Graphic by Lukasz Marek Sielski
In my book reviews, I often urge supporters of Road Danger Reduction to read the book I comment on. This book is one which should not only be bought but used as a campaigning tool for engagement with your local “road safety” professionals and/or your UK Police Service. It’s nominally about a niche area of activity – 3rd party reporting – but the reaction to it tells you a very great deal about driver law-breaking and how we can challenge it.
That’s the key issue here. While the way in which liaison with your local Police can help in cutting specific types of road danger (close passing of cyclists, phone use and in the future speeding) varies, what really counts for me is the massive and hysterical reaction from driver bigots to those involved with 3rd party reporting.
I’ll be concentrating on these and other issues arising from 3rd party reporting, rather than just describing Sielski’s history of the practice in the UK.
Road Danger Reduction Forum 
This is an excellent, detailed review. Thank-you.
I want to make 2 points.
1 – You don’t mention for me a point that stood out in the book: the author shows the personal psychological cost that can be paid by those admirable people who take up this form of activism, and document what they do for public education, in addition to taking the route of simply reporting to police (which can also carry a cost in bully and abuse).
(To be clear, both are very valuable – but that these debates make it into the Daily Papers even in poisoned form sometimes, helps.)
My practice is to run Schrodinger’s Video Camera, in the form of a Pass Pixi camera sign, and I sometimes have a camera, and sometimes do not. But they are taking a perceived risk in eg passing close in a pinch point. It seems to work.
2 – I think we can be more on the front foot around equality than I think you suggest.
There are large numbers of disabled, elderly, parenting people who cannot, or are prevented from (eg by medical conditions, poor eyesight etc) driving.
Govt stats: 25% of adults do not have a driving license. For disabled adults it is 40%.
Therefore de-emphasizing non-motorised modes of transport in the design of different types of public highways is discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, and public bodies such as Local Highways Authorities are subject to the Public Sector Equality Duty. Both are required in law to be applied to all schemes, and interventions.
And that should apply to things as basic as road markings and signs, and every design of every crossing, island and junction.
They are usually not, clearly.
To pick one specific, why are road signs and markings regulated by Statutory Instrument, whilst tactile paving … which are roadsigns for visually impaired people (VIPs) … mere recommendations or guidelines which can be ignored at will? That distinction is not lawful, yet it exists and VIPs are faced with misleading tactile paving done on a whim by a creative designer or out of “what we had in stock” everywhere.
I have yet to find a way to get a purchase on policy, but under our new – more thinking – Government I am modestly hopeful.
A great review. Some really helpful points.
Great review and very helpful book