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: Read more »

Since this piece has been judged to be too shocking for release during the “purdah period” (for those outside local government, this is the ban on statements with political implications before elections) we present this on the day after the 2010 General election.

 But really, it IS a very moderate suggestion. Read more »

This might surprise you, particularly as we read of collisons involving road users on icy roads. And for those who will really have to travel by road, yes, we sympathise.

But I submit that the word “treacherous” employed to describe difficult conditions is misplaced – and looking at this (ab)use of language tells us a lot about travel on the road, and not just the safety of it. For us at RDRF, speaking English, rather than “road safetyese” is very important. “Treachery” in  the current discussion implies an immutable right to drive as far as is desired, when, how and for whatever reason – and that if the environment does not allow you to do that with convenience and safety, it has “betrayed” you.

For a superb discussion of how a hypermobile, car-based society views the weather conditions that are an inevitable fact of life, we suggest you read Simon Jenkins in the Guardian on http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/22/blame-for-winter-travel-chaos  Read more »

You might think that discussion about compulsory front seat belt legislation in the U K (introduced 26 years ago and confirmed 3 years later) is about the last thing that those of us interested in safety on the road should be considering at the moment.

Surely there is no need for detailed statistical discussion about this event, still less questioning what has become a – or the – major triumph for those officially charged with safety on the road?

But no. A recent debate has seen the proponents of compulsory bicycle helmet use drag the issue out again – and this time some revealing facts have been shown up. Some uncomfortable truths about the effects of the seat belt law in the UK  and the  “road safety” establishment  have critical relevance to everything that those of us working for safety of all road users should be aware of.

So, if you’re interested in real road safety, do read on… Read more »

The Department for Transport has produced a crucial document:  “A Safer Way: Making Britain’s Roads the Safest in the World”  which will be the basis of future national “road safety” policy after 2010. Our response to the consultation document is here: the DfT have also kindly allowed us to post the document (with our comments inserted in the text) on our site here.

As this document is of such central importance, it is important to be aware of it. For us, there is one significant move in the right direction (the adoption of the “rate-based” target for cyclists and pedestrians); one or two other minor improvements; a few things we are more or less sympathetic too – and the rest is the same old, er, same old. (Who says we can’t be polite?). We are basically opposed to a fundamentally flawed approach to understanding what danger on the road is – and what to do about it – throughout “A Safer Way”, specifically, the continued:

* Failure to properly define “safe roads” (allowing, for example, more hazardous environments to be defined as “safer”).

* Denial of adaptive behaviour (risk compensation) by road users.

* Inability or refusal to differentiate between endangering or killing/hurting  others on the one hand, and being endangered or killed/hurt on the other.

* Failure to approach the standards of other relevant safety regimes and oppose rule and law breaking driver behaviour.

* Commitment towards unsustainable transport policy and car dependence.

In fact, it shows just how far away government is from grasping what road safety policy should be about, and why the RDRF is needed. So do have a read of it and our response.

Gathering of London RDRF at the signing of the Road Danger Reduction Charter at the House of Lords in March 2009 by London Boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark. (list of attendees at bottom of article)

I’m pleased to introduce the new RDRF website after a quiet period of activity for us. Read more »