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.

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 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.

Previous posts have described the record of Transport for London and the Greater London Authority under Mayors Livingstone and Johnson with regard to cycling. Whatever the verdict on this record is, there is one two-wheeler group that has done well in London since 2000 – motorcyclists. Motorcyclists have profited from virtually unhindered access to supposedly cycle-specific facilties such as Advanced Stop Lines and cycle gaps in road closures. Press attention is drawn to pedestrians killed in collisons with cyclists, but not the larger number in incidents involving motorcyclists. While cycling is persistently portrayed as hazardous, motorcycling – with far higher casualty rates – is not.

TfL’s pro-motorcycling agenda is shown up well in the saga of allowing motorcyclists into bus lanes.  While the details may tend to bore all but the most hardened transport professional, this episode tells us a lot about how some road user groups can get their way, irrespective of the evidence supposedly required to justify legal changes. Time and again we can see in the history “road safety” how a safety benefit is consumed as a performance benefit. In this case it is even dubious whether any safety benefit for the measure taken has ever existed: we simply move to the performance benefit (of motorcyclists having extra road space) while using “road safety” as a justification.

 Below Colin McKenzie summarises the latest stage in this story:

Transport for London recently published their report on the motorcycles in bus lanes trial, together with a press release to say that they will continue the trial, but with extra education and enforcement. What did the report say? Why the need for the education and enforcement?

First, a little explanation on statistics. Statistics are more reliable with bigger samples. The smaller the sample, the bigger a difference has to be to be real rather than random chance. The problem with trials of motorcycles in bus lanes is that up to now sample sizes for collisions have been too small for confident conclusions to be withdrawn. Statisticians do some arithmetic to work out the percentage chance that a difference is real rather than chance. A difference is generally accepted as real if there is a 95% or greater probability that it is. This is called a statistically significant difference.

This trial is the biggest UK trial yet of motorcycles in bus lanes, and produced two crucial statistically significant differences between the test and control sites. Control sites are similar bus lanes where motorcycles remained prohibited when they were allowed at the test sites. This minimises the effect of unknown factors on the results.

The report is mostly factual, though it does speculate from time to time. The press release puts a definite spin on the report’s findings to try to justify the decision to continue the trial.

The main points are:

On Motorcycles
There was a statistically significant increase in motorcycle collision rates at the test sites – far too big to be explained by increased numbers of motorcycles. At control sites there was a decrease in motorcycle collisions, which again cannot be explained by reduced numbers. Overall, the chance of the difference between the test and control sites being real is over 99%. The report, in attempting to explain this away, goes as far as to say that if there had been 4 more collisions at the control sites, the difference would not have been statistically significant. This is like saying there were no motorcyclist fatalities, but if there had been one there would have been some. The results are what they are.

There were reductions in motorcycle journey times, and increases in motorcycle speeds, with the average across all sites exceeding 30mph. This suggests motorcyclists are breaking the speed limit more. These figures are statistically significant too, because the sample size is big.

On Cycles
There was a good increase in cycling at both test and control sites of 10-15% between before and after surveys.
At test sites, there was a tripling of cycle collisions, big enough to be statistically significant even though numbers were low. At control sites, the increase in collisions was about the same as the increase in cycle traffic. Adjusting the tripling of cycle collisions at the test sites for the increase in cycling gives an increase in collisions per cyclist of 173% (versus a slight – insignificant – decrease at control sites). Numbers are low, but this difference is so big that it is statistically significant – the report estimates a 98% probablikty that it is real.

The increase in cycle collisions at test sites was not due to more collisions with motorcycles. This is hardly surprising – there was only one collision between a cycle and a motorcycle in the whole trial! But because of this lack of cycle/motorcycle collisions, the report claims that the increase in cycle collisions is not due to the trial. They suggest no other explanation.

This is simply unacceptable. The whole design of the experiment was to exclude other factors from the trial. Either the increase in cyclist collisions was due to allowing motorbikes into bus lanes, or the trial design is broken and all the results should be thrown away. They cannot have it both ways.

I can think of numerous ways in which the presence of motorcycles in bus lanes could increase cycle collisions. The most obvious is that cyclists are riding closer to the kerb (because of motorcycles passing fast and close), making them less visible to other road users.

At this point the press release departs from the facts completely, saying: “There was a fall in the cyclist collision rate across trial bus lanes and the control lanes, with a smaller decrease in the trial lanes”. The only way this statement can be construed as truthful is if it only refers to collisions between cycles and motorcycles. It completely ignores the overall increase in cycle collisions at trial sites, which alone should have been enough to get the trial stopped.

On Pedestrians
No statistically significant effect.

On ‘conflicts’
The research uses a definition of conflict which I fundamentally disagree with. Essentially it’s putting yourself in a road position where someone might have to brake to avoid you, with severity assessed according to how much braking actually happens. This means that overtaking a traffic queue safely on the outside is recorded as a conflict, even if nothing is coming the other way, because if there were traffic the other way it might have to brake.

To me, the most significant conflict in this trial is overtaking too fast and/or too close – there’s no point braking, but the cyclist is frightened and/or annoyed. This is not counted as a conflict in the report – they did not even count such incidents.

Conclusion.
The report clearly shows that allowing motorcycles into bus lanes is increasing collision rates for both cyclists and motorcyclists, and is encouraging motorcyclists to break the law more. On this basis, the only defensible decision is to stop the trial immediately, to minimise further casualties.

Instead, the Mayor has chosen to gloss over the casualty increases and continue the trial. The proposed education and enforcement is an obvious attempt to reduce casualties to a more acceptable level.

This trial proves that allowing motorcycles into bus lanes increases road danger, both for motorcyclists and cyclists. It should be stopped forthwith and no further trials to be conducted. By continuing the trial, TfL is failing in its duty of care to the public. Some Councils in London have opposed having motorcycles in bus lanes on their roads,  with others going along with the trial: the evidence points to them stopping motorcycles being allowed in bus lanes.

Colin McKenzie, June 2010

 See also http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1884