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.

20mph limit for the City of London. Next step, borough-wide 20mph for Westminster. Step after that, 20mph limit for London

A 20mph borough-wide limit on all roads in the City of London has almost passed all the councils it needs to in order to become law. (Quite exciting and something long campaigned for by blogs like Cyclists in the City).

The new normal for the City of London. Photo courtesy of The Londonist.

You can read a rather excellent report by Philip Everett (Director of the Built Environment) and Craig Stansfield (Team Leader, Transportation Strategy and Programmes) here. Much of the report deserves quoting, but I've selected the best bits to make your life easier:

There has been a dramatic rise in the numbers of cyclists and pedestrians, and with the advent of Crossrail increasing the number of pedestrians and the encouragement of cycling generally, these numbers can only increase. Compared with the rest of London, in the City these groups are disproportionately highly represented in the casualty statistics. The situation can therefore only get worse unless we do something different. (p.1)

In response to this the City predicts that a borough-wide 20mph limit would lead to,

predicted casualty savings of between 8–9%, i.e., around 30–40 casualties per annum. (p.1)

 The City then notes that:

The often-quoted low average speeds within the City mask both streets where average speeds are over 20mph and also peak traffic speeds at various times such as evenings and weekends. Secondary benefits such as reduced pollution and health improvements through modal shift to cycling are likely to occur. (p.2)

And:

There is little or no disbenefit to introducing a 20mph speed limit and in particular journey-time increases would be minimal given the size of the City. (p.2)

They also supply this interesting local example of a 20mph limit leading casualties to drop from nine to nil:

Several years ago, Transport for London introduced a 20mph limit on Upper Thames Street between Swan Lane and Queen Street to facilitate the refurbishment of Walbrook Wharf. There was a dramatic reduction in casualties. The three-year casualty total before the speed-limit reduction was nine and the total for the three years of the 20mph limit was nil. (p.5)

Finally, the City notes a 20mph limit would be in line with national and international best practice since:

All boroughs surrounding the City, with the exception of the City of Westminster, have adopted 20mph for all, or most, of their area. (p.7)

And...

Internationally, New York, Paris and Tokyo have, or plan to, introduce substantial speed-reduction initiatives in at least part of those cities. (p.7)

This really is fantastic news for all those cycling in through the City and follows hot on the heels of Islington becoming the first borough to officially go 20mph!

Photo courtesy of BolgarB on Twitter.

There's more good news too: Boris Johnson's Environment Advisor, Isabel Dedring, has come out as a strong supporter of a London-wide 20mph limit. She said in June 2013 that:

[A London-wide 20mph limit] could be realistic by 2020. It could be one of these things like smoking (in public places) where suddenly we get to the stage where we can’t believe it would ever have been OK to drive above 20mph.

20mph borough-wide limits brings a whole series of advantages to a neighbourhood:

• Less pollution.
• Better air quality; bad air quality kills over 4,000 Londoners a year prematurely.
• Safer environment for pedestrians.
• Safer environment for cyclists.
• Smoother traffic flow with less sudden accelerating and braking meaning shorter journey times for motorists.
• Few collision and accidents meaning shorter journey times for motorists. (Drawing Rings Around the World has highlighted recent TfL data, that shows delays due to collisions are now more than twice as large as for roadworks.)
• Quieter streets.

Obviously what we really want is proper cycle infrastructure, including wide, continuous, segregated cycle lanes on busy roads. However, 20mph limits shouldn't be sniffed at by cycle campaigners.

20mph zones can bring real benefits, particularly during off-peak times when motorists on empty streets will regularly pass you at 30, 40, or even 50mph. Moreover, they transform a dangerous pass at 30mph from something almost 'expected' or even 'required' of a motorist (since it's easily possible to fail a driving test for going too slowly or not 'driving to the limit') into something illegal (even if enforcement is often difficult). This means if a motorist recklessly hits a cyclist or pedestrian at 30mph and kills them it's much easier to prosecute the driver for their (now) illegal actions. This in turn will lead to safer and more responsible driving by motorists.

30mph 'shopping' streets: dangerous, polluted, and uninviting. Bad for business too.

A 20mph limit also sends out a wider message to those using cars which is that the safety of cyclists and pedestrians is being prioritised over and above that of journey times for motorists. Ultimately, this message needs to sink in and be accepted by the wider non-cycling majority in order to for politicians to feel there are 'votes' in giving over more road-space to cycle-only lanes.

A 20mph borough-wide limit is not a bad place to start. It tells everyone this is a borough where pedestrian safety and cycle safety is the number one priority. From here, it is surely easier to start reallocating parking spaces or traffic lanes into segregated cycle tracks.

However, it is disappointing that many councils still oppose borough-wide 20mph limits. As the City of London document notes, Westminster Council is the only council bordering the City that continues to do so. This is especially disappointing given that the City's remarks on Crossrail, long-term increase in cyclists, and comparatively high casualty rates, apply even more firmly to Westminster than they do to the Square Mile:

There has been a dramatic rise in the numbers of cyclists and pedestrians, and with the advent of Crossrail increasing the number of pedestrians and the encouragement of cycling generally, these numbers can only increase. Compared with the rest of London, in the City these groups are disproportionately highly represented in the casualty statistics. The situation can therefore only get worse unless we do something different. [Westminster is the London Council with the highest number of pedestrian and cyclist casualties.]
 (p.1)

Furthermore, in March 2013 Westminster Council itself released data showing that two thirds of crashes (68%) between cyclists and motorists were the fault of the driver. Yet, disappointingly Westminster Council is still opposing a borough-wide 20mph limit even on boundary streets with Camden!

This is very sad, especially given that since so many roads in London are single-lane, 20mph limits are by and large self-enforcing, because it only takes one driver to drive at 20mph to slow the whole traffic flow down.

Councils, like Westminster, which claim 20mph limits are a waste of money because they cannot be enforced are using the line as a false, weasel argument to conceal their real reason for opposition. They just want to be able to drive at 30mph whether or not this leads to tragically high numbers of road casualties.

The simple fact is that every part of UK that has seen 20mph limits installed has also seen a significant drop in casualties and significant drop in maximum speeds (here's an example from DfT of un-enforced limits leading to a reduction in casulties in Portsmouth), which puts paid to the fatuous idea, still ignorantly propagated by Councils like Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea, that 20mph limits are somehow 'useless'. Though 20mph zones are always more effective when accompanied by strict enforcement and traffic calming measures (which don't -  as many do - create dangerous pinch points between cyclists and motorised traffic), a 20mph limit unaccompanied by these measures is still a significant improvement for everyone using that street.

Moreover, as the City of London's report highlights, areas like Westminster are in real danger of falling behing their international competition in New York and Tokyo by refusing to humanise and tame their dangerous roads through the creation of a borough-wide 20mph limit. Westminster has even refused to make Oxford Street 20mph, despite the fact it receives over-200 million annual pedestrian visitors. Shocking...

When is it ever safe to drive down Oxford Street at 30mph? So why is it still legal to do that?

If we want London to become a 20mph city we need to make our voices heard in support this policy; the best place to start is with your local borough. Bit by bit we can do it.

And, if you do get in touch with your local politicians, make sure you don't accept any of this crap about un-enforced or lightly enforced limits being 'useless' or 'a waste of money'!

Cycling is now the dominant mode of travel on Central London's roads, yet still idiotically ignored by Westminster Council in new Bayswater plans.

The Evening Standard published an article a few days ago with some rather stunning figures about bike travel in London:

• On Theobald's Road 64% of vehicles in the morning peak are bikes.
• On Kennington Park Road 57% of vehicles in the morning peak are bikes.
• On Old Street 49% of vehicles in morning peak are bikes.
• In Central London 24% of all traffic are bikes during the morning peak; 16% acros the whole day.
• On Blackfriars, Waterloo and London bridges cyclists make up 42% of traffic and 15% of people, though they take up only 12% of road space
• By contrast: taxis on Oxford Street take up 37% of road space but only carry 1% of passengers!

As Andrew Gilligan says "These extraordinary figures disprove any claim that cycling is marginal and that investing in it is indulgent." I believe it's importnat to make that clear, especially to members of the general public that may not cycle themselves. In fact, I think Gilligan's approach of securing approval for his £1 billion cycle plan by stressing the benefits to those that don't cycle is extremely intelligent.

Cycling is important. Those that choose to travel by bike not only help the environment and reduce road congestion, they also work all manner of jobs and contribute significantly to London's (and Britain's) GDP.

This idea that only those that drive actually have jobs, and so to promote economic growth we need to build more roads, is absolutely crap, as Evening Standard's latest figures show.

These guys are clearly adding nothing to London's economy.... Photo from Standard article.

If we want London to grow economically we need to make its workforce safer. Therefore, since 24% of all vehicles during the morning peak are bikes, we logically need to make those that choose to cycle safer.

And yet cycling is still being designed out of London's roads by awful new schemes such as Westminster Council's proposals for the Bayswater area.

These plans are, frankly, atrocious. Cycle parking is being removed since it is 'clutter' (yes, 'clutter'!). Car parking spaces will be increased leading to more congestion, more fumes, more noise, more road traffic accidents, and more road traffic deaths.

Photo from PDF of Westminster's proposed 'improvements'.

You can see in the photo of the proposed 'improvements' for Queensway North a couple of things:

• No cycle lanes of any kind. This is simply idiotic. Plenty of space for segregated lanes in each direction on this Queensway.
• Cyclists positioned in a 'death zone' between opening car doors from stationary vehicles and oncoming taxis and private cars that are driving dangerously close to them. The Highway Code, by contrast, states motorists should "give cyclists at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car".

Notice a difference between this photo (courtesy of The Highway Code) and the last one?

Moreover, these plans are also bad economics. Westminster Council note that "Queensway is a busy shopping street at the heart of Bayswater." They want to improve its qualities as "a shopping and leisure destination". Yet, in their efforts to achieve this Westminster Council are pretending they're in the 1970s, lagging embarrassingly far behind New York City's Department for Transport that has long recognised the economic benefits that increased cycle traffic brings:

Photo courtesy NYC Department of Transportation. The figures speak for themselves.

Westminster Council may not be much bothered about achieving a 58% decrease in injuries to all street users. Perhaps they aren't... That's very sad if it's the case....

But, if they want to be "encouraging people to stay and use the streets shops and eateries" in Bayswater they might just take note of the 49% increase in retail sales. (Yes, 49%!)

What is shocking about these plans is not just that they demonstrate little or no concern for preventing traffic accidents and deaths, but they are also bad, bad economics.

Westminster Council have also tried to contextualise their improvements within the surrounding area, but again they are dangerously off-track.

Map from consultation document showing Bayswater and surrounding areas.

There are a few crucial bits of information left off this map:

• Portobello Market is a 5 minute cycle away.
• Later in 2013 the Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme will be expanding to encompass the entirety of Portobello Market (it already covers Westbourne Grove and Paddington Station).
• Hyde Park, and particularly 'Broad Walk', a long, wide path located next to Queensway, accounts for a huge proportion of the total Boris Bike trips made every year, as this video shows:

Therefore, there might be a significant commercial advantage to be gained if a safe cycle network were created linking Portobello, Westbourne Grove, Paddington, Hyde Park, and of course, Bayswater.

But are Westminster at all interested in this? No. 

Are they even aware of the potentially enormous economic benefits to be had if tourists on Boris Bikes could be lured out of Hyde Park to spend money in Bayswater? No.

Are Westminster Council even considering that most token of gestures to make pedestrians and cyclists safer, something that the City of London recently wrote had "little or no disbenefit", a 20mph speed limit? No, no chance (at present...). 

Do they want their pedestrians and cyclists to be safer? Not if it slows down motor traffic...

We are left with: more car parking; more motor cars; more road traffic accidents and deaths.

That's all we're getting in Bayswater, despite the fact 24% of morning peak vehicles are now bicycles. Appalling.

But something can be done - if you take a similar view to these plans then please:

A) Fill in the consultation online: http://www.westminster.gov.uk/services/environment/planning/majorprojects/queensway/

The feedback form includes a specific section "cycle parking and provision", so it's well worth filling in. Perhaps these plans can be improved on. I certainly hope so.

B) Write an email suggesting that cycle lanes and a 20mph zone (among other improvements for cyclists such as more cycle parking) could be very profitably integrated into the Bayswater plans to:

Councillor Edward Argar

Cabinet Member for City Management, Transport and the Environment

Westminster City Council

eargar@westminster.gov.uk

Since Councillor Argar is also Cabinet Member for 'the Environment' there should be an added incentive for him to embrace cycle and pedestrian safety by promoting cycling as an environmentally friendly form of travel...

Plenty of space on Queensway for proper segregated cycle lanes like this example from Montreal, Canada. Trouble is, Westminster won't build them... Image courtesy of StreetsBlog.org

Kate Hoey MP is a complete disgrace

Given the news today (that was even lauded in the Daily Mail!!!) of how forward-thinking politicians like Boris Johnson (supported by his ever impressive 'Cycling Czar' Andrew Gilligan) are making ground-breaking advances in terms of cycling policy, I thought it might be a good time to reflect on those politicians that are at the other end of the spectrum.

Kate Hoey, Labour MP for Vauxhall, is an absolute disgrace, and I would urge anyone who is her constituent or has any contact with her to let her know this in writing.

Kate Hoey has been dangerously cycle-toxic for all of her 14 years as MP for Vauxhall

Danny from Cyclists in the City has previously written about her cretinous attitude towards cycling.

However, her latest piece of idiocy has been to block the installation of a large Cycle Hire Docking Station on Cornwall Road, SE1, in order to preserve car-parking bays.

It is completely ridiculous to block the installation of 35 bike hire racks that can be used by hundreds people during the course of a day in order to preserve 3 on-street car parking spaces.

Moreover, SE1 a part of London that, located so close to Waterloo and the South Bank, is already extremely congested and busy, and therefore unsuitable for heavy on-street car-use.

What especially annoys be about Kate Hoey's despicable actions is the amount of grief that TfL and the Mayor sustain for problems with the Boris Bike system, when it is politicians like Hoey (and the Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea councils that won't let TfL move Boris Bikes around in the early morning) that are actively preventing improvements to the Cycle Hire Scheme.

Mark Field, Conservative MP for Westminster, does exactly the same thing in his constituency.

Those who like cycling to get from A to B should be ever aware that often it is not TfL that are the problem, but idiotic politicians like Kate Hoey and Mark Field who are deliberately disrupting and retarding TfL's efforts to improve cycling in London.

20mph speed limit for Waterloo Roundabout and approach roads

EDIT (10/5/13) -  TfL have just confirmed they are going ahead with these scheme after 97% of respondents supported it. This is massive news. First 20mph limit ever on TfL roads.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TfL are now consulting on their plans to introduce a 20mph speed limit for Waterloo Roundabout and it's approach roads.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/betterjunctions/20mph-waterloo-roundabout

Anyone interesting in improving cycling conditions in London should click the above link and do the 'Online Survey', giving full support to this initiative, before 28 February 2013.

Waterloo Roundabout: a 1970s urban planner's heaven; a cyclist's hell.

A 20mph limit might not sound like much but it is actually, in my opinion, rather momentous.

This is a (unique) example of TfL prioritising the safety of the 5,500 cyclists that use this roundabout every weekday over the motorists who see a decline in the average speed of 34mph on the Waterloo Bridge and Stamford Street approaches.

Time and again, good infrastructure for cyclists has not been implemented in London because of TfL being afraid to curb the excessive speed of London's motor traffic; politics of road use are far more important in deciding the quality of cycle infrastructure we have in London than either funding or expertise (though of course, we still have much to learn from Dutch and Danish town planners).

However, here, in early 2013, we can see, for perhaps the first time, TfL explicitly putting the safety of cyclists first.

You can see how controversial this move is to many motoring groups from the fact that this is having to be implemented as '6-month experiment'.

In Holland or Germany this would be a no-brainer. In Britain it is an 'experiment'; like burning magnesium in GCSE chemistry. I wonder what will happen? Will all the cars explode because they're driving at 20mph? No. Less people will die. Surely you can accept that as a good thing?

I am quietly hopeful this experiment will succeed. A 20mph limit on the roundabout and approach roads will almost certainly lead to a significant increase in cyclists, especially with summer approaching, and with even more cyclists using the roundabout it will then be extremely difficult come September/October for TfL to remove the 20mph limit; especially since you're almost 10 times more likely to die when hit by a car at 30mph, than at 20mph.

Who knows, this might be the first step towards to the taming of the disgustingly dangerous gyratories that plague Central London; I'm thinking: Hyde Park Corner, Marble Arch, Vauxhall, King's Cross, Bow Roundabout, Parliament Square, Old Street Roundabout, Elephant and Castle, Hammersmith Broadway, Swiss Cottage.

Imagine if 20mph limits became the norm for all Central London's roundabouts and gyratories...

TfL might, ever so slowly, be coming round to the common sense opinion that if you want to drive fast, you don't drive in Central London. We've got motorways for that.

If you want to go somewhere quickly in London, take public transport or cycle. Don't drive.

This has to be the message TfL, Boris Johnson, and Andrew Gilligan, bring to the London of the 21st century.

(otherwise they're idiots)

So do the 'Online Survey' now!

Andrew Gilligan appointed London's Cycle Commissioner

EDIT (26/3/13) - The news early this month of City Hall's impressive, radical, and innovative 'Cycling Vision for London' (which, according to the BBC's Tom Edwards, was directly precipitated by cycle bloggers - who knew?!) has heartily confirmed my faith in Andrew Gilligan's ability to deliver in his role as Boris Johnson's Cycling Commissioner.

Gilligan's performance a few days later on the BBC's Sunday Politics Show (10/3/13) defending his new cycle infrastructure projects was especially impressive, as was the fact that segregated cycle tracks were accepted as the 'ideal solution' not only by Gilligan, but also by his interviewer and the other politicians on the show. This game-change in thinking about cycle safety and infrastructure (and the way the two are inextricably linked) clearly has a lot to do with the ambitious scope of the Boris Johnson and Andrew Gilligan's new plan. View the full interview here on YouTube.

There is also a fantastic recording of Andrew Gilligan's talk and Q&A at the first London Cycling Campaign Policy Forum (8/4/2013) which you can listen to or download (right click on the link and then click 'Save Link As...') here.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It emerged yesterday that Andrew Gilligan, a journalist working at The Telegraph has been made Boris Johnson's cycling advisor. Some have attacked the 'cronyism' in this appointment - since Mr Johnson and Mr Gilligan have a history of previous employment together and share similar political views - however, I personally would argue that Gilligan will (hopefully) be a very successful Cycling Czar for London.

Andrew Gilligan cycles about 100 miles a week in London. He can't drive either.

Gilligan has been a strong supporter of segregated cycle facilities for a long time, and has not been afraid to publicly criticise Boris Johnson's first batch of Cycle Superhighways that are dreadfully sub-standard, and in some places, really quite dangerous.

Yes, he is not an 'expert'. But you hardly need to be an expert on cycling to realise that the current infrastructure in place in London is either non-existent or crap, and that it could be radically improved relatively easy.

What he is, is a journalist who understands politics. Because politics (rather than new academic research) is the primary barrier to installing good cycle infrastructure, I would argue that Gilligan's training in journalism (and a history degree) is actually exactly what he needs if he's going to bring real change to London.

Similarly, the fact Gilligan is a firm support of Boris Johnson is a good thing since Boris will need a united front behind him if he's going to successfully convince anti-cycling councils like Westminster and the City of London to scrap ridiculous policies like road-narrowing without installing bike lanes. TfL only run 5% of London's roads. Cycle-toxic London MPs like Mark Field and Kate Hoey are not going to change their minds about opposing segregated lanes for cyclists if Johnson and Gilligan are bickering with each other about London's housing policy.

Moreover, Gilligan comments very intelligently on his Telegraph blog:

I believe that the way to win arguments is to stress what better cycle facilities can do for London as a whole – reducing air pollution and crowding on the Tube, for example – rather than just for cyclists.

This man understands better than most the political realities of implementing the fantastic cycling policies that organisations like the London Cycling Campaign (LCC) come up with.

This is exactly the kind of person we want organising London's Cycling Plan at the highest level.

We need someone with the pragmatism to actually make change happen and, where necessary, compromise in order to get the best available deal for cyclists. We need someone who understands London's politics. And, we need someone who will work with the Mayor and TfL (rather than against them).

All in all, Gilligan appears to be a pretty good choice.

Why the BBC's 'War on Britain's Roads' was complete rubbish

Many people have criticised the BBC's recent 'War on Britain's Roads' programme so I know I'm hardly the first person to be saying these things. Yet, the programme was so infuriatingly banal that say them I must.

While being an hour of reasonably well-produced television, 'War on Britain's Roads' was brutally misinformed as to the real reasons that cyclists and motorists come into conflict on our streets. The programme went for the 'human-angle', interviewing both cyclists and motorists involved in incidents and eventually implicitly concluding that we should all get along better and perhaps lorries should have more mirrors and sensors on them.

A taxi driver very dangerously cuts up a cyclist. Rather than this just being condoned out-of-hand so we can all move on, we are interested treated by the BBC to 'both sides of the story'. This is bullshit. The taxi driver was at fault. He shouldn't have passed the cyclist so close. He could have killed the cyclist. Why can't this just be accepted as a fact?
If the cyclist can knock his frame to tell him he's too close, then he's too close. There shouldn't be any debate over this.

This is all 'true'. But it's also the sort of trite rubbish that a child could come up with simply by imagining a road that's being used by a cyclist, a motorist, and an HGV.

There is no pathological, eugenic difference between Britons and Hollanders.

The reason Dutch people do not have a 'War' on their roads is that Dutch roads are designed so that cyclists and motorists can both use the roads safely.

This is done in many ways. One of these is putting in cycle lanes on most roads where cars are doing 30mph or more which prevents motorists becoming angry about cyclists slowing them down when they want to drive at 30mph or above.

Do the BBC recommend implementing more and better cycle lanes, even implicitly? 

No. They seem to imply instead that motorists should perhaps maybe calm down a bit if they don't have space to overtake, and cyclists should maybe just bite the bullet if they get hit because they're 'taking control of the road'. (and on that note, can you think of a more idiotic and unnecessarily inflammatory way to describe cycling in the primary position?)

Similarly, after focusing on the tragic story of a young woman who was killed by a left-turning lorry, did the narrator draw the conclusion that enforcing a London-wide ban on HGVs that lack industry-standard mirrors and motion sensors would be a good idea?

No. It was simply left to the woman's bereaved mother to pursue her solo-campaign with the lorry companies that still fill our streets with dangerously ill-equipped vehicles. But why should this be one woman's responsibility? Anyone can get killed by a left-turning lorry. It's everyone's responsibility. Yet the BBC's opinion seems to be that people who (idiotically?) choose to cycle are some 'other tribe' that need to fend for themselves and don't come in for the basic rights of government-led safety that any normal citizen is entitled to.

How many of these cyclists have a head-cam? None. The BBC failed to mention that the agressive head-cam footage used for the programme was completely unrepresentative of both the cycling style and experience of the majority of Britain's cyclists who rather surprisingly don't choose to cycle on road-bikes at 30mph.

I could go on all day about the problems with the programme, but I'll end with a final thought:

Throughout we were treated to a fair range of clips of motorists behaving badly, then cyclists behaving badly, in what I presume was an attempt to give a 'balanced view' of the situation. Yet, did the narrator mention that in the case of motorists behaving badly cyclists die (119 so far in 2012; a five-year high). And did the narrator mention how many motorists have been killed by cyclists jumping red lights? I confess I don't know the exact figure off the top of my head but I imagine it's somewhere around zero.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not condoning red-light-jumpers for a second. But there is, at least for my money, a complete difference both in degree and consequence between the crimes of bad driving and bad cycling.

I would have preferred it if BBC's 'War on Britain's Roads' could have pointed this fact out. Or if one of the cyclists interviewed had had the presence of mind to do so when confronted with the extreme footage of a messenger race at the end of the programme, instead of blithely suggesting that a "punch in the face" was the solution to the 'everyday' problem of a bicycle courier competition held for a cash-prize 6 years ago.

--------

If you'd like to make a complaint about the programme you can do so in about 2 minutes here. (The BBC do at least have a very quick and easy online complaint-making system in place...)

For two much more thorough and better researched pieces on the same subject please also see:

- As Easy As Riding A Bike's excellent recent article: That 'war' on Britain's roads - the statistics
- Peter Walker's latest piece in The Guardian: BBC's War on Britain's Roads: even more fake than we feared

Doing the simple things well with road design for cyclists

Below is a picture of Storey's Way, Cambridge (googlemap street view: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=cambridge+uk&hl=en&ll=52.21213,0.107503&spn=0.017303,0.0318&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=47.483365,65.126953&hnear=Cambridge,+United+Kingdom&t=m&layer=c&cbll=52.213776,0.104975&panoid=-l2D8TEtu8I4pkMgJsVPPg&cbp=12,20.89,,0,1&z=15)

Cycling right-turn cycle safety box outside Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge

The very simple cycle 'box' painted on the road provides greatly increased safety to any cyclists turning right here. Drivers on both sides of the road are alerted to the potential presence of a cyclist by the red paint on the road and cyclists are therefore much less likely to get hit by a vehicle while waiting to turn right.

Moreover, this kind of cycle infrastructure costs virtually nothing; it's just some red paint, a white cycle sign, and some chevrons.

What is surprising though is that this kind of street layout is still a comparatively rare sight in the UK.

Equivalent situation street design in London (Ladbroke Grove). The road is blocked with paving in the middle, but no effort has been made to make this permeable for cyclists or to use the road space which is being taken up anyway to provide a safe box for cyclists turning right. I imagine this design was put in during the 80s.

It's up to all of us to help inform our local planning officials and let them know about the little things like this which can make a cyclists journey so much safer and are so easy to implement!

(Obviously much bigger elements of cycle infrastructure are crucially important too. But it really does surprise me how many local planning officials would - if they knew it existed - be happy to implement smaller elements of cycle infrastructure like the cycle-box in the first photo. It's our job to make them better informed so we don't get more of the second photo.)

Government completely ignores former Conservative Transport Minister's calls for better cycle infrastructure and responds to a rising death toll on Britain's streets with a shoddy advertisement campaign

Last week former Transport Minister Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Conservative MP for Kensington and Chelsea who I unfairly maligned a few weeks ago) intelligently stated here in the Hammersmith and Fulham Chronicle that:

"a long-term paucity of proper cycling infrastructure has forced many cyclists onto busy roads, where they are bound to come into conflict with drivers of cars"

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who served as Conservative Transport Minister from 1990 to 1992 also said that "Cycling should be encouraged as a healthier, cheaper way of getting around that can serve out city's wellbeing and provide relief to our public transport infrastructure". Unfortunately the current Transport Minister, Patrick McLoughlin just wants to create more space for motorists.

Moreover, according to The Times 87 cyclists have died on Britain's roads this year, and at least 75 of those deaths have been due to collision with a motor vehicle. This is a staggeringly high figure and is put into grimmer perspective by the fact that Britain has the fifth worst record for reducing cycling fatalities in the EU.

How is the Government responding these dreadful figures? Is it listening to MPs like Sir Malcolm that are calling for "proper cycling infrastructure" which will prevent cycling deaths on busy roads or killer junctions like Bow Roundabout?

No. The Government is only responding with an advertising campaign that encourages motorists and cyclists to treat each other with more respect. Respect is great, but as Sir Malcolm says, if you've got cyclists mixing with traffic going at speeds usually substantially higher than 30mph then you are going to get fatalities no matter how much mutual respect is going on

Our Government is being wantonly useless. In fact, virtually all positive improvements in cycling infrastructure are coming from the bottom-up. TfL does appear to now be finally taking concrete steps to improve Bow Roundabout, but this is because of bottom-up pressure from Londoners who regularly cycle on Bow Roundabout rather than top-down pressure from a Government that wants to reduce cycling fatalities.

In a civilised country that cares about the safety of its citizens there should be pressure from the top-down on institutions like TfL and our local councils to put in place secure measures that will making cycling safer. But what is the reality in Britain? The Department for Transport (DfT) is currently hindering TfL's efforts to make Bow Roundabout safer because advance traffic-lights for cyclists are actually currently illegal under DfT guidelines. This state of affairs is a complete joke.

TfL has legally installed special 'horse-height' crossing buttons and horse-only crossing lights (seen as red image in background) at the eastern crossing of Hyde Park Corner. But installing a red cycle crossing light is currently illegal (which is why there isn't one here), as is installing cycle-only traffic lights at 'cycle-height'. Tens of thousands of cyclists use this crossing point every day; they are being ignored. I've never seen a single horse here; they are being catered for. Our current National transport policy is a disgrace. Moreover, a lack of 'horse-awareness' is also why the Government-run DVLA have blocked calls by driving instructors to make cycle awareness part of UK Driving Test. Again, this is completely farcical.

The Government needs to get its act together and start taking cycling, and the comments of MPs like Sir Malcolm seriously. Ad campaigns are no bad thing in of themselves. But anyone that has ever cycled on any road in Britain knows that what is a hundred times more important is safe cycle infrastructure which ensures that cyclists do not have to integrate with fast moving traffic that might, and indeed does repeatedly, kill them.

I suspect the reason for the Government's intransigence is due to a fear of alienating motorist voters. This is because nearly every element of proper cycle infrastructure you can think of deprives space or speed to the motorist in some way; advance stop boxes - ineffectual as they are - mean that motorists have to stop further away from the traffic lights; protected cycle lanes reduce that amount of lane space available to motorists; phased traffic lights mean motorists have to wait slightly longer at the lights; contra-flow cycle lanes usually necessitate the removal of on-street parking or the narrowing of a residential street.

The sad truth is that due to successive decades of pro-motorist policies in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, London's streets are already incredibly motor-friendly. Motorists and taxis have now got used to this state of affairs and are, like the American South, resistant to change. This photo is of Eaton Square, a five-lane (yes, that's right, FIVE LANE) residential road linking the twin centers of industry and commerce that are Sloane Square and Buckingham Palace. I can understand that high levels of motor capacity are necessary for some routes like the M25, but this kind of highway design in the heart of Central London, connecting two areas that are barely a mile apart, is just a complete and utter piss-take.
The lorry pictured here is, I believe, working for TfL and has special cyclist sensors. (Has the Government forced the freight industry to make this the industry standard, at least for vehicles travelling in London? No. Of course they haven't.) The rest of the traffic is just speeding taxis and young professionals in sports cars, probably driving to the gym where they'll get on a stationary bike for a workout. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that one lane of this road is used to create a two-way protected cycle lane.
I would also like to see every member of our current cabinet cycle from Sloane Square to Parliament along this road and then say that all we need to make our streets safer is an advertising campaign. To be frank, I doubt they'd all make it to Parliament alive.

However, unless the Government wants to see more and more cyclists dying on Britain's streets due to collisions with fast moving motor vehicles it needs to make the brave decision to start a National Strategy to improve cycling infrastructure across the country and help - rather than hinder - organisations like TfL in their efforts to make roads safer for cyclists; even if this means making things slightly more cramped or slower for motorists in some areas, particularly inner city roads where high levels of motor capacity are simply not necessary.

To do anything less is grossly irresponsible, and it is a real discredit to Patrick McLoughlin and the Conservative majority of the Coalition Government, that as Transport Minister Mr McLoughlin has not made any efforts yet to properly rectify the issue of spiralling numbers of cyclists being killed by - to quote Conservative former Transport Minister Malcolm Rifkind again - "a long-term paucity of proper cycling infrastructure".

----

Cyclists in the City has also written intelligently on Rifkind's recent piece in an article available here.

Conservative AM Richard Tracey's cretinous contribution to the London Assembly's investigation into cycling in London

Having just watched the live feed of the London Assembly's investigation into cycling in London today (11/9/2012), I felt obliged to record the idiotic comments of Richard Tracey (a Conservative London Assembly member, representing Merton and Wandsworth) for posterity on the internet.

Here's a photo of Conservative Richard Tracey looking substantially less fat than he did on my web-feed today. Maybe he could take the advice of the Danish Cycling Embassy and prolong his life by 6 years by cycling to work and losing a few pounds?

The London Assembly had very intelligently invited two experts, from Holland and Denmark respectively (two countries where cycling is both much safer and much more widely practiced than in London), to speak on the issue of cycling in London. The Dutch and Danish experts made many incisive comments about the importance of building safe cycle infrastructure, for instance segregating cycle traffic away from fast moving motor traffic to provide real protection for cyclists. Unfortunately Richard Tracey's contribution did not match their intellectual standard.

Among other questions Richard Tracey seemed very concerned to know just how large Copenhagen and Amsterdam were in terms of population size. Given he's paid £53,439 a year to be a London Assembly he perhaps could have gone to the trouble of consulting wikipedia for this information before the meeting in question, and subsequently avoided wasting everyone else's time. But no. He's too lazy. He's Richard Tracey.

Having established the population sizes of Copenhagen and Amsterdam (500,000 and 1,000,000 respectively) Mr Richard Tracey then jingoistically remarked that they were both smaller than Birmingham, the UK's second largest city. Looking around the conference room for encouragement for his completely irrelevant comments, Mr Richard Tracey then pondered if Birmingham was indeed the UK's second largest city, or whether it might be Manchester. Mr Richard Tracey then concluded that he was initially correct. It was Birmingham. [Again, none of this was remotely on topic. What on earth is this man being paid £53,439 a year for???]

If Mr Richard Tracey was aiming to make a point about journey distance (and hence undermine a pro-cycling argument by conjecturing, even though it has been conclusively proved otherwise, that Londoners make so many long-distance trips that a high modal share of bike use is impractical) he completed missed the mark by asking about population size instead. Was this a bit of completely pointless Capital City Cock-Wagging by our elected representative? ["My capital city's bigger than yours! Thanks for taking all the trouble of coming to London and giving us the benefit of your vast experience! Joke's on you cause my ears were closed you European Pricks!"] Just to clarify those are Richard Tracey's words, not mine.

In fact, the extremely high population density and comparatively small road space of London actually makes a very high modal share of cycling eminently practical, for a reason so simple that even Mr Richard Tracey can understand it: bikes take up far less space on the roads than cars. In London we have lots of commuters and a strictly limited road space. Therefore we need more cyclists in we want to ease inner-city congestion.

This photo (borrowed from the excellent Cyclists in the City) shows about 20 rush-hour cyclists fitting into a space that would only hold 2 cars. Imagine how much worse the traffic would be for Richard Tracey if all of those cyclists were in their own cars, creating a 20 car traffic-jam stretching far back over Southwark Bridge.

Having watched Richard Tracey wasting about 10 minutes trying to undermine the London Assembly's distinguished guests because their cities were smaller than his, I thought he would now shut-up. But, unfortunately he didn't.

Moreover, can you guess which reputable newspaper Mr Tracy decided to draw on for his next 'intelligent' contribution? Was it The Times' CycleSafe campaign, highlighting the shockingly high numbers of cyclists that have died on our streets? Was it The Independent and The Guardian repeatedly calling for London's authorities to do more for cyclists. Was it The Economist cogently (as always) arguing that cyclist numbers in London have been increasing while cycle infrastructure has been staying static, and massive investment is now needed to make cycling safer and therefore more attractive to Londoners? Or was it even The Telegraph arguing that cycling should be our national sport, and listing the many ways in which regular cyclists pay an astonishingly positive contribution to our economy?

No. It was The Daily Mail which published an article about a (possibly fictional) woman that got hit by a cyclist. Now, I am in no way condoning anti-social cycling (if this incident did indeed occur). But Richard Tracey is seriously missing the issue here. Insultingly so. If we are to talk at a public meeting about safety incidents involving bicycles in London, should we not be remembering the many people that have lost their lives on Bow Roundabout before we consider anyone that may or may not have been brushed by a bicycle on a pavement? These people are dead now. The Daily Mail columnist's mother (if she exists) is still alive. Surely those that died on Bow Roundabout represent a much bigger issue?

But no. Richard Tracey continued on, quoting from online media created only for the most intellectually limited members of our literate populace, and called for compulsory bicycle number plates so the anti-social perpetrators of these crimes could be caught. Mr Tracey, if you're going to put the focus on justice, how about calling for greater punishments for the van driver who killed a 12 year old boy last Thursday? Or the driver that seriously injured a Paralympic cyclist last year? David Cameron spoke yesterday at the Olympic Athletes' Parade about his son now - in the post-Olympic aftermath - wanting to be "like Bradley Wiggins". But did David Cameron mention any safety measures that would make his son, and many other sons like him, allowed to have the option of cycling safely segregated from life-threatening high-speed traffic, like the aforementioned van driver? No, David Cameron didn't.

Caroline Pidgeon, the leader of the LibDems on the London General Assembly (pictured here), does genuinely understand cycling and cyclists in London. But she is unfortunately hampered by having to work with buffoons like Richard Tracey. The man's an idiot and I'm quite frankly amazed that one single Londoner voted for him in 2010. I am even more shocked that the London Assembly have allowed Tracey to be a member of the Transport Commitee.

To return to my final point with regard to Richard Tracey and the London Assembly meeting. When Dr Rachel Aldred and our Dutch and Danish friends were very cogently outlining the limitations of many of the current Cycle Superhighways (especially CS2 which runs, as blue paint, from Bow, down Mile End Road and Whitechapel Road, to Aldgate), Richard Tracey was extremely keen to know what the "trade-offs" would be to installing safe, protected cycle lanes for Londoners to use. Clearly Richard Tracey was cacking his pants about the impacts of any slight reduction to London's motor traffic capacity.

But as Dr Aldred very acutely observed, many of London's key roads were closed or constricted during the Olympics. Did we have chaos? No. Not at all. London ran better than many of us have ever seen it run. Moreover, all available studies have shown that road congestion simply expands or contracts to meet road capacity. So, just as building the massive M25 did nothing to alleviate London's long-term traffic congestion, because traffic simply increased to accomodate it, limiting traffic flow on many major London carriageways by the installation of segregated cycle lanes is not going to lead to an explosion of road congestion; traffic levels will simply decrease to accomodate the reduced capacity. So would Richard Tracey kindly stop cacking his pants? No.

I've written here in defence of Boris Johnson's cycling credentials. I argued that the biggest opponents to safe cycling in London are local politicians, often councillors, that have no interest in installing safe cycle infrastructure in their boroughs, where they have almost complete control of street layout since, by law, the local council is the local highway authority. This morning at the London Assembly we heard of Newnham Council's depressingly successful opposition in 2010 of TfL's, and Boris Johnson's, plan to extend Cycle Superhighway 2 - literally just 'blue paint' - into their borough. We also got to see, and hear, one of these anti-cycling councillors 'in action' at the council table: Mr Richard Tracey.

An example - on Whitechapel Road - of the horribly obstructive blue paint of the CS2 that Newnham Council so righteously opposed. I wonder how the traffic can flow at all on this street with that barely visible blue box getting in everyone's way.
Future Cycle Superhighway construction needs to be a hundred times more ambitious.

If you think that Richard Tracey needs to bring his views up-to-date with the 21st century - and lets not forget this a man who was in Thatcher's Tory Cabinet of the 80s, a government which designed most of the 'killer-junctions' which TfL are now improving - drop him an email at Richard.Tracey@London.gov.uk and do please let him know just how regressive and unhelpful his views are.

If you are a resident of Wandsworth or Merton you could also contact Richard Tracey as a constituent of his through www.writetothem.com

After all, we live in a democracy and cyclists using online communication channels recently managed to get Richard Nye to publicly apologise for saying "the only good cyclist is a dead one". Richard Tracey's road management policies aren't much better than Richard Nye's anti-cyclist editorials, and unlike Mr Nye, Mr Tracey has far more power to do cyclists actual harm through these policies.

So I think it's worth all of us dropping Mr Tracey a line at Richard.Tracey@London.gov.uk and letting him know that his idiotic contributions to today's debate simply weren't good enough.

(I didn't see the start of the debate so if I missed any more puerile questions from Richard Tracey do please add them in the comments section. Politicians like Richard Tracey, and Conservative MP Mark Field, need to be brought to public account with the cycling community, so we can all stop simply 'blaming-Boris'.)

Those interested can also watch a recording of the entire meeting here: http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/webcast/transportcommittee110912.asx (Richard Tracey begins his idiocy at about 1hr 40minutes) or read a transcript of the meeting here: http://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/b6950/Minutes%20-%20Appendix%202%20-%20Transcript%20Cycli.pdf?T=9

-------

Other posts on Richard Tracey being a buffoon: 

- A Personal Note to Conservative London Assembly Member Richard Tracey by Cyclists in the City - Nov 2011
- The chutzpah of Richard Tracey by As Easy As Riding A Bike - Jun 2011

Open Letter to Richard Nye, Editor of The Richmond Magazine, author of "the only good cyclist is a dead one"

[do contact Mr Nye yourself at editorial@sheengate.co.uk]

Dear Richard Nye (current editor of The Richmond Magazine),

I was disgusted by your comment:

"the only good cyclist is a dead one"

in the latest copy of the Richmond Magazine. 

Are you aware of the fact that there have been 11 cyclists killed in London already this year, 74 cyclists killed in Britain as a whole already this year, and that a 79-year-old man (clearly not a 'lycra lout') died yesterday in a collision with a skip lorry in Walton? 

Your comment was morally despicable, and mocks the serious safety risks posed to cyclists (by drivers like yourself) on Britain's roads in 2012.

I very much look forward to seeing a detailed, formal, sincere, and public apology - and hopefully resignation - from you in the next few days. 

I will continue to publicly and formally seek an apology from you until I hear of one.

George Johnston

P.S. Instead of fuming at cyclists while you drive around London, the next time you are stuck at the lights why not imagine that all the cyclists in the advanced stop box in front of you (and in Central London at rush hour there are quite a few these days) were in a car of their own instead. How much worse would congestion on London's streets then be? You should be grateful for every cyclist you see in London because, by choosing a bike instead of a car, he or she has actually eased congestion on London's streets making it easier for you to get around in your car. Cyclists only interact obstructively with motorists when the Government has failed to build proper cycle infrastructure (cycle lanes, etc.) which the cyclist is allowed to use instead and allows cyclists and motorists to safely travel at vastly different speeds down busy roads because they are safely segregated. And please don't talk about road tax because that doesn't exist. Car users pay a small car tax but given that over half of all Boris Bike registered users earn over £50,000 a year I think they are more than making up for the extremely minimal damage caused by bicycles to London's road system through the 40% income tax they are paying.

P.P.S You should be sacked.

Footnote

Here's a photo of Richard Nye looking like a crap journalist that doesn't deserve to be employed, let alone made Editor.