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
RDRF response to DfT consultation on Fixed Penalty Notices for careless driving
This is our response to the DfT’s “A consultation on changes to the treatment of penalties for careless driving and other motoring offences” . It states that the Government recognises that “careless driving is a serious road safety problem”. Do the proposals treat it as such? No, we don’t think so. The measure proposed is pathetic with regard to the scale of suggested FPN ticketing, with inadequate fines and an unjustified reliance on remedial training of offenders. Here is our response: Continue reading
Some other things wrong withTfL’s “Towards a Road Safety Action Plan for London: 2020”
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
Disgraceful: TfL’s “Towards a Road Safety Action Plan for London: 2020”
Transport for London is holding a consultation process about this document until 28th September 2012. Obviously we wouldn’t expect a break from traditional “road safety” ideology in such a
document, but this one is particularly bad. Our colleagues in the CTC, for example, have criticised it for victim blaming and not moving forward from the 1960s. And there is one absolutely disgraceful feature to it. Continue reading
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
London Assembly enquiry into cycling and cycling safety
If you are interested in making your submission to this, look here. Ours is below here: Continue reading
"It is a beast of a car, it’s got all the safety features you can imagine"
Some questions about this incident: Continue reading
"Disaster waiting to happen": The London Bike Hire Scheme and why Bradley Wiggins was so wrong (Part Four)
I really didn’t want to rubbish Britain’s greatest ever racing cyclist (and my ex-club mate) yet again. But he made some interestingly mistaken remarks last year about London’s bike hire scheme which have not been reported so widely, and which refer to some fundamentals about safety on the road, so do take a look. Continue reading
Is Transport for London really on track with its cycling target?
The graph below shows how Transport for London believes its Target for Growth in Cycling is on track. My analysis of their graph suggests that this is not so. Continue reading
Why Bradley Wiggins is so wrong: Part Three: Should cyclists be allowed to wear helmets?
Let’s get to the core of Bradley Wiggins’ (since partly retracted) comments which have caused such frenzied debate. We are actually going to have a brief look at the accumulated evidence on the
effects of cycle helmet wear – something which is rarely done. What this indicates is a remarkable lack of evidence of benefits. (This is apart from the diversionary – “red herring” – and the “dangerising “effects of helmet advocacy which are themselves worryingly negative.)
effects of cycle helmet wear – something which is rarely done. What this indicates is a remarkable lack of evidence of benefits. (This is apart from the diversionary – “red herring” – and the “dangerising “effects of helmet advocacy which are themselves worryingly negative.)
Although my view is that cyclists should indeed be allowed to wear helmets, this is on the basis of allowing all kinds of behaviours which have minimal, zero, or indeed negative benefits for the
user. It would be quite possible for “road safety” professionals with a commitment to prohibiting certain behaviours to do so. The point is to show the absence of positive evidence and to open the Pandora’s Box of road user response to danger, as we do below… Continue reading
user. It would be quite possible for “road safety” professionals with a commitment to prohibiting certain behaviours to do so. The point is to show the absence of positive evidence and to open the Pandora’s Box of road user response to danger, as we do below… Continue reading
Road Danger Reduction Forum 