Laura Trott's utopian government where all policy is based on her anecdotes

Last week Laura Trott claimed that:

Cyclists wonder why they get a bad name... I see cyclists jumping in and out of the buses and people wonder why they get hit. It’s not always the car’s fault.... Cyclists need to help themselves and should not jump red lights. I would ride in London but I certainly wouldn’t ride like that, you just have to be careful.

She then called for helmets to be made mandatory.

Laura Trott: a great professional cyclist, but unfortunately also frustratingly stupid.

Two issues massively irk me about this:

1) "It's not always the car's fault." I'm sorry, but don't you mean, "it's not always the driver's fault". Would you ever say "it's not always the bicycle's fault"? This an example of Laura Trott, without even knowing it, using the English language in a way that immediately absolves drivers of the responsibility for killing and maiming other human beings on foot, on bikes, or in other cars (something regular readers will remember I've blogged about before, as it is especially prevalent among journalists). "It's not the driver's fault, it's the car's fault"... I've never heard so much crap in my life. It's drivers that kill and maim other humans, not cars (or lorries, for that matter). That's why we have a cumbersome driving test in this country (and even more so if you want to drive a lorry), so that once you've passed the test you can take responsibility for your vehicle (just as someone riding a bicycle unhesitatingly takes responsibility for what their bicycle does).

2) Laura's opinions are entirely anecdote-based. She hasn't bothered to look at any of the stats for who's blame in those on bikes getting hit by cars. In fact, even the cycle-phobic Westminster Council recently published data showing that drivers were to blame in over two-thirds of incidents where they hit people on bikes. Moreover, all available evidence from countries such as Australia which have introduced mandatory helmets laws show two key consequences of mandatory helmet laws: firstly, a negligible drop in fatalities and serious injuries among those on bikes; secondly, a highly significant drop in total cycling rates leading to fewer cycle safety measures being taken by local and national government (because that's how democracies work) and cycling becoming more dangerous and fatal in the long run.

Allowing Laura Trott to expound on these issues is like a conversation with David Cameron about Syria going along the following lines:

"Have you looked at any of the evidence, especially from the US and UK intelligence services? Have you perused any of the factual data we have from previous military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya?"

"No, unfortunately not. But I have got some great anecdote-based opinions. I think I remember seeing Syria on a map once and I have also travelled in the Middle East (Israel). In any sane world personal anecdote should be the bedrock of what local and national government does. Everyone knows that."

We don't let Lewis Hamilton tell us how to design a safe urban environment where cars don't kill people, nor does Michael Schumacher tell the Germans how to build motorways and bridges that are safe for drivers to use. Therefore, why the bloody hell should we let Laura Trott, Bradley Wiggins, or Mark Cavendish tell us anything whatsoever about cycle safety. These guys are all professional cyclists. Cycling to the shops to buy milk is not professional cycling. Therefore, I, for one, am going to fiercely defend my right not to be forced to wear a helmet while cycling from A to B.

10,000 Londoners take to their bikes and bring Parliament Square to a stand-still but Boris Johnson *still* doesn't get the message.

Don't misunderstand me, I feel Boris Johnson has done a lot for London cycling, particularly in raising it's profile as a viable method of transport that anyone can, and should, use. However, his response to Nick Ferrari's questions during today's LBC Radio phone-in were deeply worrying. When asked about yesterday's London Cycling Campaign #Space4Cycling Protest Ride, the Mayor said that those Londoners taking part (all 10,000 of them) were unreasonably trying to get their own dedicated road space which simply wasn't feasible in London (where everyone knows that 95% of road space must at all costs be dedicated to motor traffic otherwise you're just being selfish).

These Londoners aren't happy sharing the road with HGVs. They want dedicated space for cycling. Boris Johnson needs to embrace this... because they're all going to vote...

The London mayor was talking absolute rubbish. It's completely legitimate not to want to share a 'general traffic lane' while defenceless on a bike with an HGV or a Chelsea Tractor going at 30MPH+. Moreover, there is plenty of space in London for the reallocation of road space, as Boris himself has previously admitted (think Euston Road, Cromwell Road, Park Lane, Vauxhall Bridge Road, etc).

Today on LBC Radio, Boris advocated 'share-the-road', 'mutual-respect', 'everyone-being-more-aware' crap instead, and suggested this was the real solution. Not dedicated space for segregated cycle lanes that didn't mix motor traffic with those on bikes. That would just be plain silly.

This public position from the Mayor of London is incredibly idiotic and demands another Protest Ride to actually bring the message home to him that Londoners are not happy sharing lanes with drivers that kill them every month (14 Londoners were killed while cycling in 2012), and seriously injure them almost twice day (657 Londoners were seriously injured while cycling from A to B in our Olympic year). Humans are not perfect. Therefore drivers are not perfect. Therefore it's idiotic to mix steel motor traffic with humans sitting on bicycles in 'general traffic lanes'. Over 100 MPs recognised this last night when they unanimously passed the recommendations of the Get Britain Cycling report (which includes segregation on main roads). Boris Johnson needs to recognise this.

By all accounts yesterday's #Space4Cycling Protest Ride was a huge success. The weather may have helped...

What is also interesting is that the Mayor's response to the Protest Ride differs completely from that of Andrew Gilligan, London's Cycling Commissioner. What Gilligan essentially said yesterday was that the Mayor's office are already pursuing a policy of segregation (i.e. with the Cycle Superhighway 2 extension in Stratford). The problem with this is that segregating one road in Stratford is not going to make it safe to cycle for the 8 million Londoners who don't live in Stratford. We need the Mayoralty to begin implementing immediate changes (i.e. 20MPH limits, point-closures to remove through-traffic, temporary cycle lanes using cones/bollards) all over London.

However, at least Gilligan is explicitly accepting that segregation and dedicated space for cycling is the way forward for London. His boss, Boris Johnson, isn't. He's still wittering on about 'share-the-road' twaddle, even after 10,000 Londoners in Parliament Square and over 100 MPs in the House of Commons unanimously called yesterday for full segregation of major roads in London, as well as all over the UK (for those interested there is a BBC recording of the entire 4 hour Great Britain Cycling Commons debate available from here).

I recommend another Protest Ride along the roads outside Boris Johnson's house to ram the message home.

Also, a massive well-done and thank you to everyone at the London Cycling Campaign for organising such a well-attended, successful, and trouble-free Protest Ride yesterday evening.

Please note: 10,000 is my personal estimate of the amount of riders who took part yesterday having watched the procession from the front to back.