House of Commons Transport Committee: Reply by Road Danger Reduction Forum to “Call for Evidence” into the Government’s “Strategic Framework for Road Safety”.

 30^th October 2011

SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS:

• While there are fundamental flaws in the Government’s approach to safety on the road, nevertheless we can say that:
• The absence of traditional road safety targets being set is not necessarily a problem: however, there is a need for alternative targets to be set to reduce danger on the road, and they have not been.
• The decentralisation programme of the current government will impede any efforts to reduce danger on the road.
• The current legislative framework, combined with inadequate levels of traffic policing, is utterly insufficient to properly reduce danger ion the road, particularly towards cyclists and child pedestrians.
• The action plan will not be able to achieve reduction in the chances of cyclists and child pedestrians being hurt or killed on the road.

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

1.  Introduction: The Road Danger Reduction Forum (RDRF)   

1.1     The RDRF was formed in December 1993 after the “Is it Safe?” Conference organised by Leeds City Council, itself prompted by the publication earlier in the year of “Death on the Streets: Cars and the mythology of road safety” by Dr. Robert Davis. The RDRF exists for professionals working in and for local government as highway and traffic engineers, road safety officers and others supporting road danger reduction (RDR) as part of the sustainable transport policy agenda. It has 20 local authorities as members that have signed the Road Danger Reduction Charter.

1.2      We also try to form partnerships with organisations that support the RDR, or “real road safety” agenda, such as the national cyclists’ organisation CTC, the Environmental Travel Association, London Cycling Campaign, the national road crash victim’s charity RoadPeace, Slower Speeds Initiative, etc.

1.3      Road Danger Reduction (RDR) – the “real road safety” agenda: We believe in “Safe Roads for All”, and that much of traditional “road safety” has been part of the problem of danger on our roads. We highlight these problems as they appear in the text of“A Safer Way: Making Britain’s Roads the Safest in the World”, as shown on our website www.rdrf.org.ukMore detailed explanations of road danger reduction and the steps required to achieve it are elsewhere on www.rdrf.org.uk The principal feature of RDR is the commitment to reduce danger at source – the inappropriate use of motor vehicles.

1.4      As such, we have fundamental problems with the Government’s strategic framework for road safety which we are asked to comment on. These are detailed at http://rdrf.org.uk/2011/05/a-bad-day-for-safety-on-the-roads/ and  http://rdrf.org.uk/2011/05/what-else-is-wrong-with-the-strategic-framework-for-road-safety/. Nevertheless, there are some comments we believe we should make:

1. 2.   “Whether the Government is right not to set road safety targets and whether its outcomes framework is appropriate.”

2.1       There is substantial evidence, as evidenced in the Smeed curve, and discussed at length by us and authorities such as Professor John Adams, that road deaths per head of the population decline over time irrespective of the type of road safety intervention introduced by Government. We believe it likely that road deaths will decline with a likely decline in general levels of societal risk, which appears to be associated with a likely reduction or stagnation in economic activity.

2.2        It is also the case that many “road safety” interventions shift the burden of risk from the road users more dangerous to others (the motorised) on to the more vulnerable and benign modes (walking and cycling). It is therefore the case that reductions in overall road deaths can be at least partly due to a smaller share of the traffic mix by walking and particularly cycling.

2.3       As such, the absence of “road safety targets” by Government may not be a problem. Nevertheless, there are objectives which can be quantified which should be specified by Government as aims. These are:

2.4       (a)The targets referred to as “rate-based targets”, that is to say casualties (Killed and Serious Injuries – KSIs) expressed in relation to levels of exposure, e.g. casualties per journey or distance travelled. These should be the desired primary targets for reduction for cyclists, with more importance than the overall numbers of KSIs for cyclists nationally or in local areas. These can be used in areas where there are significant amounts of travel by bicycle and where there is therefore adequate data.

     (b) For pedestrians, where data on numbers of journeys is more difficult to secure, the target should be casualties per journey at specific sites.

     © Even where the “rate-based target” is used, this does not adequately refer to the danger to cyclists and pedestrians. It is possible to illustrate the rate-based targets by referring to the issue of legal fault: the long-term aim should be to reduce the rate of cyclist and pedestrian casualties where other road users are primarily legally at fault.

     (d) As a subsidiary target, it should be desirable to survey people as to whether levels of road danger are high enough to dissuade cycling and walking for them and their children.

2.5     Other targets which should be used are those relating to levels of dangerous behaviour, principally rule and law breaking behaviour by motorised road users, such as reductions in proportions of drivers and motorised riders who are:

(a)         Breaking speed limits.

(b)         Consuming alcohol or drugs (proprietary and prescribed psychotropic drugs as well as recreational).

(c)         Having inadequate eyesight.

(d)         Having medical conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease.

(e)         Engaging in inappropriate behaviour in the vicinity of cyclists such as breaking Highway Code recommendations with regard to overtaking distances, opening of car doors inattentively, etc.

2.6    Interventions to achieve the reductions which we refer to as desirable should be financed by central Government. Precise amounts can be related to savings in the normal manner, but should also include the costings in terms of health benefits of increased cycling and walking which can occur as a result of increased safety on the road.

1. 3.   “How the decentralisation to local authorities of funding and the setting of priorities will work in practice and contribute towards fulfilling the Government’s vision.”

3.1     We think that the current decentralisation strategy will involve a reduced level of economic activity and – for the reason referred to above (2.1) – will, in that sense, be associated with a decline in overall reported road casualties. It will not, however, be associated with the desirable objective of achieving safety for all by reducing danger at source, and will not increase real road safety.

3.2      The decentralisation strategy will inevitably involve a reduction of spending on attempts to reduce danger on the road by local authorities. We notice that this is already happening with our supporters in various local authorities.

3.3      We are asked to “ensure that … the relatively high risk of accidents amongst some groups, such as cyclists and children from deprived areas, is quickly reduced. The Committee will examine whether the strategic framework will fulfil this vision.” This will not happen with the current decentralisation programme.

1. 4.   “Whether the Government is right to argue that, for the most part, the right legislative framework for road safety is in place, and, in particular, whether the Road Safety Act 2006 has fulfilled its objectives (see Post-Legislative Assessment of the Road Safety Act 2006, Cm 8141, published by the DfT, July 2011)”

4.1      We do not think that the Road Safety Act 2006 can be said to have achieved its objectives.

4.2       We do not believe the correct legislative framework is in place, because:

4.3       The current and likely future decline in levels of policing mean that already inadequate levels of enforcement will be unable to give the required levels for legislation to have a proper effect.

4.4       In order for danger to be properly reduced for cyclists and pedestrians, it will be necessary to have collisions between drivers on the one hand, and pedestrians and cyclists on the other, defined as offences of strict liability for the driver. This should be the case under civil law, and as far as is possible under criminal law.

4.5       It will also be the case that in order for legislation to be effective, adequate forms of evidence gathering, such as with on-board “black-box” type collision recorders will have to be in place.

1. 5.   “Whether the measures set out in the action plan are workable and sufficient”.

5.1      The measures set out in the action plan are in no way sufficient to: “ensure that …  the relatively high risk of accidents amongst some groups, such as cyclists and children from deprived areas, is quickly reduced.”

We are available to expand on any of the above issues to the Committee.

Dr. Robert Davis, Chair, Road Danger Reduction Forum www.rdrf.org.uk  

CONTACT ADDRESS: chairrdrf@aol.com  PO BOX 2944, LONDON NW10 2AX

Faculty of Engineering, Science and the Built Environment, Department of Urban Engineering:    Extra-curricular transport lectures series

“What’s wrong with the ‘road safety’ industry?”

A lecture by Dr Robert Davis

Chair of the Road Danger Reduction Forum

Thursday 27^th October 2011 12.30pm to 1.30pm Room LR375

LSBU London Road Building, Building Number 11 on the map at

http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/about/maps.shtml (Access via London Road only)

 Synopsis

 Dr Davis will argue that the ideological and institutional basis of what is officially known as ‘road safety’ is actually part of the problem of danger on the roads. A radical reappraisal of the theory and practice of ‘road safety’ is necessary to formulate a civilized approach to safety on the road – for real road safety – for the 21st Century.

 Biography

 Dr Robert Davis is a founder member and now Chair of the Road Danger Reduction Forum www.rdrf.org.uk, set up in 1993 after publication of his ‘Death on the Streets: Cars and the mythology of road safety’. He has worked as transport planner in local government the last 25 years.

 If you would like to attend, please inform Professor John Parkin so that your name may be added to the list for access purposes

(j.parkin@lsbu.ac.uk, 020 7815 7160)

Subject: RE: 70mph National Speed Limit

Dear Mr Parkin

I am not sure if anyone from another department has responded to your email, but I have now been informed that the notices are being removed from all our vans!

Best regards

Nuala Keys

Business Development Assistant

J Murphy and Sons Limited Hiview House Highgate Rd London NW5 1TN

T: +44 (0)20 7267 4366 F: +44 (0)20 74823107 M: +44 (0)

Safety underpins everything that the Murphy Group plans and delivers.

****************************************************************************************************

While we are on this matter, why do BT vans have these signs?:

Isn’t , as we said in the last post, because it is illegal to go over 70 mph now?

And… how often do Royal Mail vans go on motorways anyway?:

Still, a small victory: thanks to John Parkin, Graham Paul Smith and others who wrote in.

Vol 17 kicks off in Professor John Whitelegg’s usual welcome mode: ““Sustainable transport in the UK continues its steady decline into the dustbin of a mobility obsessed governmental agenda.” But Vol 17.2 is a classic becasue of the return to Appleyard’s work, a classic remembered by those of us in the 90′s using  his work – literally then one of a kind – in 1981. For us in the RDRF this gives us an important way of addressing  the crucial question of measuring danger. Appleyard’s famous diagrams showing how motor traffic impedes pedestrian movement and community life are revisited here and shown to be relevant as the bases for study in contemporary Britain.

I leave the rest of this post to Professor Whitelegg’s introduction:

“This is an unusual and important issue of the journal. We are delighted to carry an article by Bruce Appleyard in the United Sates which is his introduction to a new edition of Livable Streets.

Livable Streets by Donald Appleyard was published by the University of California Press in 1981 and is one of the most important transport texts to be published in the last 40 years. It immediately identifies the street as an important social milieu and an asset of the greatest importance for  ociability, neighbourliness, friendliness and community life. Donald Appleyard made a huge leap forward leaving the tawdry world of transport economics, costbenefit analysis, highway construction and foolish notions about higher car based mobility feeding higher quality of life well behind. It  establishes a new paradigm and to the shame of most transport professionals and politicians making decisions on transport choices its message is diluted, misunderstood and ignored.

Donald Appleyard’s book opens with the sentence: “Nearly everyone in the world lives on a street”. He goes on to say that the book has two objectives:

§ To explore what it is like to live on streets with different kinds of traffic

 § To search for ways in which more streets can be made safe and livable

 These two objectives capture a great deal of the spirit and purpose of World Transport
Policy and Practice and the revised edition of Livable Streets will be warmly welcomed by everyone
who lives on a street and would like to see life made better by celebrating the quality of those
spaces rather than treating them as sewers for the rapid movement of lumps of metal. This article
is followed by a UK application of the Donald Appleyard methodology. Joshua Hart and Graham Parkhurst report on an original empirical application of “Livable Street” in Bristol and confirm the original findings about the negative impacts of traffic on sociability and conviviality and the need to assert a new transport paradigm that puts streets and human life at the top of the priority list and not somewhere below the level of a car driver speeding through a residential area to visit a gymnasium in order to keep fit. “

..against those who (presumably) think that human beings do not adapt to perceptions of danger. I also draw attention to the hierarchy of danger (the “who kills whom” question) as follows:

John Adams and Ben Hamilton-Baillie (LTT 576) are absolutely correct in
their debunking of Phillip Sulley’s (and the “road safety” establishment’s)
mythology of the supposed benefits of highway engineering with regard to safety
on the road.   My article in LTT’s supplement “Road Safety: Towards 2020?,  (LTT570 06 May – 19 May 2011) states the case against the dominant ideology of road safety more extensively.

Adaptive behaviour by all road users (often referred to as “risk
compensation”) is not just a key explanatory factor for overall changes in road
death numbers, as Adams and Hamilton-Baillie show, but an indicator of crucial
elements in shaping a properly civilised policy on road danger.

It shows how the idiot-proofing of the vehicle (seat belts, roll bars,
crumple zones, air bags etc.) and highway environment (crash barriers, removal
of road side trees etc.) has connived with, if not produced, idiot drivers.

Risk comensation shows, for example, how “road safety” professionals may
consider a section of highway “safe” for pedestrians  when the absence of pedestrian casualties may
be due to an absence of pedestrians – often precisely because of the level of
danger. On a positive note, it shows how road users can adapt to not endanger
others: such as the phenomena of reduced cyclist KSI rates in London since 2000
due to “safety in numbers”, or the beneficial effects of guard railing removal
on pedestrian casualties.

It also prompts questions about what we want as an objective from a
proper approach to road safety. While the study of road deaths at the macro
level across societies gives us the information gathered by Smeed and correctly
commented on by Adams and Hamilton-Baillie, aggregating casualties from all
road users groups does not otherwise tell us anything of real value. It does
not tell us about the chances of people in particular road user groups becoming
a casualty (although thankfully there is at last now some official
consideration of “rate-based” targets for pedestrians and cyclists). It glosses
over the difference in lethality of different groups, ignoring the central
moral question of who kills, hurts or endangers whom.

All of this points to the position taken by groups such as those
representing pedestrians and cyclists, and RoadPeace and the Road Danger
Reduction Forum, namely that the only civilised approach is to aim for safety
for all road users by reducing danger at source – namely from inappropriate use
of motor vehicles – and by making those responsible for it accountable.

Moving in this direction will require a genuinely scientific assessment
of what has happened, including a willingness on the part of practitioners to
accept how they have been part of the problem of danger on the road. Many will
find this difficult: but facing up to this task is what science – and morality
– is about.

Robert Davis; Chair; Road Danger Reduction Forum; LONDON NW10

…the debate continues…

Sir Paul Stephenson has resigned because of his involvement in the phone hacking scandal. Here is another national scandal I believe he was implicated in as Metropolitan Police Commissioner.Just to make it clear, this is not about the failings of one man.

I’m talking about a general lack of enforcement of road traffic law in Britain (probably even worse elsewhere than in London), combined with the lenient sentencing of the courts and  not taking proper attention of law and rule breaking which endangers others on the road. Our friends in RoadPeace regularly come across the inability or refusal of the powers that be to take the endangering, hurting or killing of others seriously. And , of course, this is in turn related to the way in which those who should be addressing the issue of danger on the roads elsewhere – whether it be highway or vehicle engineers, health and “road safety” professionals have been unable or unwilling to do so properly.

Nevertheless, traffic policing is at present a necessary element of any attempt to have a civilised approach to safety on the road. So what was happening up to and including Sir Paul’s watch as Commissioner?

He didn’t come into post with a good record. Indeed, the car fanatic Association of British Drivers had him down as  “one of the good guys”. Both the ABD and the anti-speed camera “Safe Speed” (sic) commended him for being soft on speeding offenders when he was in charge of traffic policing in Lancashire. And while speeding is only one part of danger on the road, the softly-softly policy on speed was not linked with obvious increases in traffic law enforcement elsewhere.

So what was the situation he found himself in when he took over in London? You don’t have to be sceptical about a police culture and practice which has traffic policing as a low priority to be dismayed. In fact an excellent report by Jenny Jones MLA was written while she was Ken Livingstone’s “Road Safety Ambassador”. “London’s Lawless Roads”is worth reading (it’s only four pages long) for the picture of extreme lawlessness it gives. To give a few facts form the report written just before Sir Paul took over:

* Between 1980 and 2001 the number of Traffic Police in London declined from 1063 to 646: As a proportion of all Police their proportion declined from a  measly 4.5% to 2%.

* In 1984  prosecutions for Careless Driving were at 13,829 (can you believe there were only this number of instances of careless driving in a day in London , let alone a year?) In 2004 this had gone down to 4,715.

I haven’t referred to the main forms of law and rule breaking which endanger others – the report refers to “illegal” driving as being the most extreme forms of lawlessness. We could talk about the cuts in the numbers o speed cameras and the general difficulties in getting an adequate level of policing. And it goes on: take this from the last Mayor’s Question Time:

Traffic police cuts
Question No: 2095 / 2011
Jenny Jones
Given the rise in the total number of child pedestrian casualties, will you reverse the cut of thirty police officers and thirteen staff from within the traffic section of the Transport Command Unit since 2009/10?
Written response from the Mayor
Though overall numbers in Traffic Operational Command Unit have reduced since 2008, the number of Police Constables has been increased by 8.5.

 The problems are, it should be said again, not those of one man. But he was in charge during this period, so should have some responsibility for what has been going on.

By a tragic irony, one of the features of an inadequate legal response to road danger is the difficulty in getting adeqaute evidence of law breaking, even after fatalities, is one which has impacted on Sir Paul’s family:

According to the Evening Standard: “Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson is said to be “bitterly disappointed” after the case was dropped against the lorry driver whose vehicle hit and killed her (his daughter’s) cyclist boyfriend. Rebecca Stephenson’s partner, Harry Wilmers, 25, was knocked off his bike in Old Trafford in August 2009. The driver, Wesley Lawrence, 31, was due to face a crown court trial in Manchester today, accused of causing death by careless driving. But the Crown Prosecution Service abandoned proceedings, claiming expert evidence made it impossible to proceed. “

Perhaps when he writes his memoirs Sir Paul could give an account of how soft the law and it’s enforcemnt are towards those who endanger others on the road. And how some of us are right to think that is a national scandal.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.      An overall organising principle.

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

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

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

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

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

Resource allocation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What would equitable resource allocation actually mean?

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

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

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

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

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

Danger

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

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

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

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

Some reminders on road danger

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

Raising the real road safety agenda

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

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

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

A picture is worth a thousand words, and this one disseminated by the Campaign for Global Road Safety (sic) for the UN Decade for Road Safety is a good indicator of what is wrong with it. Children in South-East Asia show how the CGRS and others behind this initiative think of the basic act of crossing the road: heavily supervised by adults; wearing crash helmets; carrying hi-viz signals; and even tied to each other. This is exactly not what real road safety is about. Let’s look at the origins of the “UN Decade for Road Safety” to learn where this nonsense has come from:Of all the organisations controlling the global “road safety” programmes, the key player is  the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society, a UK based charity set up with a basic donation of $300 million made by the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA), the federation of motoring organisations and the governing body of world motor sport. This comes from FIA’s sale of  the rights to ‘commercial exploitation’ of Formula One racing to Bernie Ecclestone and his bankers for about $350million plus an undisclosed annual fee. From this fund, itself derived from the advertisers in Formula One, comes the funding for WHO  and World Bank “road safety” initiatives.  Run with some 1.5 million euros a year for administration, the FIA Foundation, as a charity, is a different body from the FIA, although its leading members are often the same people. Trustees include the former FIA President, Max Mosley, the representatives of national motoring organisations, and the Finnish MEP and rally driver Ari Vatanen. 

An interesting description of how Formula One, the international motoring organisations, the motor and associated industries are linked to literally drive (through bodies such  as the Campaign for Global Road Safety, Global Road Safety Initiative, Global Road Safety Partnership, RoadSafe etc.) initiatives such as the UN Decade for Road Safety is by Professor Ian Roberts ( Formula One and global road safety, Ian Roberts, J R Soc Med 2007;100:360–362 – a shortened version is here).

The UN Decade for Road Safety has been signed up to by the “road safety” establishment of bodies like RoSPA, PACTS, BRAKE . We have not. As well as getting the wrong end of the stick on safety, it is part of a programme promoted by powerful bodies committed to increased dominance of road building and motor vehicle use throughout the developing world, with all the health and environmental problems that would bring.

We will be describing this programme – and what’s wrong with it – again.