This is the bombshell headline reported by the BBC in its report on this debate on the Today progamme between Prof. Stephen Glaister of the RAC Foundation, a respected transport research organization, and Claire Armstrong, who does not represent a respected transport research organization - at least, not if your definition of "respected transport research organization" includes the willingness to subject your research to peer review by others in the field or get it published by relevant academic journals. She represents "Safe Speed", who are, it appears, an organization representing people who simply don't want to believe that speed causes road collisions, makes them more likely and makes the consequences of them worse. According to George Monbiot, it is a "a lobby group claiming to stand for one thing [road safety], but in reality standing for its opposite [the removal of both speed limits and their means of enforcement]"
Such people, it seems, are prepared to indulge in all manner of cherry-picking of evidence and bad science to "prove" that "speed does not cause accidents", when there is a positive tsunami of evidence not just from this country but from all around the world that the opposite is the case. In the debate, Armstrong parroted "regression to the mean" as if this alone means that 2+2 actually equals 3. Glaister pointed out that the RAC's report does take account of regression to the mean (as you'd expect from any statistical analysis worth its salt).
Armstrong also suggested that speed was a factor in only 6% of accidents. The Transport Research Laboratory dispute this, according to this source:
"The factors involved [in collisions] include, as TRL have pointed out to ABD and others on numerous occasions, more than one causation which would relate to speed. For example, Loss of control of vehicle, Failed to avoid vehicle/object in carriageway, the top two 'precipitating factors', will both be strongly influenced by speed."
I deconstructed Safe Speed's website a couple of years ago in a series of posts:
http://cycalogical.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/anti-speed-camera-arguments-1-deaths.html
http://cycalogical.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/anti-speed-camera-arguments-2.html
http://cycalogical.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/anti-speed-camera-arguments-3.html
http://cycalogical.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/anti-speed-camera-arguments-4-attitude.html
http://cycalogical.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/anti-speed-camera-arguments-5.html
If anyone at the BBC is reading this I suggest you take a look before you invite these people onto your programmes and give them equal billing with someone who has any more credibility on the subject of road safety than Donald Duck. How much is the license fee again?
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Friday, August 9, 2013
60MPH Rural Tracks
Joe Wilkins was a family man, a firefighter, a father of two, and by all accounts a universally well-liked man.
He was killed on his bike, by a Ford Focus travelling at 60MPH, on an unrestricted (60MPH) road, Eaton Road, near Appleton in Oxfordshire.
Here is an image of the road:
View Larger Map
As you can see this is a narrow country road. The collision happened at 9:20PM on May 24th 2012. Sunset would have been at 9PM, so there would likely still have been some natural light. It appears Wilkins' bike had no lights or reflectors. The exact point the collision occurred isn't stated in the reports I've seen.
At 60MPH, things happen pretty quickly. You do not have much time to see and react to any hazards, such as pedestrians or cyclists, who may be hidden temporarily from view. For example, in the image above, there is a slight right-hand deviation in the road that limits visibility. It is roughly 350 feet from the speed limit sign to the limit of visibility. The stopping distance for a car in the dry from 60MPH is 240 feet. So that leaves 110 feet - that's just over a second at 60MPH - spare. With a typical flashing cycle light, it will probably take a couple of flashes for even an alert driver to register the presence of a cyclist, so there really is very little margin for error, even under ideal conditions. Now consider that these figures may be optimistic. If a cyclist is travelling towards the driver at 20MPH, not unlikely with a fit rider on a level road, the distance in which a driver would have to react and stop is significantly reduced.
It seems pretty clear to me that driving at 60MPH on this type of road even on a well-lit day is not safe. At night, while eating a sandwich, that's got to qualify as dangerous, doesn't it? Well, in the UK justice system, apparently not.
In 2010, 49% of UK road deaths took place on single-carriageway rural roads with a 60MPH limit. According to Ralph Smyth, chair of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, "It seems strange that you've got minor roads, often that are just tarmaced tracks, that have a speed limit of 60mph - just 10mph less than the motorways."
We agree.
He was killed on his bike, by a Ford Focus travelling at 60MPH, on an unrestricted (60MPH) road, Eaton Road, near Appleton in Oxfordshire.
Here is an image of the road:
View Larger Map
As you can see this is a narrow country road. The collision happened at 9:20PM on May 24th 2012. Sunset would have been at 9PM, so there would likely still have been some natural light. It appears Wilkins' bike had no lights or reflectors. The exact point the collision occurred isn't stated in the reports I've seen.
At 60MPH, things happen pretty quickly. You do not have much time to see and react to any hazards, such as pedestrians or cyclists, who may be hidden temporarily from view. For example, in the image above, there is a slight right-hand deviation in the road that limits visibility. It is roughly 350 feet from the speed limit sign to the limit of visibility. The stopping distance for a car in the dry from 60MPH is 240 feet. So that leaves 110 feet - that's just over a second at 60MPH - spare. With a typical flashing cycle light, it will probably take a couple of flashes for even an alert driver to register the presence of a cyclist, so there really is very little margin for error, even under ideal conditions. Now consider that these figures may be optimistic. If a cyclist is travelling towards the driver at 20MPH, not unlikely with a fit rider on a level road, the distance in which a driver would have to react and stop is significantly reduced.
It seems pretty clear to me that driving at 60MPH on this type of road even on a well-lit day is not safe. At night, while eating a sandwich, that's got to qualify as dangerous, doesn't it? Well, in the UK justice system, apparently not.
In 2010, 49% of UK road deaths took place on single-carriageway rural roads with a 60MPH limit. According to Ralph Smyth, chair of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, "It seems strange that you've got minor roads, often that are just tarmaced tracks, that have a speed limit of 60mph - just 10mph less than the motorways."
We agree.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Half of Londoners say Roads are Too Dangerous
According to a survey for London Councils reported by London24, half of Londoners would cycle more if road safety were improved.
In other news, bears crap in the woods, the Pope is a Catholic, and Eric Pickles enjoys the occasional pie.
In other news, bears crap in the woods, the Pope is a Catholic, and Eric Pickles enjoys the occasional pie.
Saturday, August 3, 2013
The Gospel
1. In the beginning there were Roads, and there were Bicycles. And the Bicycles dwelt on the Roads. And there was peace in the land.
2. Then unto the Land came Motor Vehicles. They went forth and multiplied, and became strong in number, and mighty, and spread throughout the Land.
3. And the anger of the Motor Vehicles was terrible to behold. The Motor Vehicles slew many men, and the women and children were sore afraid.
4. The people did hunger and thirst after justice.
5. There came forth into the land Prophets, who did offer to banish the evil of Cycle-Death from the land. They painted Lines upon the Road. But the people saw the paint did not protect them.
6. There came forth into the Land other Prophets, and counselled the People to disguise themselves in silken raiments of many colours and ride amongst the Motor Vehicles. But the worshippers of the Motor Vehicles mocked the people, and drove them from the land.
7. Still the women and children were sore afraid, and the people did hunger and thirst after justice.
8. There came forth a Prophet named Boris. He promised to lead the People upon a True Path called Superhighway.
9. Boris declared that the colour of the Superhighway should be blue and would have great powers of healing and protection between the hours of 7AM and 10AM and between 4PM and 7PM excluding the Sabbath, which should be a day of rest.
10. Boris addressed the people. "Cycle in Numbers and in thy Numbers, there shall be Safety. Be not afraid, and keep thy wits about thee!"
11. But the people, especially the women and children, saw the power of the Motor Vehicles was still great in the land, and was not diminished, and they were still sore afraid, and they saw the blue paint did not protect them.
12. There came forth into the Land many Wise Bloggers. The Wise Bloggers wrote many scriptures about the promised land of Holland, and they called Boris a false prophet. They commanded that the people no longer worship painted idols.
13. The people gathered in great numbers, in the place that is called Embankment, and spake unto Boris. "Lead us to the promised land of Holland, if you are a true Prophet." Boris saw that the Wise Bloggers spoke the truth, and he again addressed the people. "I will lead you to the promised land of Holland, where possible".
14. Boris did summon Andrew of the tribe of Gilligan. On the first day, Andrew spoke with many powerful men. On the second day, Andrew made many plans. On the third, fourth and fifth day, he rested.
15. Er, that's it. We're still waiting...
2. Then unto the Land came Motor Vehicles. They went forth and multiplied, and became strong in number, and mighty, and spread throughout the Land.
3. And the anger of the Motor Vehicles was terrible to behold. The Motor Vehicles slew many men, and the women and children were sore afraid.
4. The people did hunger and thirst after justice.
5. There came forth into the land Prophets, who did offer to banish the evil of Cycle-Death from the land. They painted Lines upon the Road. But the people saw the paint did not protect them.
6. There came forth into the Land other Prophets, and counselled the People to disguise themselves in silken raiments of many colours and ride amongst the Motor Vehicles. But the worshippers of the Motor Vehicles mocked the people, and drove them from the land.
7. Still the women and children were sore afraid, and the people did hunger and thirst after justice.
8. There came forth a Prophet named Boris. He promised to lead the People upon a True Path called Superhighway.
9. Boris declared that the colour of the Superhighway should be blue and would have great powers of healing and protection between the hours of 7AM and 10AM and between 4PM and 7PM excluding the Sabbath, which should be a day of rest.
10. Boris addressed the people. "Cycle in Numbers and in thy Numbers, there shall be Safety. Be not afraid, and keep thy wits about thee!"
11. But the people, especially the women and children, saw the power of the Motor Vehicles was still great in the land, and was not diminished, and they were still sore afraid, and they saw the blue paint did not protect them.
12. There came forth into the Land many Wise Bloggers. The Wise Bloggers wrote many scriptures about the promised land of Holland, and they called Boris a false prophet. They commanded that the people no longer worship painted idols.
13. The people gathered in great numbers, in the place that is called Embankment, and spake unto Boris. "Lead us to the promised land of Holland, if you are a true Prophet." Boris saw that the Wise Bloggers spoke the truth, and he again addressed the people. "I will lead you to the promised land of Holland, where possible".
14. Boris did summon Andrew of the tribe of Gilligan. On the first day, Andrew spoke with many powerful men. On the second day, Andrew made many plans. On the third, fourth and fifth day, he rested.
15. Er, that's it. We're still waiting...
Monday, July 22, 2013
Red Light Jumpers
As a rule, we don't get all holier-than-thou on this blog about RLJing.
However, there is a difference between on the one hand riding carefully with full awareness of the hazards around you, and respect for the safety of others but with a "relaxed" interpretation of the rules, and on the other hand, putting other road users in danger.
On The Mall this morning:
Above, you can see the lights are red and there's a lady waiting to cross. If you really have to jump the light, at least steer over to the middle of the road and give her plenty of room. Not like this:
And certainly not like this, when she's actually stepping into the road, and you have to swerve to avoid her, because you haven't got a clue what's going on beyond the end of your nose:
However, there is a difference between on the one hand riding carefully with full awareness of the hazards around you, and respect for the safety of others but with a "relaxed" interpretation of the rules, and on the other hand, putting other road users in danger.
On The Mall this morning:
Above, you can see the lights are red and there's a lady waiting to cross. If you really have to jump the light, at least steer over to the middle of the road and give her plenty of room. Not like this:
And certainly not like this, when she's actually stepping into the road, and you have to swerve to avoid her, because you haven't got a clue what's going on beyond the end of your nose:
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Holborn
Three deaths of cyclists in the space of three weeks. Grim reading, and an indictment of the lack of progress in improving safety on the highways of this city.
In general we are supportive on this blog of the Mayor's plans for improving the experience for cyclists. But the problem is that the delivery of even the first of those plans is still some way off. Even the most optimistic of observers would struggle to conclude that we won't have to wait decades before we have anything approximating to a London-wide safe cycle network. And in the mean time, cyclists have to put up with a road network that in parts is designed as if no-one cycled in London.
So it follows that there needs to be a short-term plan in place to mitigate the worst excesses of existing car-centric highway design. And one of the worst examples of this is Holborn, where Alan Neve was tragically killed on Monday.
The stretch on which this fatality took place is 4 lanes wide and one-way as you can see from the picture. The left and right lanes are left and right-turn-only respectively, so if you want to go straight on, you need to get right in the middle of the traffic. When the lights change, it's a racetrack, and you'll have vehicles passing you left and right. There is no advance stop box, no cycle lane and no bus lane. (The road is usually full of traffic of course, which you can't see from the picture. You will however notice a female cyclist, on the pavement, no doubt deciding that the chance of a fine is a worthwhile tradeoff to avoid a chance encounter with a construction lorry).
To make a bad situation a lot worse, along with the multiple lanes, the Holborn gyratory is also surrounded by a network of one-way streets. In the immediate vicinity, the following roads are one-way (working around the points of the compass from North):
Queen Square
Old Gloucester Street
Boswell Street
Harpur Street (status not clear. Some signage indicates one-way).
Theobalds Road
Old North Street (has a cycle contraflow)
Red Lion Square (all sides)
Dane Street
Catton Street
A40
Southampton Row is effectively two one-way streets at this point.
High Holborn
Whetstone Park
Lincoln's Inn Fields (2 sides)
Newman's Row
Portugal Street
St Clement's Lane
Keeley Street
Kean Street
Drury Lane
Parker Street
Macklin Street
Newton Street (has a cycle contraflow)
High Holborn (west of Kingsway)
Southampton Place
Bloomsbury Square
Vernon Place
View Larger Map
In fact, it would have been a lot quicker to list the streets that aren't one-way. Unless you have a map-like knowledge of the back streets, it is very difficult to avoid the dangerous thoroughfares in this area.
Next we have to ask why all these streets are one-way. Quite simply, the area gets very congested, and to avoid motors trying to rat-run their way around the pinch-points and creating increased road danger followed by total gridlock, it's been necessary to close off the side-streets one by one precisely to make the main roads impossible to avoid. Because the planners didn't consider the effect on cyclists, who don't create congestion or significant road danger, bike-riders are caught in the same fine-meshed net as other traffic and forced onto roads that don't have any provision for cycling, and furthermore are designed in a way that presents the maximum possible danger to vulnerable road users as a side order. Only two of the 27 one-way streets listed above have a cycle contraflow and there appear to be no exceptions for cyclists.
Getting rid of one-way restrictions for cyclists is an easy and cheap thing to do. I also do not believe it is beyond the wit of man to devise a clearly-signposted set of routes along the backstreets in this area, perhaps with a couple of strategically-placed crossings to enable safe passage across the major roads. All this could be done within the space of a year, probably less if we treated the issue as a something that could result in unnecessary loss of life.
This time last year, a Westminster Council spokesman asked:
"Why should cyclists all of a sudden get investment ahead of motorists?"
The answer to this question is in Holborn. In the past, we invested in motoring to the exclusion of other modes. Not only was cycling not invested in, it was deliberately designed out and marginalized, on the basis that cycling was an old-fashioned and unsatisfactory way of getting around, obstructed the free flow of motor traffic, and everyone would soon be able to drive everywhere. That policy failed, and we need to fix the consequences. To say that Holborn needs investment in cycling is a bit like saying Hiroshima needed investment after the second world war.
In general we are supportive on this blog of the Mayor's plans for improving the experience for cyclists. But the problem is that the delivery of even the first of those plans is still some way off. Even the most optimistic of observers would struggle to conclude that we won't have to wait decades before we have anything approximating to a London-wide safe cycle network. And in the mean time, cyclists have to put up with a road network that in parts is designed as if no-one cycled in London.
So it follows that there needs to be a short-term plan in place to mitigate the worst excesses of existing car-centric highway design. And one of the worst examples of this is Holborn, where Alan Neve was tragically killed on Monday.
The stretch on which this fatality took place is 4 lanes wide and one-way as you can see from the picture. The left and right lanes are left and right-turn-only respectively, so if you want to go straight on, you need to get right in the middle of the traffic. When the lights change, it's a racetrack, and you'll have vehicles passing you left and right. There is no advance stop box, no cycle lane and no bus lane. (The road is usually full of traffic of course, which you can't see from the picture. You will however notice a female cyclist, on the pavement, no doubt deciding that the chance of a fine is a worthwhile tradeoff to avoid a chance encounter with a construction lorry).
To make a bad situation a lot worse, along with the multiple lanes, the Holborn gyratory is also surrounded by a network of one-way streets. In the immediate vicinity, the following roads are one-way (working around the points of the compass from North):
Queen Square
Old Gloucester Street
Boswell Street
Harpur Street (status not clear. Some signage indicates one-way).
Theobalds Road
Old North Street (has a cycle contraflow)
Red Lion Square (all sides)
Dane Street
Catton Street
A40
Southampton Row is effectively two one-way streets at this point.
High Holborn
Whetstone Park
Lincoln's Inn Fields (2 sides)
Newman's Row
Portugal Street
St Clement's Lane
Keeley Street
Kean Street
Drury Lane
Parker Street
Macklin Street
Newton Street (has a cycle contraflow)
High Holborn (west of Kingsway)
Southampton Place
Bloomsbury Square
Vernon Place
View Larger Map
In fact, it would have been a lot quicker to list the streets that aren't one-way. Unless you have a map-like knowledge of the back streets, it is very difficult to avoid the dangerous thoroughfares in this area.
Next we have to ask why all these streets are one-way. Quite simply, the area gets very congested, and to avoid motors trying to rat-run their way around the pinch-points and creating increased road danger followed by total gridlock, it's been necessary to close off the side-streets one by one precisely to make the main roads impossible to avoid. Because the planners didn't consider the effect on cyclists, who don't create congestion or significant road danger, bike-riders are caught in the same fine-meshed net as other traffic and forced onto roads that don't have any provision for cycling, and furthermore are designed in a way that presents the maximum possible danger to vulnerable road users as a side order. Only two of the 27 one-way streets listed above have a cycle contraflow and there appear to be no exceptions for cyclists.
Getting rid of one-way restrictions for cyclists is an easy and cheap thing to do. I also do not believe it is beyond the wit of man to devise a clearly-signposted set of routes along the backstreets in this area, perhaps with a couple of strategically-placed crossings to enable safe passage across the major roads. All this could be done within the space of a year, probably less if we treated the issue as a something that could result in unnecessary loss of life.
This time last year, a Westminster Council spokesman asked:
"Why should cyclists all of a sudden get investment ahead of motorists?"
The answer to this question is in Holborn. In the past, we invested in motoring to the exclusion of other modes. Not only was cycling not invested in, it was deliberately designed out and marginalized, on the basis that cycling was an old-fashioned and unsatisfactory way of getting around, obstructed the free flow of motor traffic, and everyone would soon be able to drive everywhere. That policy failed, and we need to fix the consequences. To say that Holborn needs investment in cycling is a bit like saying Hiroshima needed investment after the second world war.
Friday, July 5, 2013
Ride London - A Bridge Too Far?
Ride London is a weekend of cycling, including:
"Freecycle" - don't make the mistake of thinking this is a car boot sale, it's what was previously known as Skyride, and before that Freewheel, and before that Prince.
London-Surrey 100 - this is a 100-mile ride, billed as the "largest charity fundraising cycle event in the world", but still not big enough - limited to 20,000 riders and massively oversubscribed.
There's also a pro road race along the London-Surrey 100 course, and some criterium racing.
You could say that anything that raises the profile of cycling is a good thing. To Cycalogical, it seems like a bit of a missed opportunity. The London-Surrey 100 is going to result in the closure of Tower Bridge, Southwark Bridge, Westminster Bridge, Lambeth Bridge and Vauxhall Bridge, Chelsea Bridge, Albert Bridge, Putney Bridge, Chiswick Bridge, Kingston Bridge and Hampton Court Bridge.
That's a lot of bridges, and a lot of disruption. There are some spoilsport myopic car-dwellers who will moan that cyclists are getting everything for nothing, considering they don't pay any road tax (whatever that is). The irony is that to take part in the London-Surrey 100, you do have to pony up £50 or so, which is a lot more than a day's congestion charge and more than a year's road tax for quite a lot of modern vehicles.
If you're not one of the lucky, £50-poorer cyclists, but still want to ride your bike, then tough luck. It looks like you won't be allowed on the London-Surrey 100 course, and you may well be affected by the knock-on effects of the road/bridge closures. If you want to go up to the Freecycle event on the previous day, it will be the same story as previous years - once you get out of the cordoned-off central London section, you're back into the crap, hostile London environment that delivers the worst air quality of any European capital and one of the lowest cycling modal shares. There's been no attempt to provide any road closures or any kind of traffic-limited environment to get there and back. And once you're in central London, the route is about the same length as it was for previous Skyrides, which proved inadequate for the numbers who actually turn up, resulting in a very slow-moving queue.
RideLondon seems to be delivering a lot of the disruption of a traffic-free day, but with none of the advantages. One of the Mayor's cycling champion Andrew Gilligan's main complaints is that cycling needs to be broadened out of it's MAMIL/young-fit-men niche, yet what the London-Surrey 100 is doing is the precise opposite. If we're going to close a lot of London's road system for a day, let's do a proper job and give ordinary people a taste of liveable streets. Let them hear birdsong, experience tranquility, sniff clean air and perhaps even pootle around slowly on a bike.
And what about the other 363 days of the year? It makes no sense to pull out all the stops for one rather exclusive annual event that encourages cycling, yet presents cyclists in their daily lives with an environment that makes them feel as out-of-place as a British woman in the second week of Wimbledon.
"Freecycle" - don't make the mistake of thinking this is a car boot sale, it's what was previously known as Skyride, and before that Freewheel, and before that Prince.
London-Surrey 100 - this is a 100-mile ride, billed as the "largest charity fundraising cycle event in the world", but still not big enough - limited to 20,000 riders and massively oversubscribed.
There's also a pro road race along the London-Surrey 100 course, and some criterium racing.
You could say that anything that raises the profile of cycling is a good thing. To Cycalogical, it seems like a bit of a missed opportunity. The London-Surrey 100 is going to result in the closure of Tower Bridge, Southwark Bridge, Westminster Bridge, Lambeth Bridge and Vauxhall Bridge, Chelsea Bridge, Albert Bridge, Putney Bridge, Chiswick Bridge, Kingston Bridge and Hampton Court Bridge.
That's a lot of bridges, and a lot of disruption. There are some spoilsport myopic car-dwellers who will moan that cyclists are getting everything for nothing, considering they don't pay any road tax (whatever that is). The irony is that to take part in the London-Surrey 100, you do have to pony up £50 or so, which is a lot more than a day's congestion charge and more than a year's road tax for quite a lot of modern vehicles.
If you're not one of the lucky, £50-poorer cyclists, but still want to ride your bike, then tough luck. It looks like you won't be allowed on the London-Surrey 100 course, and you may well be affected by the knock-on effects of the road/bridge closures. If you want to go up to the Freecycle event on the previous day, it will be the same story as previous years - once you get out of the cordoned-off central London section, you're back into the crap, hostile London environment that delivers the worst air quality of any European capital and one of the lowest cycling modal shares. There's been no attempt to provide any road closures or any kind of traffic-limited environment to get there and back. And once you're in central London, the route is about the same length as it was for previous Skyrides, which proved inadequate for the numbers who actually turn up, resulting in a very slow-moving queue.
RideLondon seems to be delivering a lot of the disruption of a traffic-free day, but with none of the advantages. One of the Mayor's cycling champion Andrew Gilligan's main complaints is that cycling needs to be broadened out of it's MAMIL/young-fit-men niche, yet what the London-Surrey 100 is doing is the precise opposite. If we're going to close a lot of London's road system for a day, let's do a proper job and give ordinary people a taste of liveable streets. Let them hear birdsong, experience tranquility, sniff clean air and perhaps even pootle around slowly on a bike.
And what about the other 363 days of the year? It makes no sense to pull out all the stops for one rather exclusive annual event that encourages cycling, yet presents cyclists in their daily lives with an environment that makes them feel as out-of-place as a British woman in the second week of Wimbledon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)