The 1,000,000 mark has been reached, and the lucky millionth rider is showered with goodies. Disappointingly, it's not a gold-plated Boris Bike; instead a "free five-year subscription to the scheme for himself or herself plus three friends. The rider will also receive £1,000 to spend on cycle accessories at the Bobbin Bicycles boutique". That's a lot of accessories. I wonder if they're allowed to buy a bike?
Meanwhile, the London Assembly Transport Committee (which the BBC can't spell) have been grilling TfL's cycling supremos. Apparently they believe the hire scheme will break even in 3 years. Which would make it not only the greenest, cheapest and quickest way of getting around London, but also the least subsidized. Which in turn begs some rather awkward questions about why cycling is permanently relegated to last place in TfL's road user hierarchy.
The Committee were also due to quiz TfL about the Cycle Superhighways, and I'll blog about that as soon as I get details. And, as you'd expect, I'll give it both barrels.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Cycle Infrastructure: The Wrong Path
A planned cycle path in Gloucestershire looks like the paradigm of what is wrong with cycle infrastructure management in the UK.
1. It sounds like a fantastic path, following a disused railway line, and will accomodate all non-motorized users.
2. It is funded, at least in part, by the National Lottery charitable funds.
3. A Parish Council has voted against the scheme due to "increased parking issues and maintenance costs".
Why is cycling infrastructure funded by charity? Road building isn't funded by charity, neither are the railways or the buses. They're all subsidized through taxes.
Parking issues? This is a bike path! Ironic, isn't it, that an attempt to provide sustainable alternatives to the car is being opposed because of problems caused by...the car. Isn't it strange how virtually anything that will attract the public is a problem because of "parking issues". This attitude is transference. The cycle path isn't the problem; the problem is cars. We cannot allow "parking issues" to be a blanket veto on doing anything worthwhile. We either need to allow that people are free to drive their cars anywhere they like and accept the consequences, or we need to restrict that freedom, or we need to provide alternatives. Right now, we're doing none of these things at a national policy level; as a result, people at a local level are left to clear up the resulting mess.
People don't see a safe and economically-viable alternative to using their cars. That in turn would be partly because cycle infrastructure is so laughably inadequate. There are a large number of people who regard cycling as loading their family's bikes onto the back of their 4x4 and driving to somewhere that has a safe, off-road bike path. They wouldn't dream of cycling anywhere on a road, because it's not safe. But if someone builds a bike path where they live, they'll have other people's 4x4s clogging up their street and they surely to goodness don't want that.
If there were more decent bike paths, people might not feel the need to drive 50 miles in their 4x4 with the bike rack on the back. Then we wouldn't need to spend a fortune sorting out the parking and congestion problems that result.
The London bike hire scheme has proved that people want to cycle. Yet successive goverments have succeeded in squashing this desire through chronic underinvestment. And what they've saved on not providing cycle facilities, they've spent on the health consequences of the nation's sedentary lifestyle: England is now the 4th most obese country in the world with Scotland at No. 2.
And why is path maintenance cost an issue? No-one is protesting about the humungous cost of maintaining roads. Why is this path not maintained out of the same budget as roads maintenance? Simple. Because cycling is the Cinderella of transport, relying on charity. The ugly sisters have rolled up at the ball in their stretch limos, leaving the engines running while they eat all the canapes. And the fairy godmother has turned into Philip Hammond, so there's no happy ending.
1. It sounds like a fantastic path, following a disused railway line, and will accomodate all non-motorized users.
2. It is funded, at least in part, by the National Lottery charitable funds.
3. A Parish Council has voted against the scheme due to "increased parking issues and maintenance costs".
Why is cycling infrastructure funded by charity? Road building isn't funded by charity, neither are the railways or the buses. They're all subsidized through taxes.
Parking issues? This is a bike path! Ironic, isn't it, that an attempt to provide sustainable alternatives to the car is being opposed because of problems caused by...the car. Isn't it strange how virtually anything that will attract the public is a problem because of "parking issues". This attitude is transference. The cycle path isn't the problem; the problem is cars. We cannot allow "parking issues" to be a blanket veto on doing anything worthwhile. We either need to allow that people are free to drive their cars anywhere they like and accept the consequences, or we need to restrict that freedom, or we need to provide alternatives. Right now, we're doing none of these things at a national policy level; as a result, people at a local level are left to clear up the resulting mess.
People don't see a safe and economically-viable alternative to using their cars. That in turn would be partly because cycle infrastructure is so laughably inadequate. There are a large number of people who regard cycling as loading their family's bikes onto the back of their 4x4 and driving to somewhere that has a safe, off-road bike path. They wouldn't dream of cycling anywhere on a road, because it's not safe. But if someone builds a bike path where they live, they'll have other people's 4x4s clogging up their street and they surely to goodness don't want that.
If there were more decent bike paths, people might not feel the need to drive 50 miles in their 4x4 with the bike rack on the back. Then we wouldn't need to spend a fortune sorting out the parking and congestion problems that result.
The London bike hire scheme has proved that people want to cycle. Yet successive goverments have succeeded in squashing this desire through chronic underinvestment. And what they've saved on not providing cycle facilities, they've spent on the health consequences of the nation's sedentary lifestyle: England is now the 4th most obese country in the world with Scotland at No. 2.
And why is path maintenance cost an issue? No-one is protesting about the humungous cost of maintaining roads. Why is this path not maintained out of the same budget as roads maintenance? Simple. Because cycling is the Cinderella of transport, relying on charity. The ugly sisters have rolled up at the ball in their stretch limos, leaving the engines running while they eat all the canapes. And the fairy godmother has turned into Philip Hammond, so there's no happy ending.
Christopher Booker goes to the doctor...
Well-known climate-change-denier Christopher Booker goes to the doctor.
Doctor: I'm sorry to have to tell you this Mr Booker, but you have cancer.
Booker: Really?
Doctor: Yes. You'll need surgery and chemotherapy.
Booker: Sounds painful. And expensive. I really haven't got the time or the money for it. I'm saving for a new car...
Doctor: You won't live to drive a new car if you don't have treatment. If you don't have treatment, you'll die.
Booker: Are you sure?
Doctor: Yes. Almost certainly.
Booker: I read somewhere that chemotherapy doesn't work.
Doctor: I assure you it does.
Booker: In any case, I'm feeling fine today. I don't think I have cancer. I think you've got it wrong.
Doctor: The tests are conclusive. Anyway, when you last came in, you were complaining about feeling exhausted.
Booker: The tests have been falsified. In any case I've felt exhaused before. Many times before. Just because I feel exhausted doesn't mean I have cancer. I had a large spot on my nose when I felt exhausted. That's probably why.
Doctor: I really don't think so. It's imperative you get treatment -
Booker: Oh, I get it. You own shares in the drug companies, don't you? You're going to make money if I have treatment!
Doctor: No. You need treatment. Otherwise you'll die.
Booker: I'll die anyway. Dying is a natural process. It's got nothing to do with cancer. Cancer is natural - a cancer is just a growth. You're just scaremongering. People have been dying throughout history.
Doctor: (pointing to bookshelf) I have lots of books written by experts that explain the science behind cancer - how it's caused, what its effects are, how it can be treated. You're welcome to read them.
Booker: All those people are in on the conspiracy? This has to be the biggest hoax ever perpetrated!
Doctor: I'm sorry to have to tell you this Mr Booker, but you have cancer.
Booker: Really?
Doctor: Yes. You'll need surgery and chemotherapy.
Booker: Sounds painful. And expensive. I really haven't got the time or the money for it. I'm saving for a new car...
Doctor: You won't live to drive a new car if you don't have treatment. If you don't have treatment, you'll die.
Booker: Are you sure?
Doctor: Yes. Almost certainly.
Booker: I read somewhere that chemotherapy doesn't work.
Doctor: I assure you it does.
Booker: In any case, I'm feeling fine today. I don't think I have cancer. I think you've got it wrong.
Doctor: The tests are conclusive. Anyway, when you last came in, you were complaining about feeling exhausted.
Booker: The tests have been falsified. In any case I've felt exhaused before. Many times before. Just because I feel exhausted doesn't mean I have cancer. I had a large spot on my nose when I felt exhausted. That's probably why.
Doctor: I really don't think so. It's imperative you get treatment -
Booker: Oh, I get it. You own shares in the drug companies, don't you? You're going to make money if I have treatment!
Doctor: No. You need treatment. Otherwise you'll die.
Booker: I'll die anyway. Dying is a natural process. It's got nothing to do with cancer. Cancer is natural - a cancer is just a growth. You're just scaremongering. People have been dying throughout history.
Doctor: (pointing to bookshelf) I have lots of books written by experts that explain the science behind cancer - how it's caused, what its effects are, how it can be treated. You're welcome to read them.
Booker: All those people are in on the conspiracy? This has to be the biggest hoax ever perpetrated!
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Speed Cameras: A Study of Studies
Reported in road.cc, Research by the University of Queensland in Brisbane looked at 35 separate studies into the effectiveness of speed cameras in countries including the UK, US, Norway and Holland has come to an unequivocal conclusion.
"While there is variation in the results, the overall finding is clear – speed cameras do reduce injuries and deaths," said lead researcher Cecilia Wilson.
Got that? Philip Hammond doesn't.
Meanwhile, in road.cc again, the AA has written to the aforementioned Transport Secretary Hammond about his decision [not to fund fixed speed cameras] and is due to meet ministers. The organisation said: "The AA is concerned that the views of motorists are not being reflected accurately in this debate and that ultimately lives are at risk."
The AA refers to a public backlash against the switch-off, including in Oxfordshire where all 72 fixed and 89 mobile-site cameras were switched off on August 1. There, Carla Bramble, a 45-year-old housewife and lifelong resident on the A44 Woodstock Road said: “Cars used to slow down when they saw the camera and, because there is another one along the road, they would maintain that speed. But now they belt along the road as fast as they like. People have read the papers and they know that all the cameras are off. They know they can go as fast as they want on this road now, and that is what they seem to be doing."
What Hammond doesn't seem to realise, is that motorists are also pedestrians and cyclists. Motorists live in communities that are blighted by antisocial driving. Motorists are the fathers and mothers of children killed and injured in crashes. Motorists are doctors and nurses, paramedics and police who deal with the consequences of crashes. Motorists in the main support speed cameras, and they do not like one bit the idea that political point-scoring and penny-pinching is being put above safety.
"While there is variation in the results, the overall finding is clear – speed cameras do reduce injuries and deaths," said lead researcher Cecilia Wilson.
Got that? Philip Hammond doesn't.
Meanwhile, in road.cc again, the AA has written to the aforementioned Transport Secretary Hammond about his decision [not to fund fixed speed cameras] and is due to meet ministers. The organisation said: "The AA is concerned that the views of motorists are not being reflected accurately in this debate and that ultimately lives are at risk."
The AA refers to a public backlash against the switch-off, including in Oxfordshire where all 72 fixed and 89 mobile-site cameras were switched off on August 1. There, Carla Bramble, a 45-year-old housewife and lifelong resident on the A44 Woodstock Road said: “Cars used to slow down when they saw the camera and, because there is another one along the road, they would maintain that speed. But now they belt along the road as fast as they like. People have read the papers and they know that all the cameras are off. They know they can go as fast as they want on this road now, and that is what they seem to be doing."
What Hammond doesn't seem to realise, is that motorists are also pedestrians and cyclists. Motorists live in communities that are blighted by antisocial driving. Motorists are the fathers and mothers of children killed and injured in crashes. Motorists are doctors and nurses, paramedics and police who deal with the consequences of crashes. Motorists in the main support speed cameras, and they do not like one bit the idea that political point-scoring and penny-pinching is being put above safety.
Anti Speed Camera Arguments #6: Does Speed Kill ?
Safespeed believe that there has been a trend for speed limits to be lowered without evidence that lowering them will reduce crashes. They believe that speed limits "should never be used to attempt to modify the speed of traffic" and that the claim that "accident risk simply increases with speed...is false". However, they do "welcome properly set speed limits, and welcome speed limit enforcement when speed limits are exceeded in a way that causes danger". (source) Those statements don't sit well together. If you say "you should never attempt to modify the speed of traffic using speed limits", then how would you slow traffic if it is fast enough to cause danger? Their Road Safety Manifesto should give us a clue: it concentrates on "driver training", "road safety culture", and "road safety information should be regularly aired on TV at peak viewing times". Their Manifesto doesn't cite any evidence that any of this will work. It's all supposition and wishful thinking.
Meanwhile, back in the real world:
There is some interesting Dutch research here. It studies the effect of reducing motorway speed limits from 120kph or 100kph to 80kph, accompanied by strict enforcement. The reason it is interesting is that speed limits were reduced not to reduce crashes, but to comply with air quality legislation. So the 'regression-to-mean' effect that Safespeed usually use to cast doubt on the correlation between lower speeds and lower crash rates does not apply. The study says "The effects at A13 Overschie were spectacular (empirical results): the number of accidents decreased by 60% and the number of victims by 90%. Besides, no indications were found of compensatory behaviour (drivers who speed up downstream). The increased safety was caused by lower speeds and lower speed differences."
Futher research: Nilsson (1982) researched speed limit changes from 110 to 90 km/h on Swedish roads. He compared changes in accident risks with roads where the speed limits had remained unchanged, and reported the statistical relations (the regression model) of speed (limits) and accidents. This model is now well-known as the Nilsson formulas. You can read about it here.
But is speed in itself correlated with increased crash risk? According to the EU's road safety experts, "A higher speed increases the likelihood of an accident. Very strong relationships have been established between speed and accident risk: The general relationship holds for all speeds and all roads, but the rate of increase in accident risk varies with initial speed level and road type. Large speed differences at a road also increase the likelihood of an accident. In addition, drivers driving much faster than the average driver have a higher accident risk; it is not yet evident that this is also the case for the slower driver."
Meanwhile, back in the real world:
There is some interesting Dutch research here. It studies the effect of reducing motorway speed limits from 120kph or 100kph to 80kph, accompanied by strict enforcement. The reason it is interesting is that speed limits were reduced not to reduce crashes, but to comply with air quality legislation. So the 'regression-to-mean' effect that Safespeed usually use to cast doubt on the correlation between lower speeds and lower crash rates does not apply. The study says "The effects at A13 Overschie were spectacular (empirical results): the number of accidents decreased by 60% and the number of victims by 90%. Besides, no indications were found of compensatory behaviour (drivers who speed up downstream). The increased safety was caused by lower speeds and lower speed differences."
Futher research: Nilsson (1982) researched speed limit changes from 110 to 90 km/h on Swedish roads. He compared changes in accident risks with roads where the speed limits had remained unchanged, and reported the statistical relations (the regression model) of speed (limits) and accidents. This model is now well-known as the Nilsson formulas. You can read about it here.
But is speed in itself correlated with increased crash risk? According to the EU's road safety experts, "A higher speed increases the likelihood of an accident. Very strong relationships have been established between speed and accident risk: The general relationship holds for all speeds and all roads, but the rate of increase in accident risk varies with initial speed level and road type. Large speed differences at a road also increase the likelihood of an accident. In addition, drivers driving much faster than the average driver have a higher accident risk; it is not yet evident that this is also the case for the slower driver."
Battersea Cycle Route
If you are a resident of, or traveller through, this fine neighborhood, you may have noticed an agitated-looking cyclist riding around in a large circle and swearing a lot. That was me. I've been trying to follow the official quiet route through Battersea, and frankly, the London Cycle Network signing leaves a lot to be desired, at least if your objective travelling through rather than taking up residence in Battersea. Sometimes the signs are there and point you in the right direction. Sometimes the signs are there, but point you in the wrong direction. Sometimes they are there, but hidden. And sometimes they are missing.
Come with me, dear reader, on a quick tour and I'll show you what I mean (sorry about the quality of some of the photos):
We've just crossed Trinity Road, we're in Nantes Close. Where now?
OK, we're back on track, over Plough Road and in John Baines Road (see above). We need to go left onto the pavement, just where that black car is in centre-shot. Again, no sign. If you look very carefully, just to the left of the tree, you'll see the blue direction sign in Winstanley Road. Onward to Clapham Junction, and across Falcon Road into Este Road. Suddenly, a dead-end sign (below)! Where did I go wrong?
Never mind, keep going, and the blue signs appear again:
Left onto a path and into Wayford Street. At the end we have this:
There's only one sign, saying (I think) "Battersea, The City, Greenwich". But it seems to be pointing back where we came from. Or is it left? It so happens we want to go right into Cabul Road. Aptly named - the infrastructure here is rather like you'd find in Afghanistan.
And another dead-end sign (above). But we'll persevere:
...and we're rewarded with a blue sign.On along the path to Latchmere Road.
Across Latchmere Road and along the footway. A blue sign, I think saying End of Route. But anyway, nothing to indicate we need to go right into Burns Road.
But it's OK, once you're in Burns Road the blue signs are back with a vengeance (above), sending you right when you should be going straight on.
And if you do go straight on, you're rewarded (above) with a blue cycle route sign. That's nice. Right at Reform Street (no pubs here, which is a shame as I could use a drink), left into the sylvan paradise of Sheepcote Lane, then Culvert Road. We should be going immediately right into Rowditch Road but there's no sign (below).
Then finally, we need to go left by Rollo Court, but again, no direction sign (below).
Now it could be I'm following the wrong route, but because the numbering is not consistent, it's impossible to tell. The blue cycle route signs just have a cycle on, and no number. There's no colour coding either - everything is blue. I got lost three or four times before I managed to figure the route out, and I've lived in southwest London most of my life. What chance does a newcomer to London have of following these signs? Part of the problem is the route itself. It's a mixture of quiet and busy roads, footways and paths. It's not been designed as a cycle route - it's just a mishmash of whatever happened to be there already. You never know what to expect, which is why you rely so heavily on signs, which - er - can't be relied on.
Come with me, dear reader, on a quick tour and I'll show you what I mean (sorry about the quality of some of the photos):
We've just crossed Trinity Road, we're in Nantes Close. Where now?
Yes: we need to go left where those bollards are. No sign to give the game away though. If you don't know it's there you can quite easily cycle straight past the turn.
There's only one sign, saying (I think) "Battersea, The City, Greenwich". But it seems to be pointing back where we came from. Or is it left? It so happens we want to go right into Cabul Road. Aptly named - the infrastructure here is rather like you'd find in Afghanistan.
And another dead-end sign (above). But we'll persevere:
Then finally, we need to go left by Rollo Court, but again, no direction sign (below).
Now it could be I'm following the wrong route, but because the numbering is not consistent, it's impossible to tell. The blue cycle route signs just have a cycle on, and no number. There's no colour coding either - everything is blue. I got lost three or four times before I managed to figure the route out, and I've lived in southwest London most of my life. What chance does a newcomer to London have of following these signs? Part of the problem is the route itself. It's a mixture of quiet and busy roads, footways and paths. It's not been designed as a cycle route - it's just a mishmash of whatever happened to be there already. You never know what to expect, which is why you rely so heavily on signs, which - er - can't be relied on.
The Poor Old Dangerous Driver
Another unbelievably car-centric story from the BBC, about rising insurance premiums for young drivers.
The BBC uncritically parrot the AA's line. "The AA has recorded the biggest jump in the cost of car insurance since it started tracking the market, with young people bearing the brunt of the rise...Young male drivers are paying the most, with the average of the three cheapest quotes they get being £2,457.That is nearly double the premiums offered to young women."
That's because young males cause a lot of crashes, duh. I wonder why? An obsession with driving too fast, fed by the BBC's very own Top Gear, perhaps?
"If you have an accident which leaves someone disabled, the claim can be up to £15m."
That's because, duh, if someone's life is ruined by a speeding idiot, the speeding idiot should pay, rather than the taxpayer.
"It is daylight robbery," fumes one young driver. Unfortunately, nobody who has beed killed by a young driver was available for comment.
So whose fault is it all?
"no-win, no-fee lawyers. Their numbers have doubled in the last two years."
Not dangerous drivers then. They're completely innocent, and the oppressed victims of insurance companies, lawers and a judicial system who quite unfairly insist on them paying for the consequences of their actions, while the victims get off scot free.
So here's an idea the BBC and the AA might like to get hold of. We could try making the roads safer! Cheaper insurance premiums, fewer crash victims, fewer no-win no-fee lawyers: everyone's a winner! But wait - that could mean lower speed limits, more law enforcement, less traffic even. Bad idea.
The BBC uncritically parrot the AA's line. "The AA has recorded the biggest jump in the cost of car insurance since it started tracking the market, with young people bearing the brunt of the rise...Young male drivers are paying the most, with the average of the three cheapest quotes they get being £2,457.That is nearly double the premiums offered to young women."
That's because young males cause a lot of crashes, duh. I wonder why? An obsession with driving too fast, fed by the BBC's very own Top Gear, perhaps?
"If you have an accident which leaves someone disabled, the claim can be up to £15m."
That's because, duh, if someone's life is ruined by a speeding idiot, the speeding idiot should pay, rather than the taxpayer.
"It is daylight robbery," fumes one young driver. Unfortunately, nobody who has beed killed by a young driver was available for comment.
So whose fault is it all?
"no-win, no-fee lawyers. Their numbers have doubled in the last two years."
Not dangerous drivers then. They're completely innocent, and the oppressed victims of insurance companies, lawers and a judicial system who quite unfairly insist on them paying for the consequences of their actions, while the victims get off scot free.
So here's an idea the BBC and the AA might like to get hold of. We could try making the roads safer! Cheaper insurance premiums, fewer crash victims, fewer no-win no-fee lawyers: everyone's a winner! But wait - that could mean lower speed limits, more law enforcement, less traffic even. Bad idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)