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. Read more »
It’s been a ludicrously busy time for those concerned with cyclists’ safety. First it was the campaigns of The Times and others, kicking off parliamentary debates and protest rides; then the Mayoral elections, followed up by the Addison Lee episode.
But then we get another resounding clang against any kind of civilised approach to real safety on the road for cyclists (and others). Yes, it’s the words of the two minsters responsible for the safety of cyclists – no less. This has led various commentators to parade their gob-smackedness, including “Minister for road safety loses his marbles live on parliamentary TV” from the normally restrained Carlton Reid . But actually there is nothing new here. From the point of view of traditional “road safety” ideology, this is completely rational and no marbles have been lost at all.
What we have seen in their estimation of levels of “cyclists’ safety” is a grotesque inversion of reality. And this is not just a technical issue about measurement: in turning the truth on its head they place yet another obstacle in the path of achieving cyclists’ safety. Read more »
Cyclists protest outside Addison Lee HQ: (Photo: Big Smoke)
While off the air, a major story broke: RDRF responded and was quoted in The Times and various blogs .A version of another e-mail was posted by our friends at Movement for Liveable London . Here is an updated version of it: Read more »
Lynda Chalker
Photo: Victor Patterson
As we approach the 27th anniversary of one of the first “road safety” conferences I ever attended, “Ways to safer cycling” , I recall the words of the key speaker there: Minister of State, Lynda Chalker: “To the “Three Es” of road safety: Engineering, Education and Enforcement, we should add a fourth “E” – Encouragement – we should be encouraging cycling”. It serves as an introduction to a progress report on current campaigning for cyclists’ safety.
In some ways, we have moved forward since 1985. At the same conference I also remember the words of the Chairman, Lord Nugent of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), to the effect that the onus of responsibility was on cyclists when it came to cyclists’ safety , because “You’re the ones who are vulnerable”. These words seemed to upset the Department of Transport minders: he was off message then, and you wouldn’t get away with it now. Also, the notorious words of the Chief Engineer from Cambridge City Council: “If you are thinking of cycling in a modern city: don’t”. You wouldn’t get away with that either.
But how much has actually changed? Read more »
Gary Mason;Eilidh Cairns; Tom Barrett; Photos from: The Times; RoadPeace; RAF
If any of the campaigns for cyclist safety are to actually achieve anything there is an absolutely central problem which needs addressing. This is the ability of the motorised to shift responsibility for their lethal behaviour on to their actual and potential victims – through the simple act of saying that they don’t “see” their victims. Below we look at two current and one recent case of cyclists killed in London .
While reading these cases, consider Rule 126 of the Highway Code:
“126: Stopping Distances: Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.” Read more »
Photo: Jack Thurston (The Bike Show)
Last night RDRF Committee members Dr. Robert Davis and Ken Spence took part in the “flashride” organised to show cyclists’ presence to MPs ahead of today’s debate. It was a happy and peaceful event with hundreds (or more) turning out to support ways to reduce danger to cyclists and others. We’re pleased to be part of this movement, not least with the joyful way it manifests itself.
Unfortunately, my view is that little of benefit will come from today’s debate. I hope this is wrong – but here’s why I’m pessimistic. Read more »
Above is a list of organisations including ourselves, who have signed the briefing note drafted by the UK Cycling Alliance for the debate on Cycle Safety on Thursday. Below we reprint the text.
We signed this note since it states some very simple and basic points which any reasonable person or organisation should be able to support. The down side is that - precisely because it is so basic -we will need something a lot more forceful and detailed if we are to get a genuine commitment towards achieving a properly civilised approach to the safety and well being of cyclists (and indeed other road users). After all, if it hadn’t been so basic the AA would not have signed it. (And don’t hold your breath for seeing the RDRF logo alongside the AA’s again!) Read more »
Now that I have your attention here’s a dictionary definition of that word:
dangerous Pronunciation: /?de?n(d)?(?)r?s/ adjective able or likely to cause harm or injury
Because what I think we need to do is examine the Paradox of Safety on the Roads: doing so should enable us to more accurately work out what the problem of safety for cyclists is about. Unless we do so, there is a very real danger (that word again…) that the current campaign will be fruitless. Read more »
This may appear to be a break from discussion of the current major campaigns for cyclist safety – but it is not. While cyclists are not directly mentioned, consideration of this issue is crucial to addressing safety for all road users, including cyclists.
This issue is how – supposedly – trees, bollards and other inanimate objects are “dangerous”. It tells us much of what we need to know about the official view of “road safety”. Read more »
The devotion of a whole front page by The Times to cyclist safety is quite extraordinary. RDRF has, along with other organisations and 17,000 individuals as of the first draft of this post on 5th February signed up to it. But will this campaign fizzle out like the ones waged by The Independent and the London Evening Standard – let alone safety campaigns launched throughout the last century? At the risk of seeming overly negative, we have to question features of this campaign and ask what will be required to effectively pursue the good intentions that exist.
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. Read more »
Comments Off 
