traditional way that “road safety” professionals operate – it is better for “road safety” for cyclists if there is no significant increase in the amount of cycling. “Road safety” is going to be against a significant increase in cycling and sustainable transport policy. It is as simple as that.

WHAT DO WE WANT?

An alternative way of measuring danger on the road is a key element of why the RDRF was brought into existence. We have been banging on about this since 1992 in pieces like this and this .

For me it started in 1984 at a “road safety” conference where a Eurocrat informed us that there was “a problem with cyclist safety in Denmark” because, yes, there was a higher than Europe average number of cyclist casualties per 100,000 head of the population. The there was the matter of pedestrian casualties being low at locations where there was so much danger for pedestrians that people would not walk there – and the “road safety” professionals had a “better road safety record” for pedestrians.

So what would be a better measure of safety for cyclists? Even KSIs per journey or time spent cycling would be inadequate. For us there is a qualitative, moral and political issue here: who kills /hurts/endangers whom? An elderly person riding an electrically-backed up bicycle too fast round a cornet (a current matter of concern in the Netherlands) becomes a different form of casualty from a cyclist behaving carefully who is knocked down by a motorist breaking the appropriate rules and laws.

This kind of difference is not brought out in even the kind of metric we have favoured over that of the “road safety” industry. But there is no reason why it cannot.

For the moment though, the key point is that here is the institutionalised prejudice against achieving more cycling expressed by the two Ministers at the Department for Transport responsible for cycling and the safety of cyclists. And because there is substantial evidence indicating that more cycling can lead to a decline in cyclist casualty rates – the ones that count for a civilised person, that is – they are against reducing the chances of them being killed or hurt as well.

Cyclists protest outside Addison Lee HQ: (Photo: Big Smoke)

While off the air, a major story broke: RDRF responded and was quoted in The Times  and various blogs .A version of another e-mail was posted by our friends at Movement for Liveable London . Here is an updated version of it:

Following cancellation of some accounts and the promise of a flash-mob protest outside his offices on Monday 23^rd April, the boss of Addison Lee issued a pseudo-apology while re-stating his prejudices – which discriminate against cyclists and other road users outside motor vehicles in general and Addison Lee vehicles in particular. For us he is digging himself in deeper. This saga is not just about a publicity seeking bigot angling for notoriety and some extra business. It actually reveals a lot about the way in which we are supposed to think about transport and safety on the road .

He has form: as indicated by the humorous David Mitchell in the Observer. But we repeat: this is not just one more extremist. His views are simply versions of the dominant “road safety” ideology which bedevils a civilised approach to transport and real safety on the road. His tendency to get hold of the wrong end of the stick not just once, but on a range of issues is typical of the inversion of the reality that passes for “road safety”.

The most obvious example of this corrupt ideology is that Mr Griffin has – would you believe – signed up to The Times cyclists’ safety campaign : yes, he is actually on the side of cyclists!

But “road safety” has so often been against the safety and well-being of cyclists and others: after all, if cyclists get out of the way of motor traffic, they won’t get hurt or killed. If people are too scared to cycle or walk (or their parents to let them), then they won’t get killed – something which traditional “road safety” sees as progress. Griffin is just part of that tradition, and the following expresses it:

“My foreword in Addison Lee’s magazine Add Lib, has caused quite a storm amongst the Twitter community, and I’m glad it has. In the article, I argue for compulsory training and insurance for London’s bicycle owners and I still stand by my contention.

“About one cyclist is killed on London’s roads every month and countless others horribly injured. If the article causes a debate around cycle safety, and perhaps saves some lives, bring it on.

“Cycling is a deadly serious issue and lives are at stake. There have been huge campaigns recently to encourage cycling, but not so much in terms of improving safety and awareness for cyclists. “I’m glad that the issue is being debated. If anyone has more ideas for improving safety for cyclists, I would be delighted to hear them. In the meantime, I will continue calling for compulsory training and compulsory insurance for bicycle users.”

And there is no indication that he has backed off – indeed, his response to the admirable protest at Addison Lee’s offices ( for a full account see the always up to the minute road cc) was to – read out his second missive.

 So let’s take this opportunity to puncture some of the myths:

TRAINING. ( or perhaps we should say “TRAINING”, as plainly what Addison lee drivers are all too often up to indicates that any training they may have received has been for a form of behaviour which is not advocated by the Highway Code).

This is the classic example of getting hold of the wrong end of the stick – twice over. Firstly, if anyone needs regulation to control behaviour which is genuinely anti-social because it threatens other people’s lives, it should be that of motorist. After all, by any objective measure (the third party insurances of motorists as compared to members of the cycling organisations, for example), it is motorists, not cyclists, who need control and regulation.

But the other stick wrongly handled is that of “training” in the first place: generally it is not about control or regulation anyway: it is about breeding confidence. The RDRF has strongly supported National Standards cycle training as a way to do this and generate more cycling, with major safety benefits accruing from the greater awareness by motorists of increased numbers of cyclists. Many of this cycling will of course be precisely the assertive cycling (taking the primary position etc.) which seems to upset so many motorists, Addison Lee drivers among them.

It is about empowerment and enablement. It is not something to be forced on actual or potential cyclists; it isn’t what Mr Griffin would probably like to see anyway (it teaches rights as well as responsibilities), and it is ludicrous to see cyclists, rather than motorists, as the problem to be controlled.

INSURANCE. There is a  good case for motorists carrying their party insurance – but there ahs to be proper chances of errant motorists actually having to be found liable and with proper pay outs for the damage they cause to people’s lives: we would argue that neither happens at the moment.  We need black boxes on vehicles to establish cause of collisions and proper reparations. Also, we certainly have a significant proportion of London’s motorist who don’t pay 3^rd party insurance, which Mr Griffin does not seem to be chasing up.

But full insurance against responsibilities is just that – a way of protecting motorists from their responsibilities. At the very least no more than 80 – 90% of the cost of injury to human beings (we are not so concerned with damage to property) should be recoverable through insurance. 3^rd party insurance should be seen as at least in part another example of motorists getting away with it.

WHAT – OR WHO – IS “DANGEROUS”? Throughout, Griffin assumes that because some road users are not inside crashworthy vehicles there is something wrong with them – not the road users who are dangerous to them and everybody else on the road. We won’t go into how the increasing crashworthiness of vehicles has made motorists even more of a potential menace to others: suffice it to say that we need to see the principle problem as  those who can endanger others  the most. This seems to be completely outside Griffin’s world view.

“Road safety” ideology protecting the (careless) motorist has always patronisingly muttered about “protecting the vulnerable road user” (that’s human beings outside cars) – what do you think may actually be endangering them.

And in case anybody wants to point out that cyclists and pedestrians can – surprise, surprise – actually break the Highway Code, well:

1. We would argue that it is generally less dangerous to others than motorist law breaking, and therefore less of a priority, and:
2. Motorist law and rule breaking is generally accommodated – or even colluded and connived with – by the creation of crashworthy vehicles (crumple zones, seat belts, airbags, roll bars etc.) and a highway environment (anti-skid, crash barriers, felling roadside trees etc.). Maybe try doing that for cyclists if equality is what you’re after?

TAXATION: We will also need to demolish the myth of motorists being “overtaxed”, although it is not there in Griffin’s latest outpourings.

LAW ENFORCEMENT? We will certainly need to raise again – London cyclists have long complained about this – the lack of law enforcement by motorists in general and private hire cars in particular. This episode should be seen as an opportunity to do so. The failure to discuss this has been a major problem in The Times campaign so far, as we have pointed out If it is not to fail it needs to be addressed.

One thought does stick in the mind from the original Addison Lee “Editorial”: what cyclists would have to do to join “our gang”, including being “trained”. If it is a question of being in a gang which can hurt and kill with minimal (if any) punishment, there might be quite a few cyclists who would welcome such “training”…

"Our Gang": Addison Lee boss addresses protesters.(Photo: Cyclists in the City)

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

And here is the first e-mail we sent off as we found out about the “ Add Lib” “Editorial” :

You probably know that Addison Lee have – quite properly – attracted opprobrium for their attempt to get their private hire vehicles to use bus lanes. Even Transport for London have stood up to their encouragement to their drivers to do this. (See here and here particularly the comments after these pieces)

You know that there is enough pressure on cyclists in bus lanes from buses, coaches and taxis, unjustifiably added to by permitting motorcycles in bus lanes on TfL and some (but not all) bus lanes on Borough roads.

You should know that private hire vehicles (minicabs) have a justified reputation for being driven in a particularly dangerous way towards cyclists, and that there is no real attempt to properly regulate their behaviour other than the usual (lack of) law enforcement and (utterly inadequate) sentencing of errant drivers. Addison Lee’s encouragement of the illegal behaviour of driving in bus lanes should be seen in the context of the widespread rule and law breaking of its drivers when they are outside bus lanes.

But it gets worse.  We have just seen the revolting piece in Addison Lee’s house magazine ( keep a sick bag at the ready before opening). This display of self-pitying bigotry and victim-blaming is, above all, the kind of incendiary message that exacerbates rule and law breaking behaviour by motorists.

And the bigotry is deep seated and needs to be properly confronted by those in power: step forward all those with responsibility for transport policy, as well as those charged with enforcing driver behaviour on London’s roads.

The “paying road tax” myth is inevitably associated with negative behaviour towards non-motorists and needs stronger opposition than the usual remarks from cyclists about how lots of them are also motorists.

The idea that drivers are “extensively trained” is laughable. So too is the implication that vehicle occupants have somehow fulfilled a greater responsibility than cyclists or pedestrians because they are in a crashworthy environment. These myths are simply part of the inversion of reality presented by Addison Lee’s Chairman – a world where drivers are the victims of cyclists, rather than the other way round.

But these myths are part of a “road safety” culture which has long inverted reality. Encouraging people to feel that they are good drivers because they have driven properly once for 25 minutes, and producing idiots by idiot-proofing the motor vehicle and highway environment, are part of the problem of danger on the road – and these examples of “road safety” culture are officially sanctioned.

Dealing with dangerous prejudice often requires a radical analysis of the nature of problems it refers to. But it can also provide us with an opportunity to achieve a lot more than responding to one bigot.

 Dr. Robert Davis, Chair, Road Danger Reduction Forum

BLIND SPOT:  OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY: an area in which a person lacks understanding or impartiality; COLLINS: a subject about which a person is ignorant or prejudiced, or an occupation in which he is inefficient

We are pleased to support “See Me Save Me”.  It is an organisation entrenched in the road danger reduction approach : and as such committed to reducing danger from lorries – towards pedestrians as well as cyclists – at source. We believe that doing this will require examining what exactly is meant by a “blind spot”. This not so much a question of technical fixes, but like all questions of safety on the road, about the power of some road users to endanger others.

The need to address danger from lorries should be apparent to all practitioners dealing with cyclists’ safety: the details of the problem are elaborated on their site.

Our President, Lord Berkeley, gave our support saying:

 Dear See Me Save Me,

As President of the Road Danger Reduction Forum I am happy to support your organisation and its work.

It is plainly intolerable that lorries should be driven with their drivers being unable to see pedestrians, cyclists or motorcyclists in close proximity to them. Such vehicles should be regarded as “unfit for purpose” for use on our roads.

Of course, installing devices enabling lorry drivers to be aware of other road users around them is only the first step to reducing danger from such vehicles. Other technologies which can prevent human beings from going under the wheels of such vehicles need to be developed and installed on all such vehicles.

In addition, while highway engineering and the training of cyclists which makes them aware of good positioning near lorries are useful measures, we need to ensure that danger from lorries is reduced at source. Whatever technologies are employed on lorries, as long the use of these vehicles has the potential to inflict such horrific injuries and death, their drivers and operators must be held properly responsible.

MORE TO COME

Lynda Chalker

Photo: Victor Patterson

As we approach the 27^th anniversary of one of the first “road safety” conferences I ever attended, “Ways to safer cycling” , I recall the words of the key speaker there: Minister of State, Lynda Chalker: “To the  “Three Es” of road safety: Engineering, Education and Enforcement, we should add a fourth “E” – Encouragement – we should be encouraging cycling”. It serves as an introduction to a progress report on current campaigning for cyclists’ safety.

 In some ways, we have moved forward since 1985. At the same conference I also remember the words of the Chairman, Lord Nugent of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), to the effect that the onus of responsibility was on cyclists when it came to cyclists’ safety , because “You’re the ones who are vulnerable”. These words seemed to upset the Department of Transport minders: he was off message then, and you wouldn’t get away with it now. Also, the notorious words of the Chief Engineer from Cambridge City Council: “If you are thinking of cycling in a modern city: don’t”. You wouldn’t get away with that either.

But how much has actually changed?

According to TSGB 0101, DfT 2011  and also TRA 0101/ TSGB 0701, we have had, since Lynda Chalker’s encouragement of cycling in 1985 until 2010, an increase in car, van and taxi vehicle passenger distance travelled of some 48%. All motor vehicle mileage (e.g. including lorries) has gone up by 57%. Cycling distance travelled nationally decreased by about 17%.

Not very effective on the encouragement front. And during this time we had other Ministers voicing support for cycling , such as Norman Fowler, Steven Norris (of the National Cycling Strategy), and of course, John Prescott.  I may have been unfair in exaggerating exactly how much motor traffic went up during his 10 years at the helm – it was probably only 12%, although he had promised to reduce it in June 1997(“I will have failed if in five years time there are not many more people using public transport and far fewer journeys by car. It’s a tall order, but I urge you to hold me to it”.)

I mention this because some people are very impressed by the apparent commitment of some politicians to The Times “Save Our Cyclists” campaign. In particular, Shadow Minister Angela Eagle  has won praise for her passionate words  in support of the campaign.

Angela Eagle

Photo: Telegraph

 In the Parliamentary debate  she said “What struck me about that was how obvious were the changes we need to see. This isn’t one of those issues that needs a major ideological debate to be won – just some common sense. And a renewed commitment to cycling safety. None of these things needs to be impossible – or even difficult – to deliver. It’s as much about will as money.”

This refers to the rather limited aims of The Times 8 point programme which we have commented on before But even with these limited aims, is it really good enough to say that this is “just common sense”? After all, as Einstein said , one person’s “common sense” is another’s “collection of prejudices”. Is there really no discussion of what transport policy we should have – or “ideological debate” that we should have. As Local Transport Today’s editorial suggests (LTT 591 02 – 15 March 2012): “although the ultimate objective of more and safer cycling may not be controversial, the means of achieving them certainly could be. A parliamentary debate on re-allocating roadspace to cyclists might not generate quite the same harmony as we saw last week“. Yet this is precisely the sort of issue which will have to be raised if we have large scale junction redesign to reduce danger to cyclists.

Political will is, of course, vital. Practitioners are familiar with difficulty in implementing projects due to lack of enthusiasm.  But it is the kind of policies implemented that we need to look at. Anybody reading through this debate would assume that danger existed for cyclists simply because some professionals and politicians were a bit distracted from what they were supposed to be doing. There is no kind of consideration of structural and, yes, ideological obstacles that might exist.

Consider Maria Eagle’s other thoughts on safety on the road: Firstly, she has made a commitment towards increasing the motorway speed limit. 

She has also said   she: “was preparing a radical overhaul of Labour’s motoring strategy”. She hopes the policy will “revive its reputation among drivers who accused the party of ‘waging war on the motorist’ while in government.” This includes possible incentives such as paying motorists (through discounts on VED) if they have not been caught by speed cameras.  

Is bribing motorists by paying them for not being caught speeding a good way to enforce road traffic law? The big hole in the Times campaign is , of course, that there is no mention in it’s key aims of law enforcement and sentencing with existing law, let alone consideration of changes like stricter liability legislation. And surely, the response to those who think that there has been a “war on the motorist” is, well, to show that this is just not true – rather than going along with that kind of prejudice.

This may be unkind. We have had the promise to oppose the longer lorries legislation that the current Government has passed against massive opposition from professionals and transport and environmental campaigners.

However, as noted above, we have been here before. And, unlike Angela Eagle,  people like John Prescott were actually in Government when they made their pledges.

Gary Mason;Eilidh Cairns; Tom Barrett; Photos from: The Times; RoadPeace; RAF

If any of the campaigns for cyclist safety are to actually achieve anything there is an absolutely central problem which needs addressing. This is the ability of the motorised to shift responsibility for their lethal behaviour on to their actual and potential victims – through the simple act of saying that they don’t “see” their victims. Below we look at two current and one recent case of cyclists killed in London .

While reading these cases, consider Rule 126 of the Highway Code:

“126: Stopping Distances: Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.”

Gary Mason

The Times report of the  death of Gary Mason includes:-

• Collision investigators estimated the driver had been driving at between 25mph and 48mph at the time of the crash, and he had been going at between 36mph and 41mph in the lead-up to the collision.
•  He failed a police sight test on the day of the crash.
•  The light on his speedometer wasn’t working.

A useful commentary is here, and I quote one section in full:

The junction in Wallington where Gary was killed is a dangerous junction because of people like this driver. They turn from Woodcote Road into Sandy Lane South, and because the junction is at a gentle angle, if there is nothing in Sandy Lane South it’s possible to cut the corner and make the turn without slowing down. On a test track, that would be the ‘racing line’ and the correct thing to do – after all, you’re in a race and supposed to be going as fast as you can. Because this is a public road, you’re not supposed to do this: there could be pedestrians crossing the road, or cyclists in the road, and at 40 MPH say, you would have little chance of avoiding them if you saw them. And at 6AM on a drizzly, dark morning such as when Gary was killed, you might not see them. Especially if your sight was defective. The road markings at the junction encourage drivers to make a proper right turn and slow down, and there are hazard lines that you’re not supposed to cross. The driver in this case said he would cut across the road markings “eight times out of 10”.

Group Captain Tom Barrett

I emphasise some parts of this report from the Uxbridge Gazette:

 A van driver who mowed down and killed a senior RAF officer as he was cycling home along the A40 has been warned he faces possible jail after he was convicted of death by careless driving today (Weds).

Paul Luker, 51, claimed he was blinded by the sun when he hit Group Captain Tom Barrett, the 44-year-old Station Commander of RAF Northolt, in March last year.

Gp Capt Barrett served as an aide-de-camp to the Queen, as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan, and had been awarded an OBE.Described as an avid cyclist, he often used the journey from the base in Ruislip to his home in Beaconsfield, Bucks, as a training exercise.

He had travelled less than a mile when he was hit by Lukers transit van at 5.07pm on March 10. It took a jury of five men and seven women just two-and-a-half hours to find Luker guilty of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving. Luker showed no emotion as the verdict was announced, while his wife wept in the public gallery. Fellow motorists told of a loud bang and a twisted wheel flying through the air after the crash.

The impact caused Gp Capt Barrett, a married father-of-two, to be thrown off his bicycle and he landed on the roadside. He was rushed to St Marys Hospital in Paddington but died from multiple injuries, Harrow Crown Court heard.

Prosecutor Adina Ezekiel said that Luker should have adapted his driving style if the conditions were poor. The prosecution are not suggesting that Mr Luker set out deliberately or maliciously to collide with Gp Capt Barretts bicycle. But the question is whether the driving was careless or inconsiderate said Ms Ezekiel.

Luker – who was driving at 50mph, under the speed limit – wept as he told how he simply could not understand why he did not see Gp Capt Barrett.

The self-employed delivery driver told how the crash had left him needing counselling and had stripped him of his happy-go-lucky personality.

Giving evidence Luker, who has been driving since 1984, said the sun had been quite low as he drove on the Greenford flyover.

“I was very short-sighted, I was struggling to see the brake lights of the car in front of me, so I decided I needed to slow down. At that point I was in the middle lane and the sun got worse, so I put a cap on but it didnt help much. The sun was as low that day as I have ever known. “The only way I could get the sun out of my eyes was to put the sun visor fully down, but I would have been blinded by that, so I put it on an angle. I could see people flashing me for going too slow so I decided to go into the inside lane and remember looking in my mirror for motorcycles. All of a sudden I felt a bump.”

Luker added: “I immediately slowed down and decided not to do an emergency brake because the car behind me was too close and stopping suddenly might have caused an accident, so I geared down. “I thought I hit a deer. I never saw anything. I saw the bicycle wheels along the road and then I realised I hit a cyclist. I remember shouting oh no, oh no, I was in some sort of shock. Mr Barrett was lying face down and I saw blood coming out of his ear and mouth and I knew at that stage it was quite a problem.”

“I just don’t understand why I didn’t see him,” he said.

“I would have done everything in my power to avoid any accident.  I think about it all the time. I was a pretty happy go lucky sort of fellow until that day.”

Bailing Luker until March 26 while pre-sentence reports are prepared Judge John Anderson said: “It is common ground in this case that this was a momentary lapse of attention.”

“Sentencing guidelines recommend a community order but you must understand that this offence carries a maximum of five years imprisonment and all options are open.

“You will be disqualified from driving but I have been persuaded in these exceptional circumstances for the time being to allow you to arrange your financial affairs so this does not devastate your family. “I do this more out of mercy than anything else, but you understand that you will be disqualified for a lengthy period.”

Luker, of Beaconsfield Road, Farnham Royal, Bucks, denied causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving.

++++++

Some specific comments here:

1. There is persistent reference, as in many road crashes, to the suffering of the person who was legally responsible for the death (e.g. stripped of his happy-go-lucky personality). Remorse – actual or alleged – plays a big part on affecting sentencing, which in most cases does not involve custodial sentences. While obviously an absence of remorse would be particularly anti-social, it is a feature of the legal systems treatment of road crash deaths that remorse and lack of willful intent to kill can play such a mitigating part in assessing the severity of the offence. “Road safety” is often an inversion of reality: in court it is sometimes difficult to see whether the person who was killed was the victim, or the person legally responsible for killing them.
2.  A persistent theme in excusing lethal driving is the “momentary lapse of attention” trope. But deaths are rarely caused by people who have been driving perfectly and just happened to have “lapsed” at the precise time when their victim happened to be in “the wrong place at the wrong time”. And in this case, according to the driver’s own account, driving while being unable to see ahead had been occurring for some time.
3.  The absolutely basic point here is made by the prosecuting lawyer: Luker should have adapted his driving style if the conditions were poor. This is just reiteration of the basic rule in the Highway Code, as well as simple common sense.  It is worth looking at this a bit more: despite having described his inability to see where he was going, the defendant could still say in court “I just don’t understand why I didn’t see him,” and “  ”I would have done everything in my power to avoid any accident” when all that was required was driving in such a way that he could see where he was going. If that was impossible, perhaps stopping driving for a while? Inconvenient, but within “everything in my power”. Some might see this simply as a psychological mechanism to deal with guilt. Cognitive dissonance or another process of defending the psyche. I think, instead, we should look at the culture which sustains these beliefs.

Eilidh Cairns

…Joao Lopes was fined £200 and had three points put on his licence after pleading guilty to driving with uncorrected defective eyesight, the only charge brought in connection with Eilidh’s death, and one that the driver had initially denied.

The magistrates sitting at Kingston Magistrates Court did not exercise their discretion to impose a driving ban on the 55-year-old from Dagenham.

However, just three months after the fatal incident in Notting Hill in February 2009, Lopes had failed an eye test and his driving licence was revoked. He got it back in April 2010, and returned to driving HGVs.

+++

We will look again at this case when reporting on the See Me Save Me campaign. Suffice it to say that there is in this, as the other cases, evidence of driving without being able or willing to see where the guilty driver was going.

But it is worse than that. I would argue that a key reason why motorists feel they can get away with justifying bad driving is the “Sorry Mate I Didn’t See You” (SMIDSY) excuse. (See the CTC’s campaign against SMIDSY).And this excuse is facilitated by precisely the kind of campaigns which put the onus of responsibility to “Be Seen” on the least dangerous to others, rather than requiring those who are dangerous to others to watch out for their potential victims.

The most basic rule of safe driving, in the Highway Code and elsewhere, has been to “Never drive in such a way that you can not stop within visible distance“. (In the current Highway Code this is expressed as

“126: Stopping Distances: Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.”)

 But this is eroded, not just by failure to have proper speed limits and their compliance, but by the assumption that if motorists don’t “see” their victims, it is the victim’s fault. Whether by lengthening sight lines or other measures, the underlying belief system thrusts the onus of risk on to motorists’ actual or potential victims. It is not just a lack of speed control, or the failure to weed out motorists who can’t see where they are going. It is a cultural belief that you don’t have to fulfill a responsibility to properly watch out for those you may hurt or kill. And this culture is not just colluded with, but actually promoted by a “road safety” movement with promotion of “hi-viz” to be worn by those outside cars

I emphasise “watching out for” because what is required is a thorough process where drivers consider the possible positions of those they may drive into, think about their need to avoid doing so, and drive accordingly. The image of a pedestrian or cyclist on the retina of the driver is just the first part of this process. And the key element is searching – watching out or looking out – for these people in the first place. It is an active process which is far more effective than any amount of hi-viz, which may be irrelevant anyway. I am regularly told by motorists that they see plenty of cyclists without lights at night. Indeed: if they are driving properly (albeit in an urban area with street lighting) they will indeed see unlit cyclists.

With regard to promotion of hi-viz etc., let me be quite clear: my argument is not just that this is rather unsavoury victim-blaming and morally objectionable. It is that it exacerbates the very problem it claims to address.

Meanwhile, we have campaigns for cyclist safety which don’t seem to have offered any significant attempt to address this central issue. There is no reference to even the operation of existing law, let alone changes in it, in The Times eight-point campaign. Nor in Ministerial responses to it. As usual, the gorilla in the room – danger from incorrect use of motor vehicles – is ignored.

However the highway and vehicles are engineered, drivers are likely to have the potential to hurt and kill other road users ahead of them. We need a real road safety culture, based on the principles of Road Danger Reduction, which requires them to act accordingly and not shift responsibility on to their potential or actual victims.

 Photo: Jack Thurston (The Bike Show)

Last night RDRF Committee members Dr. Robert Davis and Ken Spence took part in the “flashride” organised to show cyclists’ presence to MPs ahead of today’s debate. It was a happy and peaceful event with hundreds (or more)  turning out to support ways to reduce danger to cyclists and others. We’re pleased to be part of this movement, not least with the joyful way it manifests itself.

Unfortunately, my view is that little of benefit will come from today’s debate. I hope this is wrong – but here’s why I’m pessimistic.

Let’s look at the motion:

That this House believes that cycling is an extremely efficient form of transport which is good for health and the environment; supports successive governments’ commitment to encourage the use of bikes and reduce the number of cyclist-related accidents; notes with concern that the number of cyclists killed on Britain’s roads rose by 7 per cent. between 2009 and 2010; further notes that a disproportionate number of cycling accidents involve vans and lorries; supports The Times’ Cities Fit for Cycling campaign; and calls on the Government to take further action to improve cycling infrastructure and reduce the number of casualties on roads.

Julian Huppert MP, who is behind it, can be counted on to say sensible things about cycling. But what exactly does the motion amount to? Consider the following:

• “…supports successive government’s commitment…” Yes, I have heard this since my first “road safety” conference in 1984: the government, then with Lynda Chalker MP as Minister, “supports” cycling. Except, is this “support” actually support?

 * “…reduce the number of casualties on roads”. Which can be taken – and will in the debate – to mean more or less whatever you want. There is a long history of “road safety” interventions which have no beneficial, or even a negative, effect. As we have noted continually, and most recently here, “fewer casualties” does not actually mean that the cyclist environment has become safer, or even if the chances of being hurt or killed (the rate per journey travelled) have gone down. If we had more civilised society, with (for example) three times as much cycling and half as high a chance of being injured or killed, we would have more casualties amongst cyclists.

• “…Improve cycling infrastructure…” First of all, almost all cycling will be carried out on areas where there is no “cycling infrastructure”. Secondly, what exactly is being referred to here? – what kind of “infrastructure” – off-road routes, segregated tracks, Advisory Cycle Lanes? It is rather worrying that the Editor of The Times, whose campaign has sparked off the debate, is talking about cyclists “not being a hindrance” to motorists. Is “cycling infrastructure” about getting cyclists out of “the way” of motorists?

• “…Government to take further action…” A cynic might note that it could hardly take less. The issue is of course that the current government is locked into a programme based on car dependence and unsustainable transport policy.

 As transport professionals we are used to politely working with other organisations and proceeding quietly with whatever incremental progress we can get. But ultimately we keep on coming up the same old problems which are likely to prevent us from moving forward after today’s parliamentary debate.

Essentially, the objective for cyclists – and for all road users – is to reduce danger at source: danger from the (ab)use of motor vehicles in general. It involves questioning the basic sense of entitlement involved in car culture. It involves thinking about the kind of transport system we have, and not just in cities – as if cyclists cease to exist outside them.

More specifically:

• There is nothing in The Times campaign about the kind of law we need and the enforcement of even existing law.
• While The Times campaign has back of the envelope figure for funding, there is no mention of financial commitment in the EDM. Should it be too difficult to talk about 1 or 2% levels of funding for cycle specific budgets out of the Transport for London budget, for example?
• Throughout, the whole discussion is exemplified by the Prime Minister’s comment that cyclists are “taking their lives in their hands” when cycling in London. We have commented on the “dangerising” of cycling  – suffice it to say that this will probably not help us to reduce road danger but continue the prejudice that urban cyclists are “asking for trouble”.
• Watch out in the debate for discussion of “mutual respect” which glosses over the difference in potential lethality to others of drivers on the one hand, and cyclists on the other.
• Watch out for discussion of “cycleways”, “cycle tracks”, cycle paths”, “cycle infrastructure” based on the idea that some (generally unspecified) engineering can sort out the problems created by motorisation – basically by getting cyclists out of the motorists’ “way”.

 I hope I’m wrong. But do watch out see if road danger is properly addressed, or absent from proper discussion. Yet again.

We signed this note since it states some very simple and basic points which any reasonable person or organisation should be able to support. The down side is that - precisely because it is so basic -we will need something a lot more forceful and detailed if we are to get a genuine commitment towards achieving a properly civilised approach to the safety and well being of cyclists (and indeed other road users). After all,  if it hadn’t been so basic the AA would not have signed it. (And don’t hold your breath for seeing the RDRF logo alongside the AA’s again!) 

Cycling Debate: Thursday 23rd February: 1430-1730: Westminster Hall

More than 25,000 people have so far pledged their support for the Times’ Cities Fit For Cycling campaign. A debate has been scheduled in Westminster Hall for February 23. A wide group of organisations now calls on all MPs to take this opportunity to make a real difference by standing up for more and safer cycling in Britain.

Cycling has a fantastic range of benefits: for our health, for our streets, for our economy, our environment, and our wallets. During the last decade, cycle use in Britain grew by 20% (and by more than 100% in some cities), while cyclists’ casualties fell by 17%. More and safer cycling can, and should, go hand in hand. Yet despite this, improvements in safety for Britain’s cyclists have not kept up with that of other road users, and lags well behind that of neighbouring countries with much higher cycle use.

Quite rightly, there is now a high-profile campaign calling for cycle safety to be improved in Britain. This briefing note offers headline information on the key issues which impact on the future of cycling in Britain and includes links to further information on the vital next steps.

The key issues

A. Commitment to cycling

Cycling is booming in Britain and said to be worth £3 billion to the economy. But while between £10 and £20 per head of population is spent annually on cycling in the Netherlands, the equivalent average figure for Britain is £1. Following the national government’s successful funding of the Cycling City and Towns programme 2005-2011, which spent at least £10 per head of population annually – national government and local authorities should secure commitments to match this level of funding.

B. Encouragement of cycling – Smarter Travel Choices .

National Government and local authorities must commit to supporting safe and active travel within a wider programme of ‘smarter choices’ investment. By committing to this policy direction, we are more likely to see a joined-up package of measures.

C. Slower speeds : in residential and built up areas.

There are significant road safety benefits with a 20 mph speed limit. National government must commit to supporting, encouraging and funding local authorities to follow many of their peers and make the change to 20mph.

D. Improved provision for cycling

: to include a commitment to reviewing major roads and junctions, prioritising dedicated space for cyclists where speed limits are not already 20mph and ensuring quality infrastructure which ensures safe reintroduction of cyclists to the highway where relevant.

E. A strategic and joined-up programme of road user training

: to include better information, provision and training for all road user types including cyclists from an early age.

F. A focus on HGVs: heavy lorries are associated with a high risk

of death or very serious injury to cyclists. Despite being just 6% of road traffic, lorries are involved in around 20% of all cyclists’ fatalities. Government policies must ensure a commitment to the roll-out of a comprehensive package of measures to reduce the risk of HGVs to cyclists.

G. Improved road traffic law and enforcement

: Traffic law must do more to protect the most vulnerable road users such as cyclists, pedestrians, children and older people. In addition, traffic policing teams much be given more resource to ensure that existing laws can be enforced more effectively and sentencing must be appropriate when drivers cause harm.

H. Improved data

: the information that records how many people are cycling is very poor at the national level and inconsistent at the local level. This makes it difficult to monitor what is happening and which interventions have greatest impact.

Why do we need more cycling?

Cycling has a wide range of benefits for our own health, our streets and neighborhoods, the economy and the environment:

Health benefits

Cycling in mid-adulthood typically gives the fitness of a person 10 years younger, and a life expectancy 2 years above the average. People who do not commute regularly by cycle have a 39% higher mortality rate than those who do. Thanks to these extra life-years, the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks involved.

Physical inactivity is estimated to cost the UK economy £8.2 billion a year, while obesity represents a further economic cost of around £3.5 billion.

Economic benefits:

Cycling makes extremely efficient and economical use of road-space. One lane of a typical road can accommodate 2,000 cars per hour – or 14,000 cycles.

Encouraging cycling also makes workers more productive and reduces the costs of absenteeism.

Climate and other environmental benefits:

A person making the average daily commute of 4 miles each way would save half a tonne of carbon dioxide per year if they switched from driving to cycling.

If we doubled cycle use by switching from cars, this would reduce Britain’s total greenhouse emissions by 0.6 million tonnes, almost as much as switching all London-to-Scotland air travel to rail.

Why do we need safer cycling?

A depressingly high proportion of short trips are made by car, 23% under a mile, 33% 1 – 2 miles, and 79% 2 – 5 miles. Many people in Britain would like to choose the bike as an alternative way to travel but often feel put off by a fear of traffic. As well as perceived risks which prevent take-up of cycling, there are many real dangers on the road which must be confronted everyday by cyclists.

The speed of motor traffic

has an effect on the severity of injuries suffered by cyclists – severity increases with the speed limit, meaning that riders are more likely to suffer serious or fatal injuries on higher speed roads.

The poor design of roads and junctions

increases the danger to cyclists. Almost two thirds of cyclists killed or seriously injured were involved in collisions at, or near, a road junction, with T junctions being the most commonly involved.

Irresponsible driver behaviour

has been shown to be the cause of many collisions with cyclists. In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the most common key contributory factor recorded by the police is ‘failed to look properly’ by either the driver or rider, especially at T junctions. ‘Failed to look properly’ was attributed to the car driver in 74% of injury collisions in London and to the cyclist in 26%.

Heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) present a particular danger for cyclists

, especially in London where around 50% of cyclist fatalities involve an HGV. These often occur when an HGV is turning left at a junction’. About one quarter of accidents resulting in serious injury to a cyclist involved an HGV, bus or coach ‘passing too close’ to the rider.

Safety in numbers

is the principle that the more people we get cycling, the safer they are. Given that we know that lots of people are put off cycling by the danger/perceived danger we need to work hard to reduce exposure to risk by reducing potential conflicts between cyclists and other road users. Governments have for too long failed to commit to sustained investment to promote cycling as a normal everyday choice of transport.

This briefing note was put together by members of the UK Cycling Alliance (UKCA) and has been supported by a wider group of organisations. For more information about UKCA members, please see: The Bicycle Association, British Cycling, Cyclenation, CTC, LCC and Sustrans

____________________

 and don’t forget the cycle ride on Wednesday 22nd in support of cyclist safety.

And …to write to your MP with the above briefing asking them to attend and support the EDM.

dangerous Pronunciation: /?de?n(d)?(?)r?s/ adjective    able or likely to cause harm or injury

Because what I think we need to do is examine the Paradox of Safety on the Roads: doing so should enable us to more accurately work out what the problem of safety for cyclists is about. Unless we do so, there is a very real danger (that word again…) that the current campaign will be fruitless.

IS CYCLING DANGEROUS…?

Excuse what may appear to be pedantic. But do bear with me. This discussion is absolutely vital to cyclists’ safety.

The first issue is the central one of considering danger on the road: who or what is dangerous to whom? The “road safety” (RS) industry has glossed over this question since its inception. After all, the RS movement was founded by and for the nascent motorist lobby, and it was important for them to point the figure away from the motorised. The road danger reduction (RDR) movement has taken the opposite point of view: there is a need to see this question as absolutely fundamental to achieving safer roads for all road users.

In terms of civilised morality and natural law there is a crucial difference between being endangered and endangering others. Perhaps more importantly, safety for all road users, particularly those like cyclists who are outside motor vehicles, cannot be achieved without grasping this distinction.

This does not mean that cyclists are incapable of hurting (or very occasionally, even killing) other road users. And pedestrians can hurt or kill cyclists, and other pedestrians. It is also the case that all road users will have responsibilities towards others as and when we share the roads. It’s just that the motorised have a massively higher degree of potential lethality. This basic point would be accepted by Health and Safety regimes in other areas of modern life, but hasn’t really taken hold when it comes to getting about on the road.

This might appear to be “stating the bleeding obvious”. But it isn’t properly accepted by the powers that be, and it has to be if we are going to get a civilised solution to the problems of road danger in general, and particularly for cyclists. We have to go with the transitive (danger to others) meaning of danger – as in the dictionary definition above – rather than the intransitive (danger to oneself) one.

Confusing these two meanings increases the tendency to see cycling itself as the problem. It can help if discussions referring to the chances of cyclists being hurt or killed should refer to how hazardous – as opposed to dangerous – it may be.

 THE PARADOX OF SAFETY ON THE ROAD

A paradox is an apparent contradiction. That is not an actual contradiction, but an apparent one. This may seem pedantic, but this is important – so please bear with me.

The issue is about how hazardous (as opposed to dangerous) cycling is.

The paradox is about how – one the one hand – we have an appalling problem of danger on the road for all road users, particularly those outside cars.

This problem is not simply dreadful because innocent people can get hurt or killed, or even restricted in their choice of the more benign modes of transport for themselves and their families. Or the possible discomfort or inconvenience for them due to road danger.

It is dreadful because it is not – at least not fully – seen as a problem of road danger. Those responsible, whether highway or vehicle engineers or individual motorists, are not held accountable for their danger. The persistent refusal to do this is the issue that concerns us, and it is a moral and political issue that is not expressed by statistics of casualties.

The difficulty of actually discussing it in these terms is, in my view, scandalous. The absence of proper discourse about road danger is in itself a grotesque problem.

That is one side of the paradox: it is not too extreme to say that there is a monster on the backs of cyclists and others – one which is made more difficult to combat by being hard to talk about.

The other side is that cycling is not that hazardous – at least not as many who are campaigning (or claim to be campaigning) for cyclists’ safety appear to think.

Lets’ look at these two sides in more detail – and why we have to do so.

Consider this passage commenting on the “Save our Cyclists” campaign:   “Motor-traffic in general, the haulage business  in particular, kills people. They (sic) kill people at a rate that would be a national scandal if any other source – bad food hygiene? enemy action? unmanned level-crossings? – were responsible. A more sensible headline could have been ‘Tame Our Trucks’. The story is of death and life-changing injury consequent on hyper-mobility of goods and people. Focusing only on the hazards of cycle-travel distracts from this.

If you take the trouble to ride in a considered and conscious style you are – in Inner London at least – super safe. The difficulty is how we campaign to make travelling by bike even less hazardous, even more pleasurable, without reinforcing the widespread misconception that it’s somehow lethal (my emphasis).”

Indeed. What do we know about the chances, albeit retrospectively calculated, of being hurt or killed while cycling on the roads of London (which is where the “Save our Cyclists” campaign originates”?

The table below is based on figures given by Green Party Member of the London Assembly Jenny Jones.

 Jenny Jones has used more recent figures, including the less reliable “Slight Injuries” statistics to show that the declining casualty rate among London’s cyclists has evened out or worsened over the last three or four years (under Mayor Johnson’s administration). However, the more reliable Killed and Seriously Injured line red line doesn’t show a significant dip in the last few years, which anyway would be relatively short term and difficult to draw conclusions from.

What we can say – and Jenny Jones has agreed on this point – is that there has been a significant decline in the chances of being hurt or killed as a cyclist since 2000. We can also say that – albeit allowing for the very rough estimation of a typical cyclist being a commuter making some 440 trips per year – is that the chances of having been reported as Seriously Injured (almost all KSIs are the Serious Injuries) run at some one every quarter of a million trips.

Or put it another way: in 2010 there were – allowing for 2.5 trips per cyclist per day – about 520 cyclists for each cyclist KSI. That means about one serious injury every ten lifetimes of daily cycling in London. With Slight injuries you can increase that to one in a lifetime. Of course, the majority of minor injuries are not reported – but then they are minor injuries.

Whichever way you calculate it, the chances of being reported as hurt or killed are pretty low.

But so what? What does this actually tell us? And – as explained above, there is still the monster of road danger out there.

 SO WHAT DO WE WANT?

 At this point it’s time to take a deep breath. Working out what the figures tell us has to be related to what we think the problem is.

 For the RDRF the problem is not cycling: focusing on cycling and its hazards tends to dangerise http://www.copenhagenize.com/search/label/dave%20horton cycling, cause problems and impede solutions. While this is not the intention of most campaigners, the culture of our society often reinforces its injustices while apparently aiming to be on the side of those suffering from them.

 For us the problem is basically the road danger presented to cyclists, primarily by (ab)use of motor vehicles. Anything that impedes getting to grips with this is bad not just for cyclists, but others threatened by road danger and those wanting a sustainable transport system.

 In this light, let’s see what the numbers can tell us – and how focusing on the hazards of cycling can do wrong:

1. SiN and Critical Mass.

The reduction in the KSIs per cyclist journey in London is key evidence for risk compensation/adaptive behaviour by the motorized road user. Let us take just one example of this: cyclists killed in collisions with HGVs.

 While this number is too small for high quality statistical conclusions, the fact remains that this number of deaths is roughly the same now as it was in 2000. Since that time, the number of cyclists in the areas where most of the deaths have occurred  has at more or less trebled, while the number of lorries has increased.

While there have been some campaigns to encourage cyclists to watch out for lorries and avoid undertaking them, particularly at junctions, it would seem right to suggest that most of the change has occurred due to changes in lorry driver behaviour.

Again, some of this is due to campaigns by RoadPeace , and cyclist-awareness training taken by about 2% of London’s HGV drivers, but this cannot account for more than a small part of the massive reduction in the chances of a typical inner London cyclist being killed in a collision with n HGV.

Any change can be seen as multi-factoral, but a principal cause is the change in behaviour by lorry drivers aware of the increased number of cyclists around them. It does not have to be an increase in friendliness or respect by drivers, simply an awareness of what they may regard as an increasing hazard. While courtesy and politeness may well be desirable, the crucial factor is the pressure exerted by the “critical mass” or increased amount of cyclist traffic. This is the force responsible for the Safety in Numbers (SiN) effect, rather than any polite requests through publicity.

This does not mean that nothing apart from an increase in cyclist numbers is required. But it does indicate that not increasing the numbers of cyclists increases the chances of cyclists being hurt or killed.

 2. Cycling and life saving.

Quite apart from the reduction in danger to others when moving from car to bike, and the reduction in noxious and other emissions when moving from most forms of motorized forms of transport to bike, cycling increases the chances of those doing it of staying healthy and alive. There is debate about how much this is – but we can say that you are more likely to die from not cycling than cycling.

 3. Patronising and victim blaming.

Cyclists may well wonder why they are supposed to belong to somebody else, and whom that may be – note the phrase used by the Times and a previous (fizzled-out) campaign by The Independent: “Save our Cyclists” (my emphasis). As Mae West once said:  “Men are always trying to protect me. I wonder what they are trying to protect me from”. The Times campaign doesn’t focus on the ordinary motorists who are the primary threat to cyclists and all other road users.This is not ungrateful or pedantic. It is trying to get to grips with the issues – and warning of how a victim-focused approach can turn into a victim-blaming one. The numbers tell us that people (in rather larger numbers than those of just cyclists) are killed and hurt in collisions involving all types of motorised road user. Who should be the focus of attention.

 4. Other road user groups -  motorcyclists.

If we are going to look at a group of road users in terms of their high tendency to get hurt or killed, the obvious choice is motorcyclists. We don’t seem to read headlines about “saving our motorcyclists”, however. Yet this group is far more at risk than pedal cyclists, with about 1/5 road deaths being those of powered two-wheeler users, with a similar proportion of trips to cyclists.

So why are motorcyclists not focused on? I suggest that this is partly because they are already seen as having their problems addressed by staples of the “road safety” industry – crash helmets and training. Yet despite – or because of – these “road safety” initiatives, motorcyclists are the most at risk group of road users. Of course, motorcycling is often seen as “dangerous” – but not because of the threat it poses to others – particularly pedestrians who are killed in collisions with motorcyclists rather more often than with cyclists, despite what anti-cycling prejudice might suggest.

 Yet again, the culture of “road safety” talks about danger to motorcyclists rather than danger from motorcyclists.

5.  Lorries or other motor vehicles.

The Times campaign focuses on HGVs. Obviously, since about half the collisions where cyclists die involve lorries – and a similar number of pedestrians are killed under the wheels of lorries every year. However, the vast majority of vehicles involved in crashes with cyclists are not lorries, but other motor vehicles, particularly cars.  Is it too much to suggest that – as usual with “road safety” – it is uncomfortable to point the finger at journalists and readers of The Times?

 6. “Reducing casualties”.

The early day Motion on Thursday   includes: “ That this House … supports successive governments’ commitment to …reduce the number of cyclist-related accidents; … calls on the Government to take further action to …reduce the number of casualties on roads”.

But is that what we want? Cycling casualties are among the lowest they have ever been.  If we had the cyclist casualty rate of the Netherlands which is so often quoted (about 2 or 3 times lower than in the UK or for Amsterdam compared to London) and 2 – 3 times as many people cycling (as in the Mayor of London’s targets), we would have the same number of cyclist casualties. If we had a cycling modal share of towns and cities in Northern Europe (not just the Netherlands and Denmark, but Germany, and Belgium. Or Switzerland. Or Sweden) there is no way that aggregate cyclists casualties would be reduced, particularly if there are significant proportions of elderly people among the cyclists.

 What the numbers show is that – it is not the numbers that are important.

 A civilised response to the issue of cyclist safety is to reduce danger at source and – not least as a key way of doing this – making those responsible for danger (highway and vehicle engineers as well as individual motorists and those charged with enforcing the laws supposedly regulating them) accountable. It means not “dangerising” cycling and focussing on the motorised: the next post addresses this in more detail.

This may appear to be a break from discussion of the current major campaigns for cyclist safety – but it is not. While cyclists are not directly mentioned, consideration of this issue is crucial to addressing safety for all road users, including cyclists.

This issue is how – supposedly – trees, bollards and other inanimate objects are “dangerous”. It tells us much of what we need to know about the official view of “road safety”.

I am indebted to West Sussex Today  in its 1st February edition:

(b) “Safe” road environments

In 1988 a major conference on what “road safety” jargon refers to as Single Vehicle Only (SVO) crashes took place.13 These crashes typically involve young men who are drunk and tired driving off the road late at night. The problem of SVOs, which constitute a sixth of all injury-producing crashes in Britain, would in the early days of awareness about danger on the roads, and in the supporters of the New Agenda, lead to consideration of issues such as specific restrictions on young people driving, crack downs on drinking and driving, or the provision of public transport. The 1988 conference, however, advocated crash barriers on off-road objects, using “frangible, breakaway or flexible materials” in the construction of poles and other street furniture. As The Guardian motoring correspondent put it:

“Badly sited traffic signals, telegraph or electricity poles, a tree or bus shelter, can cause injury or death.”

 The general dangers of car use – regularly discussed in the pre-war period – were nowhere in sight.

Following this approach, as bus shelters are moved over to the far side of the footway, pedestrians may be forced to desert the increasingly exposed areas which have been prepared for more danger in the name of safety. No statistics will show an increase in pedestrian or two-wheeler casualties, as the motorists’ leeway increases again. I suggest that there are the long-term cultural implications of such a way of assessing “accident causation”, of defining the problem of danger on the roads. In terms of the social policy discussed below, these implications are negative.

The reference is: 14 Davis, R, “An end to road deaths?”, New Society, 22/4/88. For an indication of the approach involved see Lawson, S, “Cushioning the impact” Surveyor, 21 March 1991. Knocking down roadside trees etc. is likened to putting insulating wire on electric cable by the author, now employed by the AA.

As an exercise at conferences and seminars I would quote from the other reference: Rattenbury, S, and Gloyns, P: “Accident patterns in rural access and scope for countermeasures: vehicles and highways“, Traffic and Engineering and Control, October 1992. Not only trees but stumps “as these can still be aggressive” (p. 541) should be removed, as well as fences since these are “a particularly aggressive form of man-made structure” (p. 544).  Those people in the audience not members of the “road safety” community would laugh, while the highway engineers and other ”road safety” types would be unable to understand the laughter.

I suggest that consideration of the two newspaper stories is immediately relevant to the cycle safety campaigns now running.

In the debates to come about cyclist safety, there is the inevitable argument that cyclists are to blame for any – or at least some – of the collisions they are involved with. But if driving off the road or crashing into bollards designed to protect a pedestrian refuge is not the fault of the motorist, how can cyclists be blamed – even if they obviously failed to obey the relevant regulations and laws? After all,  the dominant “road safety” culture – expressed by newspapers, local authority Councillors, official “road safety” personnel such as highway engineers and even police officers – colludes and connives with motorist law breaking.

Inevitably – again – we are told that two wrongs don’t make a right. Cyclists (or pedestrians) should not come down to the level of the motorist unable or unwilling to keep their vehicle in the right position on the road (or on it at all, for that matter).

Except it is not coming down to that level. The fundamental difference in the level of potential lethality of pedestrians and cyclists on the one hand, and the motorised on the other, is fundamental, even though it is glossed over by “road safety” ideology. And it should be central to any discussion of safety on the road.

In the debates to come it is essential that we stress the need to reduce danger on the road at source – that is to say, from the (mis) use of motor vehicles – and to hold those responsible for it, whether traffic and highway engineers, vehicle designers or individual drivers, accountable. The commitment towards doing this is the key factor, with the oft-discussed means – from highway engineering through law enforcement, vehicle design and other methods – secondary. Ultimately these measures will be part of a cultural change which recognises those outside cars as people with human rights. And that cultural change will involve understanding the existing “road safety” culture of uncritically seeing inanimate objects as “dangerous” is part of the problem of danger on the road.