The following letter written by RDRF Chair Dr. Robert Davis was published in thecurrent issue of Local Transport Today: Continue reading
Category Archives: “Road Safety”
Another conference – and why getting the numbers right is important
Forgive us for highlighting what should be a rather obvious statistical mistake. However, it reveals, yet again, an underlying mind-set which has seriously negative implications for real road safety and sustainable transport policy. Hopefully this matter will be raised at the forthcoming “Cycle Summit 2012” . 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
One way that Government Ministers disciminate against more and safer cycling
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. 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
Will the Parliamentary debate do any good?
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. Continue reading
Parliamentary debate on Cyclist Safety
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!) Continue reading
Campaign season for the safety of cyclists – who cares if cycling is dangerous?
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. Continue reading
Road Danger Reduction Forum 