In our Charter we give a commitment to: “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.” This post is part of our work at doing that – hopefully it will contribute to debate. It is based on a document by PACTS given to the Transport Committee Active Travel enquiry in December 2018.
In previous posts and discussions, we have spent a lot of time talking about the need to have measures and targets for benign transport modes expressed with a measure of exposure – e.g. casualty rates per distance, or time, or number of trips travelled. Examples are here and here . In this post we move on to look at the question of: Who Kills/Hurts/Endangers Whom?
Today the Government announced its response to the consultation on its “Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS) Safety Review”. You can download it here and I suggest anybody interested in sustainable/healthy travel does so – this is a very important document.
Below I’m giving some first impressions – as I say, you should read the full document yourselves.
“Gearing up – An investigation into safer cycling in London” has now been produced by the London Assembly Transport Committee .
“Gearing up” should, and already has, attracted a good deal of attention Since some regard me as overly negative, let’s start off with some very positive points in the document. Continue reading
On holiday in south east France I chanced upon this story in the local daily newspaper, Le Dauphiné Libéré. The 76 year old motorist had driven over the (obvious) footway into the well signed exit stairway from the train station at Romans, apparently thinking that this was the access to a car park.
Early day motion 407
It is not perfect, but do get your MP to sign up to it. Continue reading
No, it didn’t come from Government or the “road safety” lobby. It comes from the mainstream Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) which calls for an end to delays in fuel duty increases. It is not radical in its recommendation – calling for no further cuts in fuel duty, rather than an increase. Nevertheless, a mainstream think tank opposing the ideas that there is a war on motorists” and that fuel duty should not be increased is welcome. Here is what they say in summary: Continue reading