Let’s look at the rest of TfL’s “Towards a Road Safety Action Plan for London: 2020” It is basically the usual confusions, distortions and misguided mythology of “road safety” ideology. We have outlined some of the typical problems here, and, as always, suggest a look at: John Adams’ “Risk and Freedom: the record of road safety regulation” and a short discussion in his “Managing transport risks: what works?” Let’s consider some of the points made in the TfL document: Continue reading
Category Archives: Cars
Kivilev and how Bradley Wiggins gets it so wrong (Part Five)
Let’s be clear: I really do not want to rubbish Britain’s greatest ever racing cyclist (and my ex-club mate) yet one more time. But there are some more remarks he made last year which need to be
looked at. Plus here is my appearance at the beginning of Wiggogate on Sky News after 2: 41 at 11.34.43
"It is a beast of a car, it’s got all the safety features you can imagine"
Some questions about this incident: Continue reading
Why Bradley Wiggins is so wrong: Part Two: “Road safety” ideology and the culture of cyclist subservience
Bradley Wiggins has (partly) backtracked on his comments made on August 1st. However, there is no fundamental change in the key ideological elements which were present in his original statement. They tell us a lot about the cultural barriers to achieving safety for cyclists and other road users. Continue reading
Car culture has suffocated the global warming agenda
The following letter written by RDRF Chair Dr. Robert Davis was published in thecurrent issue of Local Transport Today: Continue reading
MAYOR JOHNSON – Getting the numbers wrong
There has been justified anger at the absurd – and dangerous – claim by Mayor Johnson that: “I’ve seen a figure, I think, of 62%, which
is the high proportion of cycling KSIs (killed or seriously injured) that are associated with some infraction by the cyclists themselves of the rules of the
road.” This has been jumped on with a review of the available evidence showing how wrong this statement is by the CTC . The London Cycling Campaign have also demanded to know the
origins of these supposed “statistics” in a splendid corrective . Ths reaction to Mayor Johnson’s gaffe here is excellent: but there is more to comment on in this case. Continue reading
What do they have in common?
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. Continue reading
Why the Addison Lee saga is important
- 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: Continue reading
Campaign season for the safety of cyclists – we have been here before
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? Continue reading
“Sorry mate…”
Eilidh Cairns;Gary Mason; Tom Barrett; Photos from:RoadPeace; The Times; 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.” Continue reading
Road Danger Reduction Forum 