Shared spaces seem to be very divisive.
The CTC has a bone to pick with Guide Dogs for the Blind, which has been blocking shared-use schemes and has successfully lobbied with other disability groups to remove cycle access in Woking town centre. However, some disabled people like the 'shared space' concept because they find kerbs and raised surfaces a barrier.
As Woking Cycle Users' Group points out, the anti-cycle campaign is based on somewhat irrational fears than actual collisions, and goes against the established research, which indicates that shared use does work and doesn't present particular dangers to pedestrians.
There's also a public health issue here. More cycling and better conditions for cycling will result in fewer road injuries and fewer 'sedentary' diseases. Making life more difficult and dangerous for cyclists (who in the Woking case case will have to take the busy ring-road instead to avoid the town centre) is, I would submit, detrimental to the nation's health and in the long run likely to increase the number of disabled and blind people. How can I justify that assertion? See if you can guess at a couple of leading causes of disability. Try 1) injuries due to car crashes, and 2) diseases whose root causes include lack of exercise, including a) heart disease; b) arthritis. c) stroke; d) diabetes.
Would it be better to go back to traditional road layouts? Car-centric streets are not in the interests of most disabled people. Pavement parking, narrow, uneven pavements, clutter, kerbs and traffic in general makes life difficult for anyone who's not able-bodied. The abuse of blue badges by able-bodied drivers makes it more difficult for disabled people to park their cars. Councils replacing proper crossings with 'pedestrian refuges' causes further problems for people unable to sprint across a road, and inconsiderate road use always disproportionately affects the most vulnerable.
It seems clear that the town planners can't please all of the people all of the time. Blind and partially-sighted people, it seems, need tactile features in the streetscape, while these can be problematic for some in wheelchairs. Having a distinct and separate roadway appears to increase collisions, yet it also seems to reduce the fear of collisions at least for partially-sighted people.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Level Crossing Abuse
A local Merton story this one - Mitcham Eastfields level crossing has been targeted by police after "three similar operations have discovered more than 100 people misusing the crossing".
Level crossings have to be about the safest place on the road network. They are normally equipped with barriers and flashing lights that activate well before the approach of a train. It's impossible to accidentally go through a level crossing when there's a train coming. Additionally, most are equipped with CCTV judging by the number of YouTube videos. It's pretty obvious that level crossing abuse would inevitably attract a dangerous driving charge and a stiff sentence, right? Not according to Network Rail, who in 2009 called for "tougher action on level crossing offences".
Why are the police targeting level crossings? This is the one place where drivers are (in the main) putting their own lives at risk, rather than other people's. While there's the possibility of collateral damage, the driver is pitting their vehicle against a 100-tonne train so it's the driver who will come off worse. If the police are suddenly concerned about safety, why don't they prioritize offences that endanger vulnerable groups or other drivers? The answer to that question is perhaps: why should the police target offences that are difficult and expensive to prosecute yet attract derisory penalties? That said, level-crossing abusers don't turn into courteous, careful civilized drivers when they've cleared a level crossing, so it would be good to get them off the road - only the legal system doesn't do that. In this near miss, so close that the train and the car are separated by the thickness of a cigarette paper, in which the driver - get this - had his wife and young son in the car at the time - the driver was given 12 month suspended sentence and ordered to do180 hours of community service. He was also disqualified from driving for 12 months and fined £722.So the residents of Carmarthenshire may already be enjoying the renewed presence of this nutter on their roads.
The evidence rather points in one direction: road traffic law needs a shake-up. Drivers and the police need to know that society takes dangerous driving seriously. Society needs to know that dangerous drivers are held responsible for their actions, that the costs of enforcement will be recovered from them, and perhaps most important, that dangerous drivers should not be permitted to carry on driving. The current law does none of these things.
Level crossings have to be about the safest place on the road network. They are normally equipped with barriers and flashing lights that activate well before the approach of a train. It's impossible to accidentally go through a level crossing when there's a train coming. Additionally, most are equipped with CCTV judging by the number of YouTube videos. It's pretty obvious that level crossing abuse would inevitably attract a dangerous driving charge and a stiff sentence, right? Not according to Network Rail, who in 2009 called for "tougher action on level crossing offences".
Why are the police targeting level crossings? This is the one place where drivers are (in the main) putting their own lives at risk, rather than other people's. While there's the possibility of collateral damage, the driver is pitting their vehicle against a 100-tonne train so it's the driver who will come off worse. If the police are suddenly concerned about safety, why don't they prioritize offences that endanger vulnerable groups or other drivers? The answer to that question is perhaps: why should the police target offences that are difficult and expensive to prosecute yet attract derisory penalties? That said, level-crossing abusers don't turn into courteous, careful civilized drivers when they've cleared a level crossing, so it would be good to get them off the road - only the legal system doesn't do that. In this near miss, so close that the train and the car are separated by the thickness of a cigarette paper, in which the driver - get this - had his wife and young son in the car at the time - the driver was given 12 month suspended sentence and ordered to do180 hours of community service. He was also disqualified from driving for 12 months and fined £722.So the residents of Carmarthenshire may already be enjoying the renewed presence of this nutter on their roads.
The evidence rather points in one direction: road traffic law needs a shake-up. Drivers and the police need to know that society takes dangerous driving seriously. Society needs to know that dangerous drivers are held responsible for their actions, that the costs of enforcement will be recovered from them, and perhaps most important, that dangerous drivers should not be permitted to carry on driving. The current law does none of these things.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
More on the Dangerous and Reckless Cycling (Offences) Bill
CTC have devoted a bit more time and resources into this one than I have, and have pointed out that
"During the last decade, judges issued prison sentences to each of the cyclists who killed pedestrians"
which is a little ambiguous, but I'll assume this means pedestrian deaths where a cyclist was at fault.
In any case, this record of custodial sentencing compares well with the leniency often shown to drivers of motor vehicles, and rather reinforces my assertion that there's one law for drivers and another for cyclists, even with the law apparently drafted in the favour of the reckless cyclist. It's clearly time for Andrea Leadsom to be as good as her word and "bring equal protection and the potential for equal punishment to all road users".
"During the last decade, judges issued prison sentences to each of the cyclists who killed pedestrians"
which is a little ambiguous, but I'll assume this means pedestrian deaths where a cyclist was at fault.
In any case, this record of custodial sentencing compares well with the leniency often shown to drivers of motor vehicles, and rather reinforces my assertion that there's one law for drivers and another for cyclists, even with the law apparently drafted in the favour of the reckless cyclist. It's clearly time for Andrea Leadsom to be as good as her word and "bring equal protection and the potential for equal punishment to all road users".
Springwatch
Spring is here. The daffodils are blooming, the evenings are light again, and the cyclists are coming out of hibernation. Scientists have noticed a considerable increase over the past week, probably encouraged by the dry warm weather.
The 'feral cyclist' (urbanus ciclisto) is a now an increasingly common sight on city streets, with its colourful yellow plumage, and it is increasingly over-wintering. This species is adapted to the urban environment. It is surpisingly swift and agile and shows little fear, often coming within inches of motor vehicles and humans, and it is unafraid to grab whatever roadspace it can. So prevalent has the creature become that some are calling for its control or even eradication, fearful that it may pose a threat to the larger inhabitants of the city. Others point out that although it is difficult to tame, it causes very little actual damage compared to larger road-mammals such as the vanus blanco and taxis niger, and unlike them does not cause erosion or over-grazing.
The 'lesser cyclist' (redactum ciclisto) is a much rarer species. Threatened by habitat loss and predators, and much less bold than its urban counterpart, the 'lesser cyclist' is much more retiring and shows considerable fear. Observers note that the species will make occasional forays out into the open particularly in warmer weather, but generally it takes up residence in sheds and garages and is rarely seen. Raids on its nesting places also pose a threat the the survival of the species. Because of its duller plumage and tendancy to hide in gutters, it is also vulnerable to being hit by motor vehicles. Unfortunately, conservation efforts have generally concentrated on the more colourful urban cyclist, so numbers of the lesser cyclist have been declining year-on-year. Some efforts have attempted to make the species adapt to urban conditions, by creating narrow reservations at roadsides, but generally these have proved unattractive and tend to be quickly taken over by the creature's larger predators. However, some predict that over-population, increasingly scarce food supplies and climate change may threaten the lesser cyclists' predators, so it is possible that numbers may recover in coming years.
The 'feral cyclist' (urbanus ciclisto) is a now an increasingly common sight on city streets, with its colourful yellow plumage, and it is increasingly over-wintering. This species is adapted to the urban environment. It is surpisingly swift and agile and shows little fear, often coming within inches of motor vehicles and humans, and it is unafraid to grab whatever roadspace it can. So prevalent has the creature become that some are calling for its control or even eradication, fearful that it may pose a threat to the larger inhabitants of the city. Others point out that although it is difficult to tame, it causes very little actual damage compared to larger road-mammals such as the vanus blanco and taxis niger, and unlike them does not cause erosion or over-grazing.
The 'lesser cyclist' (redactum ciclisto) is a much rarer species. Threatened by habitat loss and predators, and much less bold than its urban counterpart, the 'lesser cyclist' is much more retiring and shows considerable fear. Observers note that the species will make occasional forays out into the open particularly in warmer weather, but generally it takes up residence in sheds and garages and is rarely seen. Raids on its nesting places also pose a threat the the survival of the species. Because of its duller plumage and tendancy to hide in gutters, it is also vulnerable to being hit by motor vehicles. Unfortunately, conservation efforts have generally concentrated on the more colourful urban cyclist, so numbers of the lesser cyclist have been declining year-on-year. Some efforts have attempted to make the species adapt to urban conditions, by creating narrow reservations at roadsides, but generally these have proved unattractive and tend to be quickly taken over by the creature's larger predators. However, some predict that over-population, increasingly scarce food supplies and climate change may threaten the lesser cyclists' predators, so it is possible that numbers may recover in coming years.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Terrorist Traffic Calming
In Central London, various unsightly steel fortifications have been springing up outside important buildings like Horse Guards. (See below).
Rather than spoiling the view, they could have closed Horse Guards Road to general through traffic. This would have improved the environment for tourists, and saved a huge amount of money. It's worth noting that it's still possible to park a large van very close to the Ministry of Defence despite the new steel bollards - in fact, I've seen it done. The authorities seem to be prepared to spend large sums of money on 'security measures' that don't actually work very well because they don't prevent vehicles that could be transporting bombs from passing or even parking close to strategically important buildings. It seems that interfering with traffic flow in any way is a step too far when it comes to safeguarding national security.
Rather than spoiling the view, they could have closed Horse Guards Road to general through traffic. This would have improved the environment for tourists, and saved a huge amount of money. It's worth noting that it's still possible to park a large van very close to the Ministry of Defence despite the new steel bollards - in fact, I've seen it done. The authorities seem to be prepared to spend large sums of money on 'security measures' that don't actually work very well because they don't prevent vehicles that could be transporting bombs from passing or even parking close to strategically important buildings. It seems that interfering with traffic flow in any way is a step too far when it comes to safeguarding national security.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Dangerous and Reckless Cycling (Offences) Bill
There's a 10-minute rule bill attempting to make progress through the Commons which seeks to create new offences of 'causing death by dangerous cycling'. The Bill is being submitted by Andrea Leadsom, Tory MP for South Northamptonshire, who is, apparently, a cyclist.
She gives an account of the tragic death of Rhiannon Bennet, who was killed by a cyclist riding dangerously. Because there are limited options to the CPS, he was charged with 'dangerous cycling', for which the only punishment is a fine. This is a scenario that will be depressingly familiar to many family and friends of pedestrians and indeed cyclists who have been killed by motorists, where the charges brought don't reflect the gravity of the offence and even with such watered-down charges the killers often walk free from court. Leadsom acknowledges as much, but points out "in the case of a motorist killing a cyclist there is, at the very least, the possibility of a motorist being severely punished. Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison".In fact there was a successful prosecution in 2009 under the Offences against the Person act, in which a cyclist was jailed for killing a pedestrian. Other cases are difficult to find for the simple reason that they are very rare.
It can't be argued that cyclists who kill by cycling dangerously do not deserve to be punished as severely as a motorist who kills in similar circumstances. However, it could be argued that there two significant problems in the law as it currently stands:
1) the 'dangerous driving' law at the moment is too specific (it refers to 'driving' dangerously), which excludes cycling and many other actions;
2) the 'dangerous driving' law is too vague (it is very difficult to prove a case of dangerous driving because of the subjective way the law is worded).
The bill fails to address the first problem because it simply creates another specific (and very rare) offence. Why not create a general offence of 'acting dangerously'? In effect, this seems to be the aim of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Maybe it just needs updating. It seems to me that anyone who is skateboarding dangerously, hitting golf balls dangerously, owning a dangerous dog, or indeed any activity that could endanger the public should also have the possibility of severe punishment available to the courts. Why pick out cycling? It's not as if the probability of being killed by any cyclist, let alone one that is cycling dangerously, scores very high on the list of everyday risks. Unlike being killed in a motor vehicle crash, which is the leading cause of death for young people. What is the point of a Bill which in Leadsoms' words attempts to bring "equal protection and the potential for equal punishment" yet so obviously fails to do so, by continuing to exclude all manner of dangerous behaviour and singling out one very unusual cause of death?
The bill fails to tackle the second problem because it fails to address the reason the families and friends of many victims of dangerous driving do not feel that justice has been done: it is just too easy for the perpetrators to wriggle out of the charge of causing death by dangerous or careless driving. There is simply insufficient duty of care required when operating a motor vehicle. How is it possible for a driver whose van "ploughed into the cyclists before plunging down an embankment", who "failed to maintain proper control of the vehicle" and whose "actions have been careless" (according to a police report), to walk free from court? Or how about a £110 fine for the killer of a cyclist who was "hit from behind and killed by a black Audi A4 estate car"? For more examples you can browse through Freewheeler's list of fatalities. I fail to see why Leadsom's bill is not simply going to create a new difficult-to-prosecute offence, and lead to more cases where dangerous behaviour goes unpunished courtesy of good lawyers, occasionally sloppy police work and under-ambitious CPS people. Leadsom protests, "I sincerely hope that all road users are held accountable to the full extent of the law". But the problem is the law and the fact that it gives too many rights to drivers and requires not enough responsibilities, the fact that it is not enforced and the fact that when it is the penalties are often laughable.
There is one further danger of the Bill. There is a feeling that motorists when hauled before the courts benefit from the sympathetic ears of the judge and jury, who are usually fellow drivers, and many of whom drive excessively fast, use handheld mobiles whilst driving, and worse. The judge and jury in dangerous driving cases may feel that "there but for the grace of God go I". Because relatively few people in Britain cycle, a cyclist on a similar 'dangerous' charge would be unlikely to feel the love. So Leadsom's bill, far from equalizing the justice system, may actually make it less equal, because it fails to address the fundamental problem I've alluded to above, of leaving a massive grey area to be exploited by wily lawyers. So while dangerous cyclists who can't afford a good lawyer may find themselves in jail, well-heeled cyclists and drivers will likely continue to escape justice.
In summary, I totally support the idea of cyclists who kill facing justice, but don't believe this bill will make it much more likely, and I certainly don't believe it will make the roads a safer place. The Bill, instead of addressing the fundamental problems in road traffic law, goes out to solve a totally different and very obscure problem, by bringing it within the scope of the same existing, totally inadequate law. Andrea Leadsom is best advised to look at Roadpeace's manifesto for some better ideas.
She gives an account of the tragic death of Rhiannon Bennet, who was killed by a cyclist riding dangerously. Because there are limited options to the CPS, he was charged with 'dangerous cycling', for which the only punishment is a fine. This is a scenario that will be depressingly familiar to many family and friends of pedestrians and indeed cyclists who have been killed by motorists, where the charges brought don't reflect the gravity of the offence and even with such watered-down charges the killers often walk free from court. Leadsom acknowledges as much, but points out "in the case of a motorist killing a cyclist there is, at the very least, the possibility of a motorist being severely punished. Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison".In fact there was a successful prosecution in 2009 under the Offences against the Person act, in which a cyclist was jailed for killing a pedestrian. Other cases are difficult to find for the simple reason that they are very rare.
It can't be argued that cyclists who kill by cycling dangerously do not deserve to be punished as severely as a motorist who kills in similar circumstances. However, it could be argued that there two significant problems in the law as it currently stands:
1) the 'dangerous driving' law at the moment is too specific (it refers to 'driving' dangerously), which excludes cycling and many other actions;
2) the 'dangerous driving' law is too vague (it is very difficult to prove a case of dangerous driving because of the subjective way the law is worded).
The bill fails to address the first problem because it simply creates another specific (and very rare) offence. Why not create a general offence of 'acting dangerously'? In effect, this seems to be the aim of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Maybe it just needs updating. It seems to me that anyone who is skateboarding dangerously, hitting golf balls dangerously, owning a dangerous dog, or indeed any activity that could endanger the public should also have the possibility of severe punishment available to the courts. Why pick out cycling? It's not as if the probability of being killed by any cyclist, let alone one that is cycling dangerously, scores very high on the list of everyday risks. Unlike being killed in a motor vehicle crash, which is the leading cause of death for young people. What is the point of a Bill which in Leadsoms' words attempts to bring "equal protection and the potential for equal punishment" yet so obviously fails to do so, by continuing to exclude all manner of dangerous behaviour and singling out one very unusual cause of death?
The bill fails to tackle the second problem because it fails to address the reason the families and friends of many victims of dangerous driving do not feel that justice has been done: it is just too easy for the perpetrators to wriggle out of the charge of causing death by dangerous or careless driving. There is simply insufficient duty of care required when operating a motor vehicle. How is it possible for a driver whose van "ploughed into the cyclists before plunging down an embankment", who "failed to maintain proper control of the vehicle" and whose "actions have been careless" (according to a police report), to walk free from court? Or how about a £110 fine for the killer of a cyclist who was "hit from behind and killed by a black Audi A4 estate car"? For more examples you can browse through Freewheeler's list of fatalities. I fail to see why Leadsom's bill is not simply going to create a new difficult-to-prosecute offence, and lead to more cases where dangerous behaviour goes unpunished courtesy of good lawyers, occasionally sloppy police work and under-ambitious CPS people. Leadsom protests, "I sincerely hope that all road users are held accountable to the full extent of the law". But the problem is the law and the fact that it gives too many rights to drivers and requires not enough responsibilities, the fact that it is not enforced and the fact that when it is the penalties are often laughable.
There is one further danger of the Bill. There is a feeling that motorists when hauled before the courts benefit from the sympathetic ears of the judge and jury, who are usually fellow drivers, and many of whom drive excessively fast, use handheld mobiles whilst driving, and worse. The judge and jury in dangerous driving cases may feel that "there but for the grace of God go I". Because relatively few people in Britain cycle, a cyclist on a similar 'dangerous' charge would be unlikely to feel the love. So Leadsom's bill, far from equalizing the justice system, may actually make it less equal, because it fails to address the fundamental problem I've alluded to above, of leaving a massive grey area to be exploited by wily lawyers. So while dangerous cyclists who can't afford a good lawyer may find themselves in jail, well-heeled cyclists and drivers will likely continue to escape justice.
In summary, I totally support the idea of cyclists who kill facing justice, but don't believe this bill will make it much more likely, and I certainly don't believe it will make the roads a safer place. The Bill, instead of addressing the fundamental problems in road traffic law, goes out to solve a totally different and very obscure problem, by bringing it within the scope of the same existing, totally inadequate law. Andrea Leadsom is best advised to look at Roadpeace's manifesto for some better ideas.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Oxford Speed Cameras Back On - Shame about the Deaths
Another partial success for the bungling Coalition.
The results are back from the 'human experiment' in which Oxfordshire's speed cameras were switched off. And guess what - more people died and were injured, just as the police, road safety partnerships, even the AA, pretty much anyone involved in road safety and indeed anyone with any vestige of sanity predicted.
In the six months after the cameras were switched off, 83 people were injured in 62 accidents camera sites.
The figure for the same period the year before there were 68 injuries in 60 accidents.
Across Oxford, 18 people were killed in road traffic accidents in the period, compared with 12 people the year before. The number of people seriously injured rose by 19 to 179.
(source: The Guardian)
So that's 6 extra deaths, total cost somewhere between £9M and £18M, ignoring the cost of serious and slight injuries, and all because the Road Safety Partnership's grant was cut by £600,000. That's a pretty expensive way of buying petrolhead votes, especially as it won't have made residents whose streets are now blighted by speeding motorists too happy.
I wonder how Road Safety Minister Mike Penning and Transport Secretary Philip Hammond are going to spin it? Penning said last year "Local authorities have relied too heavily on safety cameras for far too long so I am pleased that some councils are now focusing on other measures to reduce road casualties. This is another example of this government delivering on its pledge to end the war on the motorist."
The results are back from the 'human experiment' in which Oxfordshire's speed cameras were switched off. And guess what - more people died and were injured, just as the police, road safety partnerships, even the AA, pretty much anyone involved in road safety and indeed anyone with any vestige of sanity predicted.
In the six months after the cameras were switched off, 83 people were injured in 62 accidents camera sites.
The figure for the same period the year before there were 68 injuries in 60 accidents.
Across Oxford, 18 people were killed in road traffic accidents in the period, compared with 12 people the year before. The number of people seriously injured rose by 19 to 179.
(source: The Guardian)
So that's 6 extra deaths, total cost somewhere between £9M and £18M, ignoring the cost of serious and slight injuries, and all because the Road Safety Partnership's grant was cut by £600,000. That's a pretty expensive way of buying petrolhead votes, especially as it won't have made residents whose streets are now blighted by speeding motorists too happy.
I wonder how Road Safety Minister Mike Penning and Transport Secretary Philip Hammond are going to spin it? Penning said last year "Local authorities have relied too heavily on safety cameras for far too long so I am pleased that some councils are now focusing on other measures to reduce road casualties. This is another example of this government delivering on its pledge to end the war on the motorist."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)