After all, “safety on the road” can mean all kinds of things: from misguided and counterproductive fantasies through to getting the most vulnerable out of the way of the most dangerous. Public figures have signed up to The Times campaign – as they would to motherhood and apple pie. Below we analyse the campaign in detail: its potential for reducing danger on the road to cyclists and other road users, what will be required to pursue these objectives – and the problems that have already surfaced.

Let’s take a detailed look at The Manifesto: “Cycling should be both safe and pleasurable. Ministers, mayors and local authorities must build cities that are fit for cycling.”

The Times has launched a public campaign and 8-point manifesto calling for cities to be made fit for cyclists:

1. Trucks entering a city centre should be required by law to fit sensors, audible truck-turning alarms, extra mirrors and safety bars to stop cyclists being thrown under the wheels.
2. The 500 most dangerous road junctions must be identified, redesigned or fitted with priority traffic lights for cyclists and Trixi mirrors that allow lorry drivers to see cyclists on their near-side.
3. A national audit of cycling to find out how many people cycle in Britain and how cyclists are killed or injured should be held to underpin effective cycle safety.
4. Two per cent of the Highways Agency budget should be earmarked for next generation cycle routes, providing £100 million a year towards world-class cycling infrastructure. Each year cities should be graded on the quality of cycling provision.
5. The training of cyclists and drivers must improve and cycle safety should become a core part of the driving test.
6. 20mph should become the default speed limit in residential areas where there are no cycle lanes.
7. Businesses should be invited to sponsor cycleways and cycling super-highways, mirroring the Barclays-backed bicycle hire scheme in London.
8. Every city, even those without an elected mayor, should appoint a cycling commissioner to push home reforms.”

COMMENTS:

1.

MORE TO COME

 At this point I confess experience – I briefly held the honour of being the “National Rights Officer” for BC’s precursor, the British Cycling Federation (BCF). This post didn’t last long. The BCF and now BC are basically not geared up for addressing transport policy and safety issues involving cyclists in the way that the CTC has been over the last decade or so, let alone the various urban cyclists groups.

Some old letter head...

 The current campaign is based on 800 self-selected BC members giving their views. (An interesting feature of all membership organisations is the way that policy is decided by members opinions being collected in various ways).

 And these views have a lot to do with what is required to reduce danger to cyclists: reducing speeds from 30 to 20 mph in urban areas; trying to get drivers to be aware of the right distance required for safe overtaking; removing lorry drivers “blind spots”; and not having cycle lanes that end suddenly.

 The BC Chief Executive is also correct to echo the idea of Safety in Numbers put forward by the CTC “…evidence suggests that the more people who cycle, the safer it becomes.”. This is a notion based on the adaptive behaviour of road users to perceived hazards, explored by the road safety academic Reuben Smeed decades ago, elaborated here , and here and studiously ignored by the road safety establishment ever since.

Where it gets dubious is when it comes to our old friend “mutual respect”. We are, so we are told, All in This Together. The BC Chief Executive, Ian Drake, says:

“It’s essential that we get away from this sense of ‘them and us’ between motorists and cyclists. Most people who ride a bike also drive a car which suggests there should already be some mutual understanding. Now more needs to be done to build on this and create culture in which all road users can better respect each other.

“And it’s important to stress that cyclists have as much of a role to play in this as motorists, by ensuring they adhere to the rules of the road with regards to things like stopping at red traffic lights and signalling correctly.”

Let’s be clear about this: I’m all for courtesy and being polite to one another. It’s nice to be nice. If we all do the Right Thing (whatever that might be) then nobody will be hurt or killed. It will all be just peachy. To mix the fruit metaphors, life on the roads would be a bowl of cherries.

The only problem with basing on a strategy on this “even-stevens” approach is that it is at best rubbish and at worst a recipe for continuing danger wrapped up with victim-blaming. It won’t work.

Why, when I think it’s a good idea to be nice to people, do I say this? It should be obvious, but after 90 years of the “road safety” lobby, we need to explain.

The brutal fact of the matter is that we have power a differential on the road. This involves some road users (basically the motorised ones) having massive potential lethality and some others (generally speaking, those walking and cycling) having a lot less. This is apart from the fact that the latter – referred to as “Vulnerable Road Users” because, like the vast majority of travellers in the world, they happen to be outside cars – are particularly vulnerable to the danger posed by the former.

This absolutely fundamental feature of safety on the road has been systematically glossed over by the “road safety” lobby throughout its existence. We should all just try to be nice to each other. The fact that some types of road user are inevitably going to pose a threat to others, and that these others are going suffer however well they try and behave – whereas the converse is not true – is just left out of the picture.

But it gets worse. Far worse.

For at the same time as it advocates everybody being nice to each other, this same lobby has insisted that motorists are so inherently likely to break the rules and regulations – that they are inherently unwilling to and/or incapable of doing so – that their danger must be accepted and accommodated. It must be colluded and connived with.

Basically this comes down to engineering the vehicle and highway environment to idiot-proof motoring in the full knowledge that doing so will produce the idiots and exacerbate their idiocy. The relatively non-dangerous are urged to obey rules while the far more dangerous to others (let’s call them Dangerous Road Users, or “DRUs”) are actually being accommodated in their rule breaking.

This is then accepted by those claiming to be interested in the safety of their members: note the way in which a cyclist disobeying  traffic signal is put on the same level as far more lethal behaviour by motorists.

Or take the support for BC’s campaign by the representative of an organisation which came into being to pass through legislation (compulsory front seat belt wearing) based on the assumption that motorists are inherently likely to crash their cars. And which has been shown to increase danger to cyclists and pedestrians, actually being associated with more cyclist and pedestrian deaths immediately after it was introduced.

(The following is quoted without comment by the normally sensible BikeBiz site  “The findings were also welcomed by Rob Gifford, Executive Director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, who said: “This is very consistent with what we know about how best to further improve road safety and I think that the overall theme that measures should promote mutual respect and understanding between road users is exactly right.” )

Exploring these background issues may seem irrelevant, but I believe it is absolutely necessary in order to work out what may, or may not, be achieved. Take the “I’m also a motorist” trope: “Most people who ride a bike also drive a car which suggests there should already be some mutual understanding.” This may be true for adult BC members, but not necessarily the rest of humanity, but let’s leave that for the moment – let’s look at people who use different modes of transport.

Motorists who ride bicycles may – and I repeat “may” – may be aware of some relevant problems for cyclists, such as overtaking too close, but that doesn’t mean they will become better drivers generally. Most of the problems created by motorists for other road users do not involve general bad intent towards others, and feature a general lack of ability or unwillingness to obey the regulations. Most motorists are pedestrians, but that does not mean they obey the regulations and laws whose infringement threatens pedestrians.  

In fact, it could make them more unlikely to support measures necessary for cyclist safety. Note that the measure to support 20 mph is qualified: “The reduction of urban speed limits from 30mph to 20mph would reduce the severity of injuries sustained in any accidents, although it was acknowledged that drivers might become agitated if they had to drive at that speed.”

So what will happen to this campaign? How exactly will it be pushed forward? I confess to having doubts about the best based of campaigns. And it is crucial that a campaign is based ona real understanding of – and willingness to confront – the power structures that underlie transport policy and safety on the road.

 I leave you with a new website which preaches a benign attitude by cyclists towards motorists – but, as its name implies, doing so from a position where cyclists claim a position of power and entitlement. This kind of claim is not evident in campaigns such as the one by BC.

RDRF is pelased to have supported Martin Porter in hisaction described below in his press release:

PRESS RELEASE:  HELMET CAMERA SECURES CONVICTION OF MOTORIST FOR A PUBLIC ORDER OFFENCE

Today at West London Magistrates Court, Scott Lomas was convicted of using threatening or abusive words and behaviour contrary to the Public Order Act 1986.  He was sentenced to a fine of £250, a victim surcharge of £15 and prosecution costs of £300 (a total of £565).

 The circumstances that gave rise to the conviction took place on the A315 near Hounslow in West Londonon 4^th November 2010.  Lomas had hooted at, and then shouted abuse at, a cyclist, Martin Porter, when he was unable to pass at a restriction in the carriageway width caused by a central traffic island.  The cyclist and motorist had passed and repassed each other several times with Lomas shouting abuse that culminated in a threat to kill Mr Porter.

 Porter recorded the incident on a helmet camera and later the same day reported the incident to the police who were disinclined to investigate.  After casual contact with the CPS in Hounslow the officer responsible for investigating the case decided upon ‘no further action’.  Mr Porter, who is a practising QC, wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the CPS then required the police to investigate the offence and to submit the evidence to them.  Following an investigation, the same investigating police officer declined to defer the decision to the CPS and again chose ‘no further action’.    Only after a further complaint from Mr Porter, did a more senior Metropolitan Police Officer refer the file to the CPS, who agreed that a prosecution should take place.

 Lomas denied the charge against him until his submission that the case should be dismissed as an abuse of process, because the police officer had indicated to him that there would be no further action, was rejected by the Judge.  Thereafter he changed his plea to one of guilty.

 Lomas, who was aged 24 at the time of the incident, was in breach of a suspended prison sentence imposed by the Crown Court in April 2010 following his conviction on a count of malicious wounding.  It was decided not to refer the matter back to the Crown Court for possible implementation of his suspended sentence.

 Commenting after the verdict Martin Porter said

            “I am pleased that justice has now been done and that the Crown Prosecution Service had the moral fibre to reverse the Metropolitan Police’s attempts to drop this case notwithstanding the strength of the evidence.  It is sadly too much to hope that all mindless aggression and violence directed at cyclists will instantly cease but at least this conviction may help to discourage similar incidences of mindless ‘roadrage’ against vulnerable road users.”

            “I am very grateful to prosecuting counsel (a cyclist it transpires!) who dealt with the case efficiently and courteously. I am grateful too for the moral support I have received from the CTC, Roadpeace, The Road Danger Reduction Forum and the vast majority of cyclists who have contacted me.”

 Martin PorterQC is a leading personal injury lawyer practising at 2TempleGardens,LondonEC4Y 9AY and is also a keen amateur racing cyclist with Thames Velo.  All enquiries should be directed to his chambers on 020 7822 1200.  Martin is considering writing an article about his experience, as a victim of a crime, at the hands of the police and if you would be interesting in publishing such an article to a wide audience please contact him at mporter@2tg.co.uk

 ++++++++++++++

Dr. Robert Davis writes: A number of RDRF supporters have commented that this case only came to court because:

1. The victim was a practising QC with an interest in safety on the road.

2. This person was skilled enough in his knowledge of the law to write to the CPS and the DPP in a way which would make sense to them, and to persist after an investigating officer had twice declined to proceed.

3. He had to provide evidence from a camcorder.

Most people will not be in this position, although many will be members of cycling organisations like the LCC or CTC which can give the neccessary assistance.

The main point for me was that a police officer did not take this case at all seriously enough – an example of institutionalised discrimination against cyclists / for unlawful motorist behaviour - but that the police were pressured into doing so. Hopefuly this case will elad the Met and other Police forces to take this sort of incident more seriously in future.

According to Robert Halfon MP, families are being “crucified” by high petrol prices But should we see the Great British Motorist as Jesus nailed to the cross?

According to Halfon:

“High petrol and diesel prices are crippling our economy. Many motorists now pay a tenth of their income just to fill up the family car, and millions of families are suffering. Businesses are under immense pressure, especially the road freight industry. But petrol and diesel are now so astronomically expensive; it is COSTING the government money. This is because fewer people can afford to drive, leading to lower tax revenues. Therefore, this petition calls on the government to: 1) Scrap the planned 4p fuel duty increases, which are scheduled for January and August 2012. 2) Create a price stabilisation mechanism that smooths out fluctuations in the pump price. 3) Pressure big oil companies to pass on cheaper oil to motorists. 4) Set up a commission to look at market competitiveness, and radical ways of cutting fuel taxes in the longer term”…

So what exactly is actually happening? While a well organised campaign is orchestrated to present motorists as having the status of an oppressed minority, with little or no opposition, a quick fact check should be in order.

1. Over the New Labour years the costs of motoring fell dramatically.  While some price rises over the last few years may have slowed the overall reduction in the cost of motoring, overall the cost has fallen.
2. By comparison – and I’m talking about before the current government’s austerity packages were introduced – over the same period other financial problems became worse. For example: a massive increase in the costs of housing, both for sale (pushing a generation into money down the drain in renting, and in renting itself. Or the loss of private pensions. Or the need to pay far more for university education. More recently, the freezing of public sector workers pay – to take, again, just one example – is hitting many “ordinary families” just as much, if not more.
3. Then we have had numerous costings – using quite conventional methods of cost-benefit analysis, which normally tend to support the status quo - of the economic costs of motoring which far exceed the revenue raised from motoring.
4. A lot of the costs of motoring could be easily reduced – and should be – by more careful driving (to reduce insurance premiums) and more fuel-efficient driving. Most motorists could reduce some of the mileage they do. Then there is selecting more fuel –efficient vehicles. Or car sharing. Or walking and cycling short journeys.

But ultimately, rational argument is of limited value. Even the Daily Mail, in a typical rant has to quote that: “the relative tax take has been going down for a while: for every pound drivers spend at the forecourt, about 60p is now going to the Treasury compared to around 80p in every pound between 2001 and 2003”. It won’t stop the flow of inverted reality. Facts are not relevant.

But let’s examine the language:

• “Crucified”. Crucifixion was a particularly nasty punishment, quite apart from the iconic suffering of Jesus. Is being nailed alive to a cross really the same as having to pay as much for driving as you did a few years ago? Or having to drive in a more fuel efficient way? Or driving carefully to bring your insurance down? Or maybe working out a way to drive 5 or 10% less miles to bring your costs down? The self-pity is, of course, a special feature of car culture. As one blogger notes, train fares are rising rather more than the cosst of motoring: somehow train passengers are not being “crucified”.
• “Astronomically expensive”. Not compared to the costs it incurs, even by conventional cost-benefit analysis. And the costs of motoring have declined not just  compared with inflation over the years since New Labour came to power, but compared to vital areas of expenditure such as housing, or compared to the decline in pensions in the private sector, to take just one example.
• “It is COSTING (note block letters) the government money”. What is actually costing the government money is the usual billions of road building expenditure. Or the costs to the NHS of the adverse health effects of mass car use. Or not getting enough revenue in because the taxation on motoring is not high enough – massively raising the cost of petrol  would be a great way of pushing those still driving into far more fuel efficient cars with more revenue to government as well as the other benefits arising.
• “Crippling the economy”. That’s right: our disabled economy is in its wheelchair not because of the crises in finance capitalism, the collapsing Euro or any of that – it’s that motoring might not be getting progressively cheaper. That’s why “millions of families are suffering”.

But it isn’t. And this latest orgy of getting hold of the wrong end of the stick has to be seen for being just that. We do not have, “A War on the Motorist”. We have a war for the careless, rule and law –breaking motorist with a thoroughly inequitable system of funding transport choices

For if you have decided to become more and more car dependent – or just failed to question this process – anything that fails to fulfil ever more car dependency will disappoint.  Locked into the cycle of addictive behaviour, the feelings of victimhood – whatever the reality may be – are ever present.

I quote the blogger again: “Lowering fuel taxes may give a small amount of temporary relief to motorists who have no choice but to drive and are spending a lot of their income on fuel, but it will also disproportionately benefit motorists who are not very hard-pressed, choose to drive big thirsty cars and can well afford to fill them up. Also, taxes will have to rise elsewhere to compensate, at a time when there are calls to lower them to stimulate the economy.

Instead of debating the cost of fuel, which is largely out of the control of the Government, we should be debating how we manage down the use of fuel. Oil dependency is the underlying problem, and it’s what is delivering blows to the economy every time the underlying price of oil goes up”.

If your life, and your economy, is bound up with shifting more people and stuff further and faster, maybe the thing to do is to think about having different kinds of economy and ways of living. An abeyance of feelings of suffering and paranoia ( fed by endless descriptions of how you as a motorist are “hammered”, “punished”, “squeezed” etc.) would be just some of the benefits. Not to mention a rather more realistic view of the world, and less abuse of the English language.

I was interviewed by Jack Thurston about Road Danger Reduction and cycling for the entire July 4^th edition of the excellent “The Bike Show”  on Resonance FM. You can hear the interview here.

a road danger reduction approach for a safer fairer world

So here’s some good news for a change – an event promoting road danger reduction : do get along to this event next week (May 11th at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) organised by our friends RoadPeace. Read about it here. It is based on a very traditional “road safety” initiative which hopefully RoadPeace will distance itself from.

LB Lambeth hosted the seminar under this title on March 16th. Below RDRF Chair Dr. Robert Davis gives an account and his views of where this productive seminar takes the Road Danger Reduction agenda:

LB Lambeth, with the UK’s first Road Danger Reduction manager, is a flagship for RDR. This seminar attracted academics, RDR converts and colleagues we hope to convert , with London Boroughs like Ealing, Hackney, Southwark, Lewisham and Islington, as well as pedestrain and cyclist group representatives and LB Lambeth’s formidable team present.

So, first the good news:

* Norma Fender, LB Lambeth’s RDR manager, indicated the “RDR checklist” for Local Transport Plans. I’ll be giving details of this in the next post.

* As RDRF Chair I referred to the LIPs (London Borough’s Transport plans) for references to Road Danger Reduction : a number are now referring to reducing danger at source, and some have “rate-based targets” as well  as the mandatory ones.

* We had two lengthy presentations on how to get speeds down toweards 20 mph: what was good was that the two Boroughs (Islington and Lambeth) take the two opposing views on this issue – signing of wider araes as opposed to self-enforcement in smaller zones. Hopefully presenting these different views is helpful in generating ideas in how to move forward on this issue.

* LB Lambeth’s Cycling Officer, Richard Ambler, led an instructive workshop presentation getting participants to examine Lambeth’s measures to see how far they meet RDR criteria.

* Jim Mayor from Brighton and Hove described an apparent success story of shared space treatment: what works, and what doesn’t.

We were brought back to earth with a thump as RDRF President Lord Berkeley decribed the activities of the present Government – from pro-road building criteria in the appraisal system of NATA, through the abolition of Cycling England, to the road building plans – as seen from the House of Lords. And in my presentation of some London LIPs it is evident that traditional “road safety” still sees increased numbers of cyclists and pedestrians as problems.

Not that we don’t want these issues addressed. Graham Smith from Oxfod Brookes , a veteran commentator on urban design, took some of the plans for speed reduction to task with gusto. These seminars should be places where received wisdoms are fully analysed. And Labour Party members Lord Berkeley and LB Lambeth Councillor Nigel Haselden, Cabinet Portfolio holder for Regeneration and Transport, voiced their opposition to plans to reduce petrol prices with publci transport costs going up.

Similarly, Tom Calvert reported back from the attempts in Bristol to make RDR a functioning approach – with mixed results.

 So how do we move forward? LB Lambeth tried very hard with this seminar to show practitioners who are not yet committed to RDR how to move forward. But did it get us further? One practitioner was unwilling to accept an RDR view on drunk pedestrians : we don’t think they area significant type of danger to others and qualitatively less important a problem that those that are. But she did ask a good question: how does RDR actually change what transport professionals do?

 In my view we need to give clearer views as to how to do this.

London Borough of Lambeth (first Highway Authority in the UK to have a Road Danger Reduction Manager) is going to be running a seminar on March 16th: “Embedding Road Danger Reduction in Local Transport Plans” at which I’ll be giving a version of this post. Places are pretty much taken up, but if you want to come – it’s invitation only – do drop me an e-mail at chairrdrf@aol.com . So: what is happening with the London LIPs?
LB Lambeth: As you would expect from a Borough which has expressed a Road Danger Reduction (RDR) agenda for some time know, RDR gets a good mention, quoting the charter:

“So Lambeth is undertaking to:
• Seek a genuine reduction in danger for all road users by identifying and controlling the principal sources of threat.
• Find new measures to define the level of danger on our roads. These would more accurately monitor the use of and threat to benign modes.
• Discourage the unnecessary use of motor transport where alternative benign modes of public transport are equally or more viable.
• Pursue a transport strategy for environmentally sustainable travel based on developing efficient, integrated public transport systems. This would recognise that current levels of motor traffic should not be increased.
• Actively promote cycling and walking, which pose little threat to other road users, by taking positive and co-ordinated action to increase the safety and mobility of these benign modes.”

City of London

This is really interesting. Under “TRANSPORT OBJECTIVES” we have “LIP 2011.3: To reduce road traffic dangers and casualties in the City,
particularly fatal and serious casualties and casualties among vulnerable road users.”. So far, so typical, but then:

“.26 The City Corporation’s preferred approach to addressing these casualties is a road danger reduction approach, whereby road dangers are reduced at source through addressing inappropriate vehicle speeds and the volume of motor vehicles relative to other road users. (my emphasis).The City has rejected the segregation of road user groups and the constraining of vulnerable road users’ ability to follow the routes that are most convenient and comfortable for them.”

This is encouraging (particularly since City of London have never formally contacted RDRF or expressed an interest in signing the RDR Charter. We even have, under the DELIVERY PLAN: 3.C : Road Danger Reduction Programme.

So far so, impressive, but:

We have the usage of the phrase “vulnerable road users” (see objections to this at  ) rather than those dangerous to others. On top of this motorcyclists are included with the more benign modes of walking and cycling.

There is no way in which – after a good start at identifying what road danger is – we can begin to measure it, or at least get a better measure than KSI, or KSI per road user group.

This is shown by: “3.17 As the City Corporation is planning for substantial increases in the numbers of pedestrians and cyclists during this plan period, the total exposure levels of those most likely to suffer serious or fatal injuries in the event of a collision will increase. 3.18 As a result of these factors, reducing the number of road traffic casualties in the City will be at least as much of a focus for this local implementation plan as it was for the 2007 local implementation plan.” It is still possible to imply that the hoped for increase in walking and cycling is some kind of problem, as traditional “road safety” has.

A way out of this is to move towards a superior method of measuring danger, the first step of which would be KSI per journey or distance travelled. This is in fact mentioned in the LIP of:

LB Ealing

Noteworthy here is a casualty rate (casualties per trip) target for cycling:

LB Ealing Cyclist Road Casualty Target
LIP Additional (non?mandatory) target: Road casualties (cyclists)
Total casualties for cyclists
Long term target 1 casualty/440,000 trips by 2026
Short term target 1 casualty/333,000 trips by 2013/14

Of course, LIPs in London have to conform to guidance based on the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS). This tends to push towards a traditional “road safety” approach – although, as is seen above, RDR can be mentioned and casualty rate targets can be proposed unde the non-mandatory targets.
The MTS also has a target for cycling modal shift (from c.2% now to 5% by 2026 in London). Most practitioners would agree that this will be difficult to achieve without some fundamental changes. After all, such a change would require the sort of increase in cycling seen with the Barclays Hire Scheme more or less every year until 2026.
How are boroughs to achieve this? Even without a step change in funding throughout London, there are issues about road space allocation (whether in terms of road space specifically for cyclists or in terms of reducing motor vehicle capacity, or both) with the Network Assurance regime.
But that’s enough for now: hopefully these comments will assist in consideration of the London LIPs.

9) In general an intervention should be devised to highlight some of the antisocial and danger effects of ‘normal’ driving. The statistics chapter of this report supports the importance of such an approach.

On the negative side, while the frankness of the report indicates the problems that exist with officers in the traditional “road safety” areas of engineering and ETP, it is not clear how these difficulties are to be addressed. Referring to the Road Safety team’s activities in number 4 (above), it refers to: “ Whilst retaining its remit of reducing casualties” (my emphasis). The point is: what does the “casualty reduction” approach actually mean? Can it slot in with RDR? In one sense it should be possible to focus on existing practices that DO have what is largely an RDR effect – but ultimately what is meant by “casualty reductiion” has to be challenged.
Let’s hope this work is done.
This looks like being a landmark – what is needed now is for elected members and progresive officers to follow this through.
We are more than wiling to help – as we alreday have with extensive interviews carried out for the report – and wish Bristol the best of luck in becoming the first RDR city in the UK!

But now we are prompted by a rather good Editorial in the 2nd September Guardian which leads: “Unthinkable? Declaring war on motorists: When the transport secretary said ‘We will end the war on motorists’, the obvious question was: what war on motorists? Regrettably, the article restricts itself to suggesting the subsidising of public transport, but does at least refer to the reduced cost of motoring brought in by the previous Government.

Of course, in a sense there has been a “war on motorists”: a continuation of unnecessary levels of danger on the road which many motorists are prepared to oppose and from which they may suffer.

Many would like to have a greater option for themselves and their families to use more sustainable transport and to have more people-friendly communities. They might not want scarce public money to be squandered on road building, or the damage to public health and the local and global environment from current levels of car use. Although they may be a minority of the motoring public, they are still motorists and want a more civilised, less car-centred society: they have had a war against them.But that’s not what the Minster is talking about. So perhaps the following could be pointed out – and they really are just a few parts of the story:

These are a few points which could be brought to the attention of the Minister. As with so much in transport policy and road safety, what we have is not so much a mistake as – this needs to be repeated – an inversion of reality.

1. The massive increase in car travel under New Labour.  On 6th June 1997 Transport Minister John Prescott said:

“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”

 Forecasts published by Prescott’s department for 2007 at the time of his 1997 statement, based on the assumption that there would be no real interventions to reduce or control rising motor traffic, such as effective methods of replacing car usage by alternatives such as public transport, walking or cycling were:

• Registered motor vehicles +27% = +6.85 million *  Traffic (vehicle miles) +35%, (as average mileage per vehicle was set to increase as well as the increase in registered motor vehicles).

Over the following 10 years registered motor vehicle numbers and motor traffic went up in accordance with the 1997 forecast. On May 16 2007 John Prescott said: “I had never envisaged we would have 7 million new cars. It has created real problems.”

From 1997 to 2008 the costs of motoring as measured against the Retail Price Index (which does not include the cost of housing) fell by 13% while public transport costs increased.

2. The failure to support alternatives. Unlike the Guardian’s editorial, transport professionals know that alternatives top car dependence are not just (or at all) about pumping money into public transport, but about supporting local communities, cycling and walking and alternatives to travel. Under New Labour the Road Traffic Reduction Act and the National Cycling Strategy were dropped. Restrictions on car dependent developments, real support for everything from car-sharing to home-working – well, you should know the answer.

Despite the victories of the anti-road building movement in the early 90s, we have had the continuation of road building projects. The only attempt to restrict car traffic is a very limited scheme in the least car dependent part of the UK (central London) for the wealthiest motorists, which was associated with a major road building (Thanes Gateway) project.

 3. The increased need to reduce car dependence and motor traffic. While New Labour had an awareness of global warming when it first came to power, the evidence for it and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has become greater. The health problems generated by sedentary lifestyles have been illustrated by more and more evidence. The old issues of congestion, noxious emissions, loss of public space etc. remain or are even more obvious.

4. Making motoring cheaper: motorists are not paying their way. The decline in the price of motoring has been mentioned above and in the Guardian editorial. We have a longer discussion on this at http://rdrf.org.uk/2010/01/a-very-moderate-suggestion/ and http://rdrf.org.uk/2010/05/a-very-moderate-suggestion-part-2-%e2%80%93-increase-the-price-of-petrol/  . There has always a case for pointing out that the external costs of motoring (as calculated by perfectly conventional economists) are not covered by motorists. The idea of “paying for the road” plays a part in all too many motorists’ bigotry against other road users, particularly cyclists.

But there are additional reasons for raising this issue now: given the imminent public spending cuts, might it not be an idea for transport professionals to raise the alternative of increased cuts in motoring?

 Furthermore, reductions in motor traffic reduce the attractiveness of road building – a form of public spending. And bribing motorists out of their cars with large scale spending on public transport is always difficult: cheaper schemes to support smarter alternatives can be attractive to politicians – although increasing costs of motoring should be on the agenda as well.

5. Continuing road danger. Tolerance of illegal motoring behaviour is, well, tolerance of anti-social, if not life-threatening behaviour. RDRF is principally about this aspect: do go to    http://rdrf.org.uk/2009/10/a-safer-way-making-britain%e2%80%99s-roads-the-safest-in-the-world-2/ to see what we thought about Philip Hammond’s Department’s efforts in this area under New Labour.

So we have had a war for cheaper motoring at a time when there were plenty of increased financial problems – not least purchasing housing – before the credit crunch and the now imminent spending cuts.

 In the same issue of the Guardian referred to above, Polly Toynbee http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/01/conservative-conference-public-sector-cuts addresses professionals with knowledge of the effects of Government policies: “Professional associations and managers in the public sector, specialist charities, quangocrats, thinktanks and institutes concerned with health, economics and social policy – experts of all kinds are zipping their lips.” And:  “The dangerous result of the silence of the clerks … is that neither government nor people hear what they should from genuine expert opinion”

This applies to transport professionals as much as anybody else. Of ocurse, there is a deep-rooted tendency to feel that the Great British Motorist must be able to drive when, how, why or where (s)he wants more cheaply while being told (s)he is an oppressed victim. For them, there will always be a feeling that they having war declared on them. But that doesn’t mean one actually is.

We need to inform them and those we work for of the true facts. Perhaps some close to the Minister could have a go at getting him to get his world-view the right way round.

Dr. Robert Davis Chair, RDRF 3rd October