Bicycle Parking Guidance System in Utrecht

BicycleDutch - 8 June, 2015 - 23:01
Dynamic parking guidance systems are well-known all over the world, for cars at least. Utrecht has just started using such a system to guide people to bicycle parking facilities and … Continue reading →
Categories: Views

Cycling alongside the Máximakanaal (2)

BicycleDutch - 5 June, 2015 - 23:08
Two months ago I showed you the new cycle route alongside the new Máximakanaal. I shot the video on the very first Sunday it was open and that gave a … Continue reading →
Categories: Views

Sustrans Cycle-Friendly Design Manual (Part 1)

As Easy As Riding A Bike - 5 June, 2015 - 15:57

Last spring Sustrans released their Handbook for Cycle-Friendly Design, a relatively short 35-page document which got a bit of a kicking from many people, including David Hembrow and the Cycling Embassy.

This year they’ve released a much longer document in 16 separate chapters, the Cycle- Friendly Design Manual (not Handbook!). This Manual is a whopper – well over 400 pages long, which makes it rather longer than the Dutch CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic.

Given that the examples contained in this Sustrans Manual are almost entirely from the UK, you would be forgiven for leaping to the assumption that there’s probably a good amount of sub-standard stuff in it, to flesh it out to something that outweighs the CROW manual.

And you would be justified in jumping to that conclusion. Some good stuff is being built in the UK, but unfortunately there’s not a great deal of it, and basing your best practice examples entirely on what is found in Britain almost inevitably means you are going to fall short of actual ‘Cycle-Friendly’ Design.

Don’t get me wrong – there’s a great deal of genuinely good advice and guidance contained within these 400+ pages. Probably the majority of it is sound, and in the hands of an enlightened engineer or planner, who wants to do a good job, it could produce some quality cycling infrastructure. The problem is that the good stuff is often accompanied by advice and guidance that really isn’t very good; usually advice that less keen engineers or planners will automatically reach for when things get a bit tricky, or when compromises have to be made – which is, frankly, pretty much all the time, when you are attempting to build cycling infrastructure into a highway environment that has never accommodated cycling properly, ever before.

It’s also not clear what the actual purpose of this Manual will be, particularly at a time that we have a large amount of new stuff from TfL including the new London Cycling Design Standards that will (hopefully) be adopted by the Department for Transport as an England-wide replaced for the pretty dire LTN 2/08, as well as the Welsh Active Travel Design Guidance, and good guides being produced by campaigners.

Who is this Sustrans Manual for? How does it sit alongside the aforementioned guidance? This isn’t obvious.

Anyway, I thought I’d post some comments here on the opening chapters – it’s too big to take on all in one go.

Bear in mind that the stuff I’m picking out here is the bad stuff that has caught my eye. This isn’t comprehensive, by any means, nor is it an impartial review. I’m deliberately singling out things that should be changed, to make this a better manual, principally because (as I’ve already described) it’s the crap stuff that people who don’t care, or who have been forced to ‘compromise, will seize upon.

So Chapter 1, which is an overview – ‘Principles and processes for cycle friendly design’.

This is a pretty reasonable chapter, but it gets off to bad start – the opening lines, and Paragraph 2.13, tell us to

Design in line with cycle training – on-highway design should reinforce how people are taught to cycle in National Standards / Bikeability Level 2, in particular primary and secondary road positioning.

This is simply the wrong approach – in fact it’s completely back-to-front. Much contemporary cycle training, while worthy, involves coping mechanisms to deal with inadequate or flawed road and street design. For instance, the primary position is used to control driver behaviour at hazardous areas of the road – pinch points, for example. It also involves cycling well away from parked cars. So Rather than explicitly designing for a way of cycling developed to cope with hazardous road design, the hazardous design itself should be addressed. Don’t build pinch points. Don’t put cycling infrastructure outside car doors. And so on. (There is no ‘Primary Position’ in the Netherlands, because cycling infrastructure is designed in such a way as to make it unnecessary to unnaturally position yourself in the middle of the road).

This is followed up by some suggestions on the dreaded ‘different categories of cyclist’, where it is alleged that ‘experienced cyclists… place particular importance on directness’ because they cycle on the road. Of course, this group really only appears to place a greater importance on directness because other users are not willing to deal with the stresses involved in cycling on the most direct routes, hence opting for a circuitous route that purchases a little comfort at the expense of convenience. It’s not credible to assume that some people don’t mind being sent around the houses – Every user values comfort, safety, directness – choices between these options are only made in the current British cycling environment because it is so inadequate.

Closely related, we also have the advice

Where more confident cyclists choose not to use any facilities provided their needs should also be addressed with separate provision where appropriate; they should not be compromised by the design

Design should of course be good enough such that ‘more confident cyclists’ do not feel the need to avoid it. It is a mistake to provide two inadequate forms of provision for two different categories of user; if you find someone avoiding your design, you should be asking yourself why, not tinkering with another parallel approach somewhere else.

In this regard, Paragraph 4.9 in Chapter 3 of the Manual is more acceptable, in that it highlights how this kind of parallel provision should only be an ‘interim arrangement’ – ‘the longer term aim should be to design all routes as suitable for the full range of target users’, which is right, but leaves me wondering why the door is left open in this manual to councils opting for the easy option of dual provision, in the first place.

Chapter 3 is entitled ‘Placemaking’.

This is a troubling chapter for a ‘Cycle-Friendly’ manual because in many places it recommends sacrificing the comfort and safety of cycling in order to create ‘place’.

We are told that

Many urban streets are not wide enough to provide separate cycle facilities or have frontage activity that makes such provision impractical. Design for such environments needs to think beyond standard highway design, defining a slow speed highway environment where cycles, pedestrians and motorised traffic can safely integrate.’

and also that

In some streets there is no room to provide standard cycle facilities. Placemaking helps define a slow speed highway environment where cycles, pedestrian and motorised traffic can safely integrate.’

If streets and roads are genuinely not wide enough, or there is not enough room, then measures should be taken to reduce motor traffic volumes to an acceptable level at which it is comfortable to cycle on the carriageway – around 2000 PCU/day.

High traffic levels do not allow cycling to ‘safely integrate’ with motor traffic, particularly if there is a relatively high proportion of HGVs/buses. Many of the examples featured in this chapter – Kensington High Street, Exhibition Road, Ashford, Poynton – have uncomfortably high levels of motor traffic for cycling to be combined with it.

An example from the Sustrans manual. ‘Placemaking’ in action, but certainly not ‘cycle-friendly’

If there is not sufficient width to separate cycling from these traffic levels, then rather than attempting to integrate cycling into it with ‘placemaking’ features, the genuinely cycle-friendly approach is to reduce that motor traffic volume to a comfortable level.

It’s this kind of analysis that is missing from the Sustrans manual – although there are helpful speed/volume diagrams at the start of the manual, describing what kind of provision is appropriate, that approach appears to get jettisoned when the practicalities of designing for cycling on actual streets and roads comes to be discussed.

Indeed, this ‘placemaking’ chapter is essentially all about attempting to accommodate cycling on the carriageway on roads that are still carrying far too much through traffic for acceptable ‘sharing’ – what I have called placefaking, a fudging of the function of roads that are busy with motor traffic. A more helpful approach would be to employ the Dutch Sustainable Safety principle of Monofunctionality, which would involve moving every road and street into a particular category, either one for access (with low motor traffic levels, through design) or a distributor road that serves a through-function, and with appropriately-designed separate cycle provision.

A former through-route for motor traffic in Assen, too narrow for separate cycle provision. But instead of ‘safe integration’, the through motor traffic has been removed.

Chapter 4 – Streets and roads

This chapter sadly follows on from the previous one, with much of the same cycle-unfriendly advice.

In streets with high place function (e.g. high streets or town squares), segregated cycle tracks will generally not be a suitable provision because of the complex pedestrian movements and competition for space with other social activities and parking and loading requirements.

Again, we see – weirdly for a ‘cycle-friendly manual – that ‘place function’ trumps adequate cycle design, regardless of the amount of motor traffic a particular road or street is carrying.

Of course cycle tracks can and do work well on high street locations, and places with parking and loading requirements.

A cycle track on a high street location, with parking and loading and ‘complex’ pedestrian movements. Not a problem.

The elephant in the room here, however, is volume of motor traffic, just as with the previous ‘placemaking’ chapter. If motor traffic on particular street is above 2000 PCU/day, then separate provision for cycling should be provided, immaterial of the street context. If it is not practicable to achieve this – either due to the width of the street, or genuine complexity with other social activity, then motor traffic levels should be reduced below 2000 PCU/day, to create a genuine place. It is pretty ridiculous to suggest that high streets carrying large amounts of motor traffic can’t accommodate cycling infrastructure because that would interfere with ‘place’, but that appears to be exactly what this Sustrans manual is doing.

As it happens, paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 in this chapter provide sensible limits for motor traffic levels for acceptable sharing with cycling (1500 vehicles/day, or 3000 vehicles/day, in slightly different contexts). However paragraph 3.4 suggests that sharing at up to 6000 vehicles/day ‘should be considered’ in locations with a high place functions. Such a level of motor traffic (600-700 vehicles per hour, or 10-12 a minute, in peak) pretty much renders any ‘place function’ moot.


— Joe Dunckley (@steinsky) June 4, 2015

Again, at this level, some form of separation should be provided, and if it can’t, motor traffic levels should be reduced.

This strange fudging is repeated later in this chapter, under a section on Mixed Priority Routes –

Mixed Priority Routes (MPR) are streets with a mix of land uses (commonly commercial and residential frontages) that also carry high levels of traffic. MPRs have important movement and place functions and need to accommodate a diverse mix of road users – pedestrians, cyclists, passenger service vehicles and passengers, motorists – and parking and deliveries.

Again, streets that have a ‘movement and place function’ should be moved into one category or the other, as per Sustainable Safety. It really isn’t acceptable to mix in cycling with through traffic on streets that are alleged to have a place function; either the street should have motor traffic levels reduced below 2000 PCU/day, or cycling should be separated from that motor traffic.

Shared space naturally makes an appearance too in this chapter, but there’s far too much emphasis on this design technique as ‘cycle friendly’ without any reference to maximum traffic levels for ‘sharing’.

Shared space design principles can be applied to links and junctions, including junctions with significant traffic flows and HGVs.

I’m sure they can be applied, but is sharing space with significant traffic flow ‘cycle-friendly’? Almost certainly not.

Shared space environments can be convenient and attractive to cycle users. Although many schemes include narrow lane widths, cyclists can mix comfortably with traffic because of the very low speeds.

Poynton is famously invoked as one of these ‘low speed’ shared space environments, but I challenge anyone to argue that this kind of environment – slow or otherwise – is ‘friendly’ for cycling.

 There’s just too much motor traffic; it’s deeply unhelpful to include environments like this in this kind of manual without reference to motor traffic levels.

It’s really disappointing, especially when other stuff in this chapter – like cycle streets – are explained and described well, with clear limits (2000 vehicles per day) on motor traffic levels.

Good recommendations. So why not apply this rigour to other streets and roads?

Another intervention –  homezones – is described in a peculiar way –

The layout [of homezones] discourages through traffic and reduces vehicle speeds to less than 20mph

Homezones should be designed to prevent through traffic – ‘prevent’ should obviously be substituted for ‘discourage’.

There’s also a lengthy section on ‘Community street design’. While worthy, experience with these kinds of projects is starting to demonstrate that asking the community to make changes they want to see to a street won’t necessarily result in changes that are ‘cycle friendly’.

Community-led highway design. No accommodation of cycling. (An example from this Sustrans manual)

It’s pretty naive to expect outcomes from these kind of projects to be ‘cycle-friendly’ – so why include this approach at all in a manual that should be about high-quality cycling design?

There is, unfortunately other rubbish in here too. Pinch points –

The left hand side is a recommendation.



Cycle lanes arranged outside car parking, which should be a complete no-no on through routes for motor traffic –

A weird recommendation for a bus stop bypass that sends people cycling on the road onto a shared use footway, right at the bus stop –


… As well as a suggestion that ‘wide general traffic lanes’ are an acceptable way of passing stopped buses. (Again, it would be helpful here for some kind of motor traffic volume indication of when it is acceptable to direct cycling around the outside of stopped buses – presumably <2000 PCU/day).

And finally there are also poor examples of cycle (‘partial’, whatever that means) priority across side roads –

To repeat, this manual is mostly composed of good advice – you might not get that impression from what I’ve focused on here. But there shouldn’t be any place for this kind of inferior design, or substandard recommendations, in such a lengthy manual, because that is what will get picked out by councils who are not committed to doing a good job.

If a council is faced with a choice between reducing motor traffic levels to a genuinely acceptable level for sharing the carriageway, or a Sustrans recommendation that sharing is acceptable on ‘Mixed Priority Routes’, or that cycling can be ‘safely integrated’ on roads with heavy traffic – which will they pick?

If a council is faced with a choice between designing proper protected cycling infrastructure on the inside of parked cars, or painting a crap cycle on the outside of them, as per Sustrans guidance – which will they will pick?

If a council is faced with a choice between removing a pinch point and providing a safe convenient design for people walking and cycling, or painting a bicycle symbol in the middle of a 3.1m pinch – which will they pick?

And so on. The crap needs to go, because that’s the stuff that will be chosen.

More to come on the remaining chapters next week…

Categories: Views

Scania trucks’ “Keeping children safe”? What’s going on here?

Road Danger Reduction Forum - 4 June, 2015 - 20:47

A construction industry truck currently sold by Scania. Note gap between vehicle body and lack of diver visibility in high cab

Amongst the deluge of unquestioned “road safety” press releases from the “road safety” industry, one recent one grabs our attention. Time for us to question this initiative from truck manufacturers Scania – and one from Volvo – with another bit of recent publicity on the same matter.

The Scania/RSGB initiative

Released at the recent trade show by Scania in partnership with the official “road safety” practitioners’ organisation RSGB, the programme is outlined here.

Essentially it is based on telling primary school children not to cycle near the nearside of lorries, and not to stand on the footway (pavement) near corners. Do look at the material here.

Launch of initiative: representatives of Transport for London’s Fleet Operators Recognition Scheme (TfL/FORS); Road Safety Great Britain (RSGB) and Scania   How about safer lorries?

Remember this sorry story of the blocking of the introduction safer lorries in Europe? (Also read this in The Times.) Essentially, under pressure from lorry manufacturers, the French and Swedish governments blocked manufacturers from implementing more aerodynamic lorry designs. The manufacturers generally referred to were (for France) Renault and (for Sweden) Scania and Volvo, although Scania are 80% owned by Volkswagen, and Volvo are now largely under Chinese ownership.

The redesign which was delayed was primarily there for the benefit of operators wishing to save fuel by having greater vehicle aerodynamics from peripheral “skirts”. This also benefits cyclist and pedestrian safety by providing lower cabs with more driver visibility, and skirting and/or lower vehicle and cab bodies to reduce chances of being dragged under lorry wheels.

The principle of Road Danger Reduction – as opposed to traditional “road safety” – is to reduce danger at source. In this case this means controlling the design and operation of lorries, enforcing laws to control lorry driver behaviour, and engineering the highway to prevent lorries from coming close to cyclists and pedestrians. What we have here is something which should only be considered when these options have been properly implemented.

The next two sections have been reproduced from an earlier post – but are worth repeating:


 An aside: The recent history of lorry design

At this point I should refer to a meeting I had at Transport for London (with my colleague from the London Boroughs Cycling Officers Group). This was at a time (I think 2002) before The Times started pushing for cyclist safety, when we had to fight hard to get anybody to take notice of the HGVs/Cyclists issue. We were met by, among others, a freight industry representative, who explained the 10-year cycle of lorry design, manufacture, sale and use.

Now, it was a while ago, and I may have got the details wrong (and they may have been inaccurately conveyed to us) but my understanding was this: Lorry manufacturers take about ten years to design, implement and manufacture a model, and this will then be bought and used by operators for another ten years before they buy the next model. We were told – as I recall – that the next design/manufacture cycle would start in 2010. New models would come in then, and by 2020 almost all HGVs would have the safer and more aerodynamic characteristics shown above.

But they didn’t. The episode recounted above – where RDRF joined others to lobby the EU to allow (that is just allow, let alone make mandatory) safer lorry design – indicates that the cycle we are now in ignored all the evidence about the importance of lorry design for cyclist and pedestrian safety in the 1990s and early 2000s, as well as the desire of operators to have more fuel-efficient vehicles.

  The HGV problem in context

We have been working on the safety issue for cyclists and pedestrians posed by HGVs, specifically in cities, since the early 1990s. There is a range of solutions which require implementing, namely:

Highway engineering which could eliminate potential collisions of all severities, and also do so with collisions involving all motor vehicles and create safer space. This is restricted to specific locations, and is less relevant for pedestrians, so attention is also needed to engineering HGVs so that drivers can be aware of who and what is around them. HGVs should also be engineered so that it becomes far more difficult (or impossible) for pedestrians or cyclists to be crushed, by skirting HGVs or otherwise reducing the gap between road surface and the body of the vehicle. Safety standards on HGVs can also be enforced by the police. Swift and high quality post-crash investigation, and the threat of deterrent sentencing for unsafe HGV operation are required. Construction sites and operators can be subject to appropriate procurement procedures to push forward relevant measures. Additional technologies such as black box recorders and pedestrian/cyclist-activated vehicle braking systems should be introduced.

HGV driver training is necessary, although low down the list of priorities. We are believers in cycle training, but the essential issue is reducing danger at source – from HGVs (particularly construction industry HGVs) which are currently unfit for purpose in a city. Not all of the million people who sometimes cycle in London can be reached or – even if experienced and careful – expected to avoid HGVs that hit them from behind or overtake and turn left. Even where a cyclist or pedestrian is careless or ignorant (as we all are on occasion) they do not deserve to be punished with death or serious injury. After all, motorists have their carelessness accommodated by highway and vehicle engineering – why shouldn’t cyclists or pedestrians?

For further discussion see the post by Bill Chidley here  with RDRF comments below.


“Keeping children safe”

 Forgive the emphasis on use of language – we are keen on this at RDRF. The first point is that we focus on danger in terms of danger to others. In this sense, aside from rare examples of child pedestrians knocking over cyclists, child cyclists on pavements troubling elderly pedestrians etc., children are very safe.

But let’s look at what happens when primary school children are subject to the ETP (Education, Training and Publicity) of the “road safety” industry. For decades it has been known that relentless campaigns exhorting children of primary school age to get out of the way of drivers have little impact on their behaviour. They are not, however, totally ineffective.

In my view they have a subtle background effect – people have memories of being instructed in “road safety”, even if there was no actual change in their behaviour, years afterwards. Essentially a message does get through – that it is right and necessary to defer to those more threatening than you are. A might-is-right ideology is transmitted to the most impressionable in society.

Let’s look at the two messages here in more detail: The first, about not cycling up the nearside of large vehicles is communicated in effective Bikeability cycle training as one of numerous elements. But good quality Bikeability training promotes cycling, and results in more people developing confidence and abilities for a variety of situations on the road, and also makes people aware of their rights as equal road users when cycling. It isn’t about scare tactics or disassociated from the business of getting around. Children taking part may even have to un-learn what they have previously been taught about always getting out of the way of motor traffic.

The second is telling children that the pavement is often not a place where pedestrians should be. What effect will this have when – as seems likely – they become motorists some years later? It won’t have a noticeable effect on changing the behaviour of primary school children – as said above, these programmes tend not to. And anyway, how many primary schoolchildren are actually hit on street corners by HGVs when standing there?


What is Scania doing for lorry safety?

 Why are Scania still selling construction vehicles like the one below, with poor visibility for drivers and a large gap between vehicle body and tarmac for cyclists and pedestrians to go into?

Construction industry HGV (from Scania web site)

 Our contact at Tip-Ex (the trade show where the initiative was launched) notes that Scania has been offering a service to retro-fit glazed panels to the lower part of nearside cab doors, but they weren’t clear about the extent to which that had been taken up. This kind of retro-fitting (in this case to give some proper visibility to HGV drivers) is one of the many pieces of re-engineering that should be implemented as soon as possible.


Operators and local highway authorities like Transport for London should press strongly for this until “blind-spots” are eliminated and there is no large space for pedestrians and cyclists to enter and be crushed in.


And “Road Safety GB”?

 What are “Road Safety Great Britain” doing to support enforcement of laws, engineer highways and vehicles to reduce the danger to cyclists and pedestrians of all ages, and oppose attempts to delay introduction of safer lorries, etc. etc?

VOLVO: “Stop, look, wave – a few good tips could save children’s’ lives”.

Do look at Volvo’s programme here. Here at RDRF we have something of a general problem with Volvo. We point out the adverse effects on other road users of drivers feeling that they have to less to worry about because of increased crashworthiness of their vehicle. And Volvo have historically been synonymous with greater car crashworthiness.

We note that in the concluding comments to the recent TfL/CLOCS conference by CLOCS chairman Brian Weatherly, he said, “When will CLOCS’ work be completed? Volvo has Vision 2020 – no one will be killed by a Volvo HGV in 2020. It would be an excellent goal for everyone in CLOCS to adopt. If we could achieve that we would know CLOCS has done its job.” Since re-engineered lorries will not now be on the roads until after 2020, and many lorries that are already on the roads will, one does rather wonder about Volvo’s Vision 2020.

So when we saw the release about trucks, children’s lives being saved and Volvo, we thought it only fair to let you know.

Everything we have said above about HGVs applies in this case as well.

Also, (a minor point on the eye contact question. Establishing eye contact is good practice – although don’t forget what happens with visually impaired pedestrians. But:

“To make sure you have gained the driver’s attention, WAVE and wait for the driver to wave back. Now you can cross the street. “

“Always Stop, Look and Wave before crossing a street to prevent an accident.”

What happens when the driver doesn’t wave back?

For a moderate and sensible approach to dealing with the issues around lorry danger look at the work of the cycle campaign groups, particularly London Cycling campaign (most recently, see this and the latest issue of its London Cyclist.


Categories: Views

Safe cycle priority road crossings

A View from the Cycle Path - 3 June, 2015 - 18:50
I've covered several types of road crossing for cyclists in the past. Those with traffic lights, where cyclists have to wait for motorists but can stop in the middle of the road, those where there is equal priority between cyclists and motorists. Sometimes it's possible to give cyclist priority over roads when cycle-paths and roads cross but this can only be safely achieved if certain conditions David Hembrow
Categories: Views

The solution is design

As Easy As Riding A Bike - 2 June, 2015 - 12:50

The media storm after that incident now appears to be moving into its final stages as the driver involved has apologised.

Without wishing to comment on the individual behaviour on display, it’s fairly obvious that the layout on the road in question is almost a recipe for conflict. A through-route for motor traffic is combined with a busy route for people cycling, into and out of Richmond Park. Add in a truly terrible piece of cycling provision that very few people are going to be prepared to use, and it’s almost inevitable that this kind of confrontation would occur.Above is the end/start of the ‘cycle provision’ towards the southern end of Priory Road. It may not be entirely obvious but this is a two-way path. There is no similar ‘infrastructure’ to speak of further south along Priory Road.

This footway – I won’t even credit it as a cycle path, because it is just paint on a footway – is plainly totally unsuitable for even minimal volumes of cycle traffic. It’s barely wide enough for two people to stand next to each other on two bikes, let alone to pass each other in opposite directions with a combined passing speed of 20-30mph.

Not just that, but it gives up at side roads, notably at the mini roundabout where the confrontation occurred.

This ‘path’ incorporates the dangerously ambiguous ‘everyone gives way to everyone else’ gibberish that results in deaths, and has been so justifiably criticised recently in a new design in Bradford.

This tokenistic crap really has to go, not just because it inflames drivers, but also (and far more importantly) because it is dangerous, and also allows councils to get away with pretending that they’ve ‘provided’ something for cycling on a particular road or street when in reality it will often make a bad situation worse.


So what’s the answer?

Straightforwardly, something has to give. Either the carriageway itself should be made attractive for cycling, for everyone – and by for everyone, I mean reducing motor traffic levels down to around 2-3000 PCU per day, something like 200 vehicles per hour in peak, or a 3-4 a minute.

Alternatively, some high-quality parallel cycling infrastructure, again suitable for everyone (that means young children as well as people in lycra, riding fast to or from Richmond Park) should be provided alongside the carriageway.

Given the width constraints here, it’s hard to see how this latter option could be achieved.  The best option might be to convert the whole footway into genuine cycle provision, on which people can walk.

This would be a 3-4m bi-directional path of road standard. The downside of course is that pedestrian comfort would be sacrificed, and it may well be that there are two many pedestrians using this road for this to be a viable option. The width may still not be sufficient, and I suspect this option is unworkable.

Alternatively more space could be gained by converting this road to one-way for motor traffic, allowing a much wider bi-directional path to be constructed, with a separate footway alongside it. Indeed, looking at this view again –

… the entire right-hand lane here (which has few turning conflicts) could become the bi-directional path, separated from the carriageway, with the footway restored to pedestrian use only. This example in Haarlem – perhaps a slightly different urban context – shows what could be achieved. The bi-directional path on the left here was constructed from a vehicle lane.

Restricting the road to one-way would obviously entirely cut-out through (motor) traffic in one-direction, lowering traffic levels, while still allowing access to properties and dwellings on Priory Lane.

If this isn’t workable, for whatever reason, then the only remaining option, as previously described, is to lower motor traffic levels on Priory Lane to around 2-3000 PCU/day. This would have to be achieved with point closures at intervals or with opposing one-way sections that still allowed two-way cycling. Access for residents would be retained, and through motor traffic would have to use slightly longer parallel routes. It could even become a genuine cycle street, still open to motor traffic for access, but with very low motor traffic levels, such that cycle traffic dominates.

More generally this might be tied to the issue of Richmond Park itself being used as a through-route for motor traffic – Priory Lane is an extension of that through-route, and perhaps the two issues could be considered together, with motor traffic diverted onto the A3 and the A306 (and other main roads skirting the park).

These options will require planning and investment, but will have many benefits. They would reduce conflict between motor traffic and cycle traffic – not just the extreme example that has made the headlines – but the more numerous and mundane day-to-day kinds of conflict that makes cycling unattractive, like being followed by motor traffic (even driven well) for several hundred metres. Reducing motor traffic on Priory Lane (and indeed through Richmond Park) would have added multiple benefits for residents, particularly in the form of a calmer, safer, quieter and less-polluted road on their doorstep.

Just as with the recent example of conflict involving a young child and someone cycling on the pavement, this is the kind of discussion the media should now move on to. A reasoned, sensible analysis of how to reduce conflict between cycling and other modes, while making our streets safer and more attractive in the process (we can but hope).

Alternatively our media can just keep sensationalising these incidents every time they occur, as they inevitably will given the built-in conflict engendered by our road and street system. Their choice, I guess.



Categories: Views

Bicycle parking at Delft Central Station

BicycleDutch - 1 June, 2015 - 23:01
Delft is now one of the Dutch cities with a bicycle parking facility to park 5,000 bicycles at the railway station. The symbiosis of the train and the bicycle is … Continue reading →
Categories: Views

From Copenhagen to Geneva - Discussion on Exporting the Danish Bicycle Model

Copenhagenize - 1 June, 2015 - 09:24
Bike infrastructure in Geneva. Crédit photo : Louis-Philippe Tessier. A French translation of this article follows the English text.

It's our great pleasure and honor to see numerous people, from all over the world, coming through the door of Copenhagenize's office, in order to meet us and have a chat about bicycle urbanism. For the Copenhagenize's team, it's always an opportunity to share our knowledge and experience. We explain the distinctives features of Copenhagen while learning the latest best practices from our visitors' cities. A few months ago, it's Clotilde, our French urban planner, who received Louis-Philippe Tessier, student in Environmental Sciences, who had just arrived from Geneva (Switzerland) to do fieldwork for his Master these. 
It was the opportunity to get information on the cycling culture in Geneva and to know which best-practices Louis-Phillipe could bring back to Switzerland.
(article written by Louis-Philippe and Clotilde following their discussion)

The 2015 Velo-city conference, held this year in Nantes between June 2nd and 5th, has one main objective: bringing together numerous experts on “bicycle urbanism” from across the world so as to facilitate the exchange of best practices and necessary knowledge to promote and develop urban bicycle usage. For three days, participants will also be able to let themselves be inspired and to take a breath of fresh air in a world which is often polluted by negative thoughts. But a question remains: are these transfers of knowledge even possible? Are local authorities even receptive to foreign best practices?
Louis-Philippe’s Masters thesis partly sought to explore this theme. Its main goal was to study Geneva’s cycling infrastructures and policies so as to identify a certain number of elements hindering the development of bicycle usage in this city. Ultimately, the recommendations put forward in the thesis were inspired from a number of best practices taken from Copenhagen. 

Obstacles in Geneva, solutions in CopenhagenFour obstacles were identified in Geneva:            1. A negative perception of bicycles and their users            2. Few measures aimed at restricting car usage            3. The existence of a logic of opportunity            4. The particularities of the city’s urban form

Bike lanes represent 20% of the whole bicycle network in Geneva (CH). Crédit photo : Louis-Philippe Tessier. 

Possessing numerous years of expertise in the field, Copenhagen has become a model for cities across the world wishing to promote bicycle use amongst their citizens. To each obstacles identified in Geneva, Copenhagen could provide proven solutions. 
Concerning the first one, the nordic city would promote its communication strategy aimed at reinforcing the positive aspects of cycling in cities, which is very well presented in its official Bicycle Strategy. As Stefan Gössling puts it, by reading this document one understands that cycling “is pleasurable for everyone.” (2013, p. 201). 
Responding to the second obstacle, Danish planners would suggest that it is more economically sound to replace car parking by separated bike lanes or bicycle parking spots. If one car can fit on one parking spot, there can be up to eight bicycles parked there, which represents more potential customers to nearby shops. In Geneva, a local law states that any removed car parking must be replaced in the vicinity. If one also takes into account the cost of acquiring the space needed for this new parking spot, one is left with a messy bureaucratic and political bottleneck. 
The third obstacle concerns the way urban planners develop the cycling network. Rather than drafting a concrete and detailed bicycle plan for the city, they very (too) often grab the opportunities passing under their noses. This means, on the one hand, that they need to be continuously aware of developments occurring throughout the city, but it also means that the cycling network ultimately becomes like a Swiss cheese: full of wholes. What they don’t tell you is that Swiss cheese in fact does not contain any holes;it’s just a misconception. Similarly, a good bicycle network should not have any holes. One picture of Copenhagenize’s Traffic Planning Guide II reminds us of that!

Coming back to the initial question of this article, it helps to look now at obstacle #4. When Geneva’s bicycle strategy was being voted in 2013, one deputy, who was explaining why the modal share of bicycles in Copenhagen was so high, was interrupted by voices shouting that the city was flatter than Geneva. In other words, according to them, it is not possible to transfer Copenhagen’s model because of the specific topography of the city. On one point they are right: every city is unique, facing different kinds of challenges and obliged to implement solutions adapted to the socio-politico-economic conditions. But this is not to say that planners cannot be inspired by foreign best practices. In fact, it has often been the case. Today’s cities are good examples since most of them were deeply and similarly transformed in the 50s and 60s by the automobile. Best practices can be exported to other cities as long as they respond to specific needs by local cyclists. One such example is Trondheim’s bicycle lift, which acts as an elevator helping cyclists go up a steep hill. Another one is, more generally, San Francisco’s increasing bicycle modal share, which could be attributed to the implementation of foreign best practices at certain intersections throughout the city (SFMTA, 2013, p. 6). San Francisco being a hilly city, this shows how geographical features may not have the same importance as the social, political, and economic context when developing a cycling city.

Lanes shared by cyclists and buses represent 4% of the network of bicycle infrastructure in Geneva (CH). Crédit photo : Louis-Philippe Tessier. 
Cycling urbanism and urban densityUrban density is one such element which can be very unique to cities. With environmental problems becoming more apparent, and urban populations continuously growing, many cities have began to densify. In highly dense cities such as Geneva, numerous actors often declare that few things can be done to improve transport conditions. Space scarcity is often the culprit. It is true that there are only a limited amount of users which can use a specific road. But is it more a question of space, or rather a question of which transportation mode should be prioritised in cities? Can a road lane be converted into a separated bike lane? Of course! What may vary between cities is the degree of political will to retrofit the urban landscape so as to prioritise more sustainable modes of transportation, in this case the bicycle. We are far from Copenhagen’s “Cyclists first” policy. But ultimately, as Andersen et al. declare, “all things being equal, urban density increases bicycle traffic“ (Andersen et al., 2012, p. 40). Thus, our politicians should really focus on finding adapted solutions to the urban density problem, rather than feeding the idea that their cities are not adapted to the bicycle.

This debate raises another question: is there an optimal urban density to efficiently develop safe, continuous and comfortable bicycle infrastructures?It is difficult to answer such a question since we are not only talking about technical details pertaining to physical infrastructures, but we are also addressing the ways that politics is conducted in every city. The nature of the arbitration between the actors directly and indirectly involved in the mobility system of a city, is crucial to take into consideration when on seeks to import best practices from cities such as Copenhagen. Solutions are manifold and come from various places across the world; this is one of the reason why the Velo-cityconference is such an important event for urban planners. Here are some examples taken from Copenhagen, which were contrasted to challenges still existing in Geneva (in French):

Ultimately, transferring knowledge and best practices is important but a particular focus should be put on understanding how politics is being conducted, and what elements strongly influence the planning process. Not doing so puts us at risk of being told that the city is not flat enough!

De Copenhague à Genève, discussion sur l'intérêt d'exporter le modèle cyclable danois
De nombreux visiteurs, venus du monde entier, passent la porte de nos bureaux à Copenhague, afin de venir discuter des infrastructures cyclables locales. Pour nous, à Copenhagenize Design Co., nous prenons toujours ces discussions comme un moment d'échanges et de partage de connaissances. Nous expliquons les particularités de Copenhague et nous apprenons les dernières nouvelles des politiques cyclables étrangères. Il y a quelques mois, c'est Clotilde, notre urbaniste française, qui recevait Louis-Philippe Tessier, étudiant en Sciences de l'Environnements, tout juste débarqué de Genève, pour venir faire du terrain dans le cadre de son mémoire.
Voici donc l'occasion de faire découvrir la culture cyclable de Genève et de donner une idée des « bonnes pratiques » que Louis-Philippe a rapporté dans ses bagages.

L’édition 2015 des conférences Velo-city se tiendra cette année à Nantes entre le 2 et 5 juin. L’objectif: réunir une multitude d’experts et d’adeptes du vélo afin de partager connaissances et bonnes pratiques en matière d’aménagement d’infrastructures cyclables et de promotion du vélo en milieu urbain. Outre l’occasion de côtoyer des personnes tout aussi convaincues que le vélo est un mode de transport réellement (vélo)rutionnaire, ce transfert d’informations est-il efficace et même possible ? Les autorités locales sont-elles réceptives aux pratiques “étrangères” ?
Le mémoire de maîtrise de Louis-Philippe, cherche justement à effectuer une analyse du réseau cyclable genevois et une recherche de pistes d'améliorations du développement du vélo dans cette ville, en s'inspirant du modèle copenhagois.

Des freins à Genève, des solutions à CopenhagueA Genève, il a été identifié quatre freins principaux au développement de ce mode de transport :
1. Une image négative du vélo et de ses utilisateurs2. Une faible restriction des déplacements automobiles3. L’existence d’une logique d’opportunité4. La forme urbaine particulière de la ville
Avec plusieurs décennies d’expérience en la matière, Copenhague représente un modèle à suivre pour ce qui est du développement d’une ville cyclable. Pour chaque frein identifié à Genève, des pistes intéressantes venues de la capitale danoise pourraient être explorées. 

Par exemple, face à l'image négative du vélo comme mode de transport, Copenhague mettrait en avant sa stratégie de communication positive, notamment expliquée dans le document Bicycle Strategy, laquelle explicitant le fait que rouler à vélo est “pleasurable for everyone”, tel que déclaré par Stefan Gössling (2013, p. 201). 
Face au deuxième frein, les urbanistes danois diraient qu’il est plus avantageux, économiquement, de remplacer des places de stationnement soit par des pistes cyclables séparées de la chaussée, soit par des places de stationnement pour vélos. Sur un stationnement automobile, jusqu’à huit vélos peuvent être stationnés, ce qui représente davantage d’acheteurs potentiels pour les commerces de proximité. À Genève, une loi locale oblige les autorités à compenser les places de stationnement supprimées dans un rayon restreint. Ajoutez un foncier rare et dispendieux, et vous obtenez un casse-tête bureaucratique et politique. 
Le troisième frein concerne la pratique d’aménagement des infrastructures cyclables à Genève : on utilise les opportunités qui passent, venant souvent de projets d’aménagement de grande envergure, pour faire une (petite) place aux vélos. Loin du plan structuré de Copenhague, où des objectifs clairs d’amélioration et de création de nouveaux tronçons sont déclarés, les pratiques genevoises, similaires à ce qui semble être fait dans de nombreuses villes, s’orientent vers la création de mini-tronçons ici et là. Résultat : une constellation de différentes infrastructures sur le réseau, parfois même sur un seul chemin, tel que celui des Coudriers, au nord-ouest de Genève. Où est la cohérence !
La question initiale - la transposition des infrastructures cyclables de Copenhague à d'autres villes - prend plus de sens encore lorsqu’on considère le frein n°4. Lors de l’adoption du Plan directeur cantonal de la mobilité douce en 2013, un député du Grand Conseil expliqua la forte part modale du vélo à Copenhague et se fit interrompre par des voix criant que “Là-bas c’est plat !”. Bref, on ne peut pas faire la même chose qu'à Copenhague. Toute les villes doivent conjuguer avec une topographie particulière, qui détermine les contraintes et les opportunités d’aménagement du réseau de transport. Et là aussi, en termes d'urbanisme cyclable, des solutions existent, même si cette fois-ci, évidemment, elles sont pas à trouver du côté du Danemark. L’important est de répondre au besoin des usagers. En Norvège, dans la ville de Trondheim, on trouve le CycloCable, une sorte d’ascenseur permettant aux usagers de gravir une pente particulièrement abrupte . D'autre part, à San Francisco, autre ville au relief accidenté, on a constaté ces dernières années une forte augmentation de la part modale. Il n'y a pas de déterminisme géographique car le contexte socio-politico-économique a une grande importance dans le développement d'une ville cyclable.

Urbanisme cyclable et densité Pour finir, un mot sur la densité urbaine et le vélo. L’apparition des enjeux environnementaux et l’accroissement de la population de certaines villes a fait en sorte que plusieurs d’entre elles se sont mises à densifier davantage le tissu urbain existant. Certaine ville, telle que Genève, possèdent une très forte densité urbaine que plusieurs considèrent comme un frein au développement du vélo puisque, soit disant, l’espace manquerait pour aménager des infrastructures de qualité. En effet, une route ne peut accueillir qu’un certain nombre de différents modes de transport. Mais ici, la question concerne-t-elle l’espace disponible ou plutôt l’arbitrage a effectuer entre les modes de transport ? Est ce qu’une voie de circulation ou de stationnement automobiles peut devenir une piste cyclable ? Bien sûr ! Est-ce qu’un large trottoir peut être scindé pour accueillir une voie cyclable ? Tout à fait ! Ce qui peut varier de ville en ville est le niveau de volonté politique nécessaire pour atteindre cet objectif de réaménagement en faveur des vélos. On est souvent loin du “Cyclists first !“ prôné par la municipalité danoise. Pourtant “all things being equal, urban density increases bicycle traffic“ (Andersen et al., 2012, p. 40). Il faut donc, tout de même, que nos décideurs soient capables d’utiliser pleinement le potentiel résidant au coeur d’une ville comme Genève possédant une aussi forte densité.
Bien que Copenhague ait réussi à se hisser au rang de meilleure ville cyclable au monde, il reste que la densité urbaine de la ville est inférieure à celle de Genève, ce qui a des implications pour le développement du vélo. C’est alors que l’on peut effectuer la réflexion suivante : plus qu'une taille idéale de ville, y a-t-il une densité optimale pour aménager des infrastructures cyclables sécuritaires, continues, cohérentes et confortables ?
Apporter des réponses techniques venues de pays étrangers est une vraie bonne idée qui peut permettre de faire gagner de nombreuses années d'expérimentation et d'études aux villes qui osent aller chercher des solutions qui marchent au-delà de leurs frontières. Mais pour les faire accepter faut-il encore avoir le bon discours pour les expliquer, lorsque l'on revient dans son pays, afin que les habitants et les élus les acceptent et se les approprient, en y apportant leur touche locale. En effet, l'évolution de la mobilité s'inscrit dans des contextes institutionnels, politiques, économiques, sociaux et culturels propres à chaque lieu. Les solutions existent, qu’elles viennent de Copenhague ou d'autres villes représentées prochainement à Vélo-City. Voici un récapitulatif de quelques solutions copenhagoises pour avancer dans la mise en place d'une politique cyclable :

Cette façon de penser le vélo comme moyen de transport urbain peut avoir de réels impacts positifs dans d’autres villes d’Europe ou d’ailleurs. Mais aujourd'hui, pour réaménager l’espace urbain, plus que l'analyse de la topographie, il faut surtout comprendre les éléments modelant la nature de l’arbitrage effectué par les décideurs locaux, sans quoi nous risquons de nous faire dire que la ville n’est pas suffisamment plate ! 
Copenhagenize the planet. And have a lovely day.
Categories: Views

Hacking a German "Safety" Campaign with Rationality

Copenhagenize - 30 May, 2015 - 15:54

Nice with a bit of activism and rationality on a Saturday. Thanks to our reader Jochen, who sent us some photos from the streets of Germany in reaction to a campaign from the German Ministry of Transport, above. Next to a photo of Darth Vader the text reads: "The saga continues, thanks to the helmet. Works in every galaxy. And on the bicycle."

This set cyclists and activists to task.

Billboard in Bonn: "Now I'm single... thanks, helmet."
Photo: Jochen Erdelmeier

In a country where only about 10% of cyclists wear plastic hats, the Ministry of Transport decided to chuck some taxpayer money into a campaign. A lazy move from politicans whose ignorance about the importance of encouraging cycling, building infrastructure and the health benefits of a cycling population has now been broadcast to the planet. They are basically using taxpayer money to advertise how ignorant they are. There's the first problem with their campaign.

The choice of Darth Vader is as strange as it is awkward - for the Germans. World War II Nazi helmets were the direct inspiration for Vader's helmet, as you can read here:

"Costume designer John Mollo took it from there, fusing elements of various real-life uniforms associated with war and evil. To design Vader’s infamous black helmet, Mollo looked to the black, shiny headgear Nazis wore during WWII."

One might argue that Mr Vader is not exactly an appropriate role model. One of the first things his mentor, Mr Hitler, did when assuming power was make Germany's largest cyclist organisation illegal. (they were also socialists, which was handy).

The Ministry also willfully ignores the advice of the European Council of Ministers of Transport in 2004 - which included the German Minister of Transport at the time - in a report entitled National Policies to Promote Cycling:

"[...] from the point of view of restrictiveness, even the official promotion of helmets may have negative consequences for bicycle use, and that to prevent helmets having a negative effect on the use of bicycles, the best approach is to leave the promotion of helmet wear to manufacturers and shopkeepers. The report entitled 'Head Injuries and Helmet Law for Cyclists' by Dorothy L. Robinson, Bicycle Research report No. 81 (March 1997) shows that the main effect of the introduction of the general helmet law for cyclists in Australia was a drop in bicycle use."

Even research from the German Hannelore Kohl Stiftung was happily swept under the rug:

Be sure to check for more reasons why driving with a helmet is a good idea. It links to our blog articles about the subject.

Imagine. The Ministry of Transport in Europe's largest country completely and utterly Ignoring the Bull in Society's China Shop.

But hey. Shortly after appearing, billboards around Germany that featured the Darth Vader campaign began to feature added text. The Force is strong within the rational Jedi fighting for liveable cities...

The saga continues in Bonn. This billboard now reads: "I have dandruff. Thank you, helmet."
Photo: Jochen Erdelmeier

Bonn: "I am a monster. Thanks, helmet."
Photo: Jochen Erdelmeier

And from Frankfurt: "Works in every galaxy. And on stairs."
Photo: A friend of Jochen Erdelmeier

Frankfurt: "Works in every galaxy. And in the shower."
Photo: A friend of Jochen Erdelmeier

Frankfurt: "Works in every galaxy. And while doing housework."
Photo: A friend of Jochen Erdelmeier

Frankfurt: "Works in every galaxy. And in cars."
Photo: A friend of Jochen Erdelmeier

Frankfurt: "Works in every galaxy. And while walking."
Photo: A friend of Jochen Erdelmeier

Copenhagenize the planet. And have a lovely day.
Categories: Views

Bike Share by the People, For the People

Copenhagenize - 30 May, 2015 - 13:28

Saw a lovely thing in my neighbourhood today. Copenhagen's new bike share system. Parked right there under a tree. In contrast to the failed one still operating, this system is free, it doesn't have safety issues with a distracting tablet screen, it doesn't weigh as much as a hippopotamus, it doesn't have a noisy motor and it doesn't have constant tech issues at a docking station.

The sign on the side reads:

"Hi, my name is Christian Liljedahl and I've made this City Bike (bycykel) for Copenhagen and for you. Use it and park it somewhere useful so others can enjoy it when you're finished.

If it's flat or broken, send me a text on (telephone number) or donate a puncture repair at the closest bike shop. You can also make your own City Bike. Find out more on DinBycykel on Facebook."

This is brilliant. This made my day. In a country where 400,000 bikes are scrapped every year and The Establishment (City of Copenhagen, City of Frederiksberg, Danish Railways, Danish Cyclists Federation) all insist on lame solutions like the GoBike ($10,000 per bike), People Power is fantastic.

More of this, please.

Copenhagenize the planet. And have a lovely day.
Categories: Views

A car crash so quiet that we didn't know it had happened

A View from the Cycle Path - 29 May, 2015 - 17:03
On Monday morning there was quite a serious car crash just 70 m from our home. We didn't know about it until later in the day when it was reported on the local news. This may seem like an unlikely story, and you may wonder how it could be possible that we would miss such a thing so close to our home, but this actually makes a good example of how successfully Dutch residential areas are insulated David Hembrow
Categories: Views

Amsterdam commute by bicycle

BicycleDutch - 28 May, 2015 - 23:01
A friend of mine lives in the Amsterdam neighbourhood “De Pijp” and works outside Amsterdam. Like many people who live in the centre of Dutch cities he doesn’t own a … Continue reading →
Categories: Views

What is the driving test for? : Notes on its social function at the 80th anniversary

Road Danger Reduction Forum - 27 May, 2015 - 20:53

Churchill in 1911 (Photo: Daily Mail) “Few accidents arise… from ignorance of how to drive, and a much more frequent cause of disaster is undue proficiency leading to excessive adventure”. Winston Churchill, then Home Secretary, responding to a 1911 TUC delegation demanding the introduction of a driving test.

As we approach the 80th anniversary of the compulsory driving test in the UK, there will be some discussion of how there could be modifications of the current driving test. There will be calls for a ”graduated driving test” and possibly even the argument that drivers should retake “the test”.

I take a different approach. I argue that, however much it has been modified or tweaked, the role of the “test” is actually to boost the sense of entitlement of drivers – encouraging the sense of “undue proficiency” that Churchill perceptively noticed. Whatever benefits it may have are thus diminished, and I doubt whether it has a significant – or indeed perhaps any – overall function as a means of controlling road danger.

Saying this is rather taboo, but I think that this taboo needs to be broken. Let’s see how the compulsory driving test for motorists is in many ways part of the problem of danger on the roads. Below I enclose what I wrote about “the test” in 1992 (fully referenced version here)Page 108 – 111, and then I see whether anything has changed since then.

Congratulatory cards: What is “the great achievement”? From: “Death on the Streets: cars and the mythology of road safety” Safety and “the test”
  1. The struggle for “the test”

The driving test which British motorists must pass in order to possess a valid driving licence was brought in only after prolonged campaigning, against bitter opposition. As early as 1903, debate in Parliament and elsewhere had mentioned the need for a means of testing people before they could be entrusted with a motorcar.’° Along with associated demands from a public increasingly concerned about a rising total of road deaths for measures such as speed limits, compulsory insurance, law enforcement, licensing and the registration and numbering of vehicles, its introduction was fought with tenacity by the motoring organisations. As one account of this battle, which is not unsympathetic to the motorists’ cause, states: “What they had to overcome in order to get the necessary legislation on the statute books was the determined, articulate and well-financed opposition of the powerful car lobby.” Considering the road and vehicle conditions of the 1930s, the campaigners’ case for a test seems irrefutable, and the opposition to it an example of how ruthless the motorists’ lobby could be.

Yet there was a good deal of humility in the approach of the campaigners, whether in organisations such as the Pedestrians’ Association for Road Safety or leader writers reflecting public horror at a road toll which had reached an all-time high in 1934, the year before the introduction of “the test”. There was no basic opposition to mass motoring as such from the campaigners. Despite the fact that a minority of road users had completely transformed the road environment in less than two decades, their demands were moderate, to say the least. The call for a 30 mph speed limit, for example, has to be seen in the context of poor and unreliable braking capacity, less reliable road surfaces and road layouts far more difficult to negotiate than now.

Private motoring was exclusively a middle- and upper-class pursuit, cycling a predominantly working class one; but the issue was rarely seen as one of class politics) The campaign for “the test” was, then, a request for motorists to become a little more responsible, rather than a serious attempt at control. Part of a humble and placid approach, it was typified by those campaigners who tried to achieve their ends, like cycling and pedestrian safety campaigners today, by friendly persuasion using their own driving behaviour as an example.

If they could drive with care and respect for other road users, why couldn’t other motorists? Like other approaches skirting the fundamental problems of road danger, the campaign was always going to have limited or even negative results. The dangers of the driving test – so accurately perceived by Churchill were not (and are still not) appreciated. Instead the RAC complained that it would be wrong to demand a test for a driving licence when one was not required for a dog licence. In the event, driving tests became compulsory for new licence holders from June 1935. It was a double-edged victory. Benefits are not only inadequate in terms of screening out incompetent drivers or providing proper training, but are absorbed by encouraging feelings of pride and supposed fulfilment of responsibility.

2. The nature of “the test”

After a period of instruction, learner drivers are required to drive for about half an hour showing knowledge of the Highway Code and the ability to carry out basic manoeuvres. This is probably the last time that many drivers seriously attempt to obey the Highway Code. Roadside observation indicates frequent and regular rule breaking by many, if not most, motorists. And spot checks reveal that most motorists are ignorant of basic elements of knowledge of driving that they may be examined on in “the test”, such as ability to recognise basic road signs.’

The chances of being caught for behaviour which flouts the Highway Code is, as shown in Chapter 7 of this book, minimal, even for those potentially dangerous behaviours which can be seen. if there is no attempt to ensure that people obey the laws they are supposed to follow, why get them to display knowledge of them? Also, as the existence of so-called advance driver training indicates, why test at such a low level? And why the implicit assumption that unlike for any other semi-skilled task people’s ability will not decrease over time (with ‘the test’ occurring once in a lifetime if driving)

There is a defence of “the test” against these charges. It is that about half of those taking it fail, and that therefore it must be a stringent examination of driving skills. The Department of Transport does not bother to compile figures dealing with long term chances of passing. My impression is that those who are determined to gain a driving licence find it quite easy to pass “the test” by taking it again and again, without necessarily acquiring more skills. I would argue that a real indicator of chances of passing for those prepared to take a test, for example, five times, would be nearer 80 to 95 per cent. These are not new criticisms. It should be obvious that taking “the test” is of little value in preventing motorists from being dangerous. Despite this it is still thought of as an important commitment, or even concession, made by motorists which cyclists (or even pedestrians) get away with not making.’

Even a difficult, regularly repeated test would not close the gap in the potential to break regulations or inflict damage that exists between motorists and the benign road user groups. Not only is “the test” a weak control, then, its social function is largely to provide a defence against accusations of antisocial behaviour, whether it actually minimises the likelihood of antisocial behaviour or not. The reason for putting inverted commas around the phrase “the test” is partly to cast doubt on its supposed function as a genuine restriction of dangerous behaviour. It also needs to be seen as an element in the successful completion of a rite of passage. Its role is to confer on the person who passes the idea that they have become a responsible road user, superior to others who have not. In this sense “the test” is dangerous anybody seriously committed to a career of careful driving needs a sense of humility, rather than the pride associated with passing. It is arguable that its existence does more harm than good.

Nearly 60 years after its introduction, initial results were published of research on whether drivers who had passed “the test” would be able to pass it within the following two years. In a survey of 400 such motorists, just under half were unable to pass it. The main reason given for their failure was overconfidence.’

3. A proper test?

To meet the criticisms of inadequate training and testing, and that testing should occur after the driver has some experience of driving alone, various forms of advanced driver training have been introduced. They are also open to criticism. First, there is doubt about the levels of effectiveness of the various tests for those who take them. Particularly at the level of the less sophisticated defensive driver training, there may be no benefit in terms of reduced tendency to become involved in accidents.’

There is, however, evidence that people who pass an advanced driver test will have better accident records afterwards than those who fail it. The most frequently quoted is a 1972 TRRL study of the difference between successful and unsuccessful Institute of Advanced Motorists (JAM) test candidates. Those passing had 25 per cent fewer accidents over a three-year period after the test than those failing. The JAM claims a conviction rate among its motorists of 1.9 per cent as against a national average of 10.4 per cent, although this is not corrected for age and other variables – those who want to take the lAM test may in the first place already be less likely to have accidents than a national average. For this reason the possibility of making such a test compulsory has been raised since at least the late 1960s. It has been opposed successfully on the grounds that “the cost of introducing and maintaining such a test is… unacceptably high.

But this is only part of the story. Training which would teach people how to drive carefully is time-consuming, particularly if regularly repeated. Besides, a substantial proportion of the current licence holders at present on the road would lose their licences if regular testing at a proficient level were required. It is estimated that if the RoSPA advanced drivers test were to be compulsory for licence holders, some 30 to 40 per cent of current drivers would lose their licences, even after being offered appropriate training. The motoring organisations are unlikely to support a measure which would sizeably reduce their membership, revenue and power.

More demanding training and testing are limited for the same reasons that limit all attempts to control the dangers which motorists present to others – namely the unwillingness of motorists to accept them. At present the membership of the 1AM constitutes some 90,000, or about 0.45 per cent of all licensed motorists, with a smaller number of motorists having passed other similar tests. This tiny minority are a self-selected group prepared to admit that their skills might possibly be deficient. Central to the ideology of the motorist is the idea that driving is a personal, private matter. When added to notions of prestige and pride, this is hardly likely to lead to the kind of humility and self-criticism required to accept repeated rigorous training and testing.


So what has happened since I wrote the above over twenty years ago?

A current subject for “road safety” practitioners is “graduated licensing” for new drivers, as those drivers who have most recently passed their test are still the riskiest group on the road, prompting concern that the current testing system is outdated and irrelevant”.

Of course, part of the reason for recent graduates being “still the riskiest group” is precisely the fact that they have passed the driving test and taken on the pride and over-confidence that this means – something which won’t be addressed by graduated licensing. Probably the main reason this group is “still the riskiest group” is that it is composed of young – generally higher risk-taking – people. That would only be changed by restricting to driving to people over the age of 21 (or perhaps higher), but that isn’t on the cards.

Another perennial issue is that of drivers in their old age. The transport planner John Dales has suggested that it is a mark of “how low we have sunk” that people only have to take a driving test once, and can then drive for decades without being re-tested. During that time highway and car environments have changed, and reaction times and psycho-motor reflexes slow. So it would make sense to have another driving test for elderly people, or one every five years or so, to weed out those who become incompetent.

However, a “road safety” organisation advocating this stresses that it “would be voluntary and ‘non-threatening’. Last year I gave an example of a collision I witnessed (Case 4 here) where a “driver education course” was an alternative to the trivial “punishment” likely to follow a careless driving prosecution, with the elderly driver who had injured somebody ending up paying less (from an increased insurance premium following conviction) as well as avoiding a fine and a few penalty points.

Even a mandatory test for elderly drivers would be unlikely to address problems of fatigue and physical decline, as the test could be carefully prepared for. Anything which acted to control danger from drivers, elderly or otherwise, is, again, not on the cards.

Or there is the question of pass rates. The authorities proudly show how many fail the different parts of the test on each try. But how many people have you ever come across who were genuinely committed to getting a driving license who simply found the business of “passing the test” too arduous? Leaving aside some people with learning difficulties and a few outliers, I would say very few at all. Any weeding out which occurs is quite minimal, and more than outweighed by the sense of pride and entitlement – the great achievement shown in the congratulatory card above – resulting from passing. Of course the test could be repeated, but that might involve disqualifying some drivers – so it is not on the cards. The best of all would be to examine drivers without them being aware of scrutiny (through on-board cameras etc). No, that too is not on the cards – how many people would be able to avoid being banned from driving if their everyday driving failed to follow the standards of their behaviour on the one occasion where they have to drive properly?


The social function of the test

All this points towards asking why the test is there in the first place. I find I have to restate the conclusions I arrived at a couple of decades ago: the compulsory driving test is there as part of the structure of a society organised around a culture which is not just characterised by dependence on car usage, but by dependence on more dependence on car usage, and uncritical rejection of any real attempt to address the disbenefits of such a society. It is in thrall to a belief system where motorists can aspire to drive where, when and how they want, for whatever reason, with minimal restriction. Then there is the built-in sense of entitlement and wounded victimhood.

One particularly unpleasant aspect of this is the rampant prejudice against cyclists. Today (26/05/2015) BBC Radio 4 ran a programme asking listeners to submit problems they had had as pedestrians where their safety had been compromised. This referred not to the vast majority of such incidents, where motor vehicles are involved, but instead to the tiny minority where cyclists are. Despite evidence showing the relative lack of threat to pedestrians or others, such mystification myth-creation proceeds apace, while road danger created by motor vehicle users is apparently accepted. And one of the ways it has come to be accepted is by the mistaken notion that drivers have fulfilled their responsibilities by “taking a test”.

This has important implications for those concerned about displays of bigotry from the official national broadcasting organisation. And professionals and campaigners concerned with safety on the road should be concerned – not least since we are told that drivers need all sorts of highway and vehicle engineering because of their propensity to crash, and negative views towards other road users who are their potential victims are the last thing needed and a very real problem. A basic reaction is to argue that it is motorists who need proper regulation and accountability, rather than cyclists.

But this, as with much “road safety” ideology, is a case of getting hold of the wrong end of the stick, not once, but twice over. What is required apart from pointing in the right direction (towards the motorised) is a realisation that “passing a test” – one of the supposed solutions to the supposed problem of mass danger from errant cyclists – is that the driving test is itself part of the problem.


Categories: Views

The Desire Lines of Cyclists – The Global Study – is in the starting block

Copenhagenize - 27 May, 2015 - 14:11

Copenhagenize Design Co. has decided to take our unique Desire Lines Analysis Tool to the world. We are launching a new project that will span continents.
The Desire Lines of Cyclists – The Global Study – is the natural evolution of our original Desire Lines analysis of cyclist behaviour and how cyclists react to urban design called The Choreography of an Urban Intersection. The results of which were unveiled by CEO Mikael Colville-Andersen at Velo-City 2013 in Vienna. This study from Copenhagen in 2012 was based on video-recorded observations of 16,631 cyclists during a 12 hour period. We explored the anthropological details of bicycle users and how they interact with other traffic users and the existing urban design. Three categories of cyclists were identified: Conformists, Momentumists, and Recklists.

Choreography of an Urban Intersection and Copenhagenize fixes

Thanks to this study we created a new methodology to analyse urban life: the Desire Line Analysis Tool, which is designed mostly to decode the Desire Lines of cyclists. The main purposes of the analysis is to get a thorough understanding of bicycle users and to rethink intersections to fit modern mobility needs. Like William H. Whyte before us, we want first to observe people. We employ anthropology and sociology directly to urban planning - something we feel is sorely lacking.
With increasing focus on re-establishing the bicycle as transport in cities around the world, understanding the behaviour and, indeed, the basic urban anthropology of bicycle users is of utmost importance. Rethinking the car-centric design of intersections and infrastructure is necessary if we are to redesign our cities for new century mobility patterns.

Desire Lines of cyclists turned into a permanent lane in Copenhagen

Until now there has not been any concrete way of mapping cyclist behaviour. Copenhagenize Design Company’s techniques utilise Direct Human Observation in order to map cyclist behaviour - and gather a motherlode of valuable data from it.
These two last years at Copenhagenize, urban planners, anthropologists and urban designers have worked on testing, improving and realising new studies in Copenhagen. Using the city as an actual-size laboratory, we observed, analysed, mapped thousands of cyclists' behavior. You can watch our video here, and read our studies here, here, here, here, and here.
Afterwards, we went to Amsterdam, a city considered as a model for many urban planners, and in  collaboration with The University of Amsterdam, Copenhagenize Design Co. worked on nine intersections and 19,500 bicycle users.

Cyclists riding side by side in Amsterdam

Now, we want to expand our proven methodology to other cities around the world and compare different approaches of bicycle urbanism focusing on the way cyclists react to urban design. This study will take us to Europe, South and North America, Asia and Africa.
Cycling is booming everywhere in the world and municipalities are investing in infrastructure across many cities. Nevertheless, data are lacking and a deep understanding of cyclists' behavior and expectations is required. It’s the right moment to get a thorough understanding of the current situation and avoid well known hurdles in the design of infrastructure to match cyclists expectations.
We will start this global study in the two world-wide bicycle friendly cities, Copenhagen and Amsterdam, and use them as references of the study.
Then, we will study intersections in Cape Town (South Africa), Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) and Mexico City (Mexico).
Finally, we will analyse bicycle users crossing an intersection in New York City (US), Paris (France) and Tokyo (Japan). 3 metropolis, 3 different ways to design urban infrastructure and to manage cycling policy.

Cyclist on a Vélib in Paris sharing the lane with buses

We will compare all these cyclists and figure out the balance between the behaviour due to varying infrastructure - or lack thereof - and the bicycle culture/habits of the inhabitants. We’ll highlight both the cultural differences and the universality of human behaviour. We truly believe that well-designed infrastructure leads to better behaviour from cyclists - whereas the lack of consideration for cyclists when municipalities design bike infrastructure leads to negative behaviour.
In each city we will team up with a local partner, and we are extremely glad to announce that we will work with the organisations Future Cape Town, ITDP Brazil and 3x3 in New York City.
Copenhagenize is also keen on working in close cooperation with the local authorities and has already get the support of the municipalities of Paris and Amsterdam. Our local partners and us are searching for financial support to make the most of the project in each city.
The more data and knowledge that will be gathered on cyclists, the higher the chances are that towns will be turned into bike-friendly cities with all the right infrastructure.
The results will be presented using maps, statistics, qualitative analyses and appealing graphic representations. We will reveal how people respect or disrespect infrastructure, how they interact with pedestrians and motorists, what are their normal trajectories and Desire Lines. All bicycle-friendly cities should have a perfect knowledge of the evolution of the number of cyclists, but also a sociological big picture of them and a deep understanding of their behavior. 

Copenhagenize the planet. And have a lovely day.
Categories: Views

Are you at risk from people wearing shoes with wheels in them? That vital BBC You and Yours discussion

As Easy As Riding A Bike - 26 May, 2015 - 16:59

Wheeled shoe wearers, or Heelyists.

A transcript of a BBC Radio 4 programme, today.

Continuity announcer: Now it’s time for Call You and Yours, with Winifred Robinson.

Robinson: Hello, and welcome to the programme. Today, we’re asking a very important question –

is it time to change the rules for people who wear shoes with little wheels?

Should they have to take a road test, and get insurance, like everyone else? Call us now please, on 0800 A-N-E-C-D-O-T-E. You can also email and text us.

We’re talking about this after those video pictures were published showing a little girl being hit on the pavement by someone wheeling along on little wheels in their shoes, prompting headlines like THE MOST CALLOUS HEELYIST IN BRITAIN, and a report on road safety yesterday revealed that the number of heelyists hurt on the roads has risen sharply in recent years.

Nick Unctuous – one of the founders of the London Heely Challenge back in the seventies – rang us earlier. He thinks the behaviour of wheeled shoeists has deteriorated over the years.

Unctuous: Most heelyists haven’t got a clue. They don’t know how to roll efficiently. They can’t even change their little heely wheels. They don’t look where they’re going. An erratic heelyist is a bad heelyist, a heelyist who is heading for trouble. You get lycra-clad lunatic heelyists whizzing down pavements because they think they’re gods, because they think they can get away with it.

Robinson: Conclusive evidence. Now let’s hear from Chris Sensible, who won Olympic Wheel Shoe gold back in 1992, and is a policy adviser for British Heelying. Chris, do you think we should make heelyists pass tests and have insurance before they venture out on heelies?

Sensible: Firstly let’s put things in context. 34 pedestrians are killed every year when motor vehicles mount the pavement. Only one person has been killed by someone wearing wheeled shoes in the last decade.

Robinson: Yes, but you can prove anything with statistics. Statistics are often at odds. I’ve got statistics here that say that it’s actually two people who have been killed in accidents involving wheeled shoes.

Sensible: People will be daft, whether they’re travelling around by car, by wheeled shoes, or on foot. Let’s look at the risk posed by each of those modes of transport. You might as well ask whether pedestrians should have to pass a test, or have insurance.

Robinson: In Switzerland heelyists have to have insurance. And wheeled shoes have to be registered.

Sensible: Most European countries don’t require any kind of insurance to use wheeled shoes. And let’s keep this in context.

Robinson: What about the rising casualty rate of heelyists? Do you think part of the problem here is that some people can just step into wheeled shoes, without knowing enough about road safety?

Sensible: It’s much more holistic than that. Countries just across the North Sea have a much better heely safety record. Heelying is prioritised, and made safe.

Robinson: But they have big heely lanes. You would have to tear London up to do that here, which is obviously impossible.

Sensible: Do we want more people heelying, or not? The big picture is, we do, and measures like insurance and testing will put people off.

Robinson: Let’s hear from our callers now. Greg Taximan is in Hampshire. Greg, do you think there should be new rules for wheeled shoe wearers?

Taximan: Yes, there should be new rules for heelyists. I hear what our esteemed heely Olympian has to say, but when drivers break rules, there’s a punitive system to punish them. If heelyists could be punished for their bad behaviour, then that would modify their behaviour.

Robinson: Greg, it sounds to me like you’re speaking from very bitter experience about heelyists! You must have had an incident with one. Please, fill our airtime with a precious anecdote about them. What do you do for a living?

Taximan: I’m a taxi driver. There was incident in a local village near me. There was traffic jam the other way. A heelyist was coming down my left, where there was no traffic jam, and I was passing him, the lane was well wide enough for me to pass him, no problem. But a heelyist came the other way, and he made contact with my taxi. And there’s no way to hold him accountable! There was no identification on him, or his heelies. There needs to be some kind of number plates on wheeled shoes, to stop the kind of bad behaviour you never, ever, see from drivers who have number plates.

And another thing – maybe only one heelyist has killed a pedestrian. But plenty of heelyists are killing themselves by getting themselves run over by motor vehicles.

Robinson: Thank you for that Greg. Here is an email, read out loud by Caroline Atkinson.

Atkinson: Yes, someone has just emailed to say ‘I was knocked over yesterday by a someone wearing wheeled shoes on the South Bank in London.’

Robinson: Thank you Caroline. Now Barry Chutney has called us from London. Barry, what do you think? Is it time for a wheeled shoe test, and insurance?

Chutney: [Emphatically] Yes. Certainly. It should be brought back as compulsory.

Robinson: The National Wheeled Shoe Proficiency Test?

Chutney: AND they should also have a roadworthiness certificate for their shoes. And they should pay insurance. And wear a reflective tabard saying I AM A WHEELED SHOEIST – WATCH OUT. Or something like that.

Robinson: What makes you say that Barry?

Chutney: Because of the amount of wheeled shoes you see out there. I see it constantly. There are some good heelyists out there, I haven’t got any hatred towards the wearers of wheeled shoes. But it’s not a minority. I see it every day, on a daily basis, especially young kids. They’re riding around on these little wheels, and basically their shoes consist of two shoes, usually with laces, or velcro straps, a sole, and wheels in the sole. No lights in the shoes, no bell, no horn, no nothing. And they can’t wheel steadily, they’re all over the place, in gangs, and just, like, jump out on you! It’s crazy!

Robinson: Barry, what about the argument that clamping down on heelyists is out of proportion to the problem?

Chutney: Rule One of health and safety is to take care of yourself. I drive a big lorry; I take care of myself. Shouldn’t wheeled shoe wearers be made to care of themselves around my big lorry? At all times? It’s common courtesy! Manners!

Robinson: Barry Chutney, thank you. Turning to Chris Sensible again, you’ve just come back from the continent, where you say it is much safer to wear wheeled shoes. But surely we just haven’t got the room here in Britain?

Sensible: There is a finite amount of roadspace. And we have to choose who we give priority to.

Robinson: Let’s return to the callers. Jessica Backintheday from Suffolk – do you think it’s time for everyone to have compulsory education before they put on shoes with little wheels in them, and also some insurance?

Backintheday: I do, yes. I took the National Wheeled Shoe Proficiency Test back in the seventies. We learnt how to keep a lookout behind us, how to signal, all sorts of things related to using wheeled shoes.

Sensible: Well actually fifty percent of schools currently run Heelability, the modern form of the Wheeled Shoes Proficiency Test.

Robinson: Jessica, what do you think about heelyists having wheeled shoe identification, and insurance? I’m trying to get some uninformed consensus on this issue.

Backintheday: I’m actually not sure about that. For poor people, wheeled shoes could be their only mode of transport. Also children could be priced out of the legal use of wheeled shoes. So… I’m not sure. Although maybe some identification on the shoes could help get them back if they were stolen…

Robinson: More emails now from Caroline Atkinson.

Atkinson: A lot of people are very very agitated about people heelying two abreast, which local people are saying causes hold ups. Tony also says that he feels very strongly that when people wearing wheeled shoes go the wrong way down a one-way street, and they have a driving licence, they should get points on their licence. Also Geoff has written that a drunk man in wheeled shoes bumped into his car, and simply wheeled away. Finally Gillian says, ‘If I were Mayor of London I would make all heelyists take a proficiency test, they would wear hi-viz vests bearing a registered number, and they would be insured!’

Robinson: That’s it for today. We’ll have another informative phone in soon. Do join us.

Categories: Views

On diversion, again

As Easy As Riding A Bike - 26 May, 2015 - 12:51

This is a follow up to a recent post on being diverted while cycling, during road repairs.

Last week I encountered a similar diversion to the one described in that post – a country lane has been closed for repairs, with users of that lane being sent on a diversion, again on a busy A-road. Instead of the dual-carriageway A24, the diversion this time was on to the A272, which is no more attractive a prospect.

A little less busy than the A24, but probably more dangerous to cycle on, given the restricted width, an absence of a shoulder, and fairly heavy traffic levels. In fact, at this point – 18,000 vehicles a day, including 800 HGVs.

The (closed) country lane in question is Maplehurst/Nuthurst Lane, which connects these two small villages to the A272 to the south, and the A281 to the north.

Signs have been put out at the junction with the A272 (at the bottom of the map), informing users that the road is closed.

I ignored these signs, because I didn’t want to cycle for around 5 miles on single-carriageway A-roads.

Sure enough, as I came around the corner, I found that, while this road is not usable by motor traffic during the repairs, there was no real justification for closing this road for people walking and cycling.

A new crash barrier is being installed on a bend, but people walking and cycling can easily get past the vans and the workmen on the site.

So this is partly a plea to West Sussex County Council to think a little more about their diversion signs – if people on foot and on bike can easily get through a road closure, then that should made explicit on the temporary signs. Otherwise you will be sending a good number of people cycling onto dangerous roads, needlessly exposing them to heavy traffic.

And, of course, just as in the previous ‘diversion’ post, closures like this show how we should be thinking more clearly about the function of these country lanes, which should be closed to through traffic permanently, and not just for the period of roadworks. Residents should still be able to access their properties, but in this case there are, again, parallel A-roads which should be carrying any through traffic.

Categories: Views

Velosipedization of Saint Petersburg

BicycleDutch - 25 May, 2015 - 23:01
Велосипедизация Санкт-Петербурга – Velosipedization of Saint Petersburg, is an organisation that wants to promote cycling in Russia’s second largest city. This organisation invited me to speak on their second annual … Continue reading →
Categories: Views

“Not thought to be suspicious”: What makes the society we live in nothing less than fundamentally uncivilised.

Road Danger Reduction Forum - 22 May, 2015 - 18:25


A Porsche has been driven over the footway and into the Gerrards Cross branch of Cafe Nero, temporarily trapping two customers. No charge has been made by Thames Valley police, who are quoted as saying that the incident is “not thought to be suspicious”.

In this essay I examine this and a few similar incidents to see how the authorities accept and tolerate obvious rule and law breaking by motorists. As well as the Police services involved, the official “road safety” authorities in highway engineering collude and connive with this sort of violent behaviour. There is little comment on these incidents to challenge what appears to be the dominant narrative of tolerance of this behaviour, not least the type of language involved.

I challenge that narrative below, and argue against the dominant approach to these incidents, as well as the tolerance of them by the authorities. I think it indicates that in a crucial respect – the apparent acceptance of rule and law breaking by people simply because they have chosen to drive – this society is fundamentally uncivilised.

I am choosing seven different incidents which I have picked up in the last few months to illustrate my case. I am used to reading of similar cases on a regular basis: nothing about them is, in my view, exceptional or atypical.

Incident 1: Sheffield, reported 21st January 2015

Photo: @Ventureresi

According to the Guardian: “In Sheffield, a car careered through the front window of a house after losing control in the treacherous conditions. It was pictured by passers-by after it mounted the kerb, drove through the garden wall and into the property.”

The issue here is apparently one of an inanimate object which manages to “lose(s) control” (presumably this is a loss of self-control), and power itself (“mount”, “drive”) with no human agency involved.

If I may continue to examine the language used: the one occasion where pejorative words are employed again relates to the inanimate, this time the weather conditions. These are said to be nothing less than “treacherous”. The implication is that unsuspecting drivers have been betrayed by what many of us have assumed to be a normal occurrence, namely snow falling in Yorkshire in the winter.

The Yorkshire Post  uses the same language regarding the inanimate object: “The red Ford lost control and mounted the curb, before ploughing into the front window of the property on the residential street”.

I contacted the local police through Twitter to find:

Nether Edge SNT ‏@netheredgesnt 2 hrs2 hours ago @CHAIRRDRF not my patch, but my colleagues attended. No injuries or charges; just a very unfortunate accident due to ice, snow and steep hill.

I don’t want to get pompous about this, but it fascinates me that everything other than the driver is blamed. I’m sure that car-dependent Sheffield residents have all sorts of problems to contend with, but surely they should be aware that (a) Sheffield is hilly and (b) when it has been snowing the road surface is likely to be icy?

Incident 2: Whittlesey, A605, reported 21st February 2015.

The account on the Facebook page of Policing Whittlesey describes the incident:

Policing Whittlesey

Officers on patrol in Whittlesey witnessed a vehicle roll several times on the A605, landing upside down in a water filled ditch, a lone female was trapped inside the car full of icy water, the quick thinking officers put themselves at risk to rescue the the lady working tirelessly to prise the door open and pull her to safety, the lady is currently in hospital and on the road to recovery! If it wasn’t for these officers being in the right place at the right time it could of been a very different story. The roads are going to be icy of the next few days, please drive safely

I should make one point very clear: along with the commenters on the Facebook page, I applaud the police officers for their selflessness and commitment to assisting any member of the public in distress; however they came to be in the situation described.

I do have a problem though. In fact, I think the story as described by Police officers (and those commenting) is fascinating for what it leaves out. In fact, I think the Police and others commenting have the problem.

As indicated in my exchange on Twitter with Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Roads Police:

BCH Road Policing ‏@roadpoliceBCH Feb 22

Well done @FenCops. What policing is all about. am – 22 Feb 2015 · Details


@roadpoliceBCH @Road_Safety_GB @FenCops What was she or other drivers charged with? Since we are talking about “what policing is all about”.

At no point in the accounts and Facebook comments is there the suggestion that the driver who overturned her car had committed any kind of offence or done anything wrong. Indeed, the driver is only seen as a victim, for example in one comment that the Council may have not put enough grit on the roads. Another comment argues that the task of rescuing errant drivers is what the Police are for, and not just catching criminals. Or charging any careless driver?

Incident 3: Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire: 16th May 2015.

According to the local newspaper :

Porsche Smashes Through Coffee Shop Window

Two people are temporarily trapped inside a Cafe Nero shop in a Buckinghamshire village after a car crashes through the window.

A Thames Valley Police spokesman said: “The incident involved one vehicle and resulted in minor injuries to a woman who was the only person in the car. Two people, a man and a woman, were also temporarily trapped inside the building but were released. The road has since been reopened.”

Police said the incident was not thought to be suspicious.(My emphasis)

As in other cases, there were some comments to the effect that the inanimate object – a car – was assumed to be the problem, rather than the person legally in charge of it. The other comment is the one I use in the heading of this piece, namely that there is “nothing suspicious” about driving a high-powered car across the footway of a busy street and into a coffee shop, in a Home Counties town on a Saturday afternoon.

The Fire Brigade (who attended the scene) tweeted :

Bucks and MK Fire ‏@Bucksfire · May 16 . So glad it wasn’t worse. Must have been terrifying for everyone.

Note the equivalence between the suffering of people sitting in the coffee shop and the driver. Neutralising the difference between those endangering others and those who are endangered by motor vehicles is a staple feature of “road safety” ideology

 Incident 4 Elephant and Castle , London 30 July 2014

 Photo: Evening Standard

In this case where the two car occupants had minor injuries, police said they were investigating and that no arrests had been made. (It may be the case that the vehicle was forced off the road by a third party, but this possibility could be easily investigated through use of the CCTV cameras at the roundabout). Elephant and Castle is known as a site where the Metropolitan Police Service regularly stop and issue fines to cyclists who have gone over the stop line when signals are on red, an infraction rather less likely to hurt or kill other road users than whatever happened in this incident.

Incident 5 Blackheath, London 17th March 2015

The lorry “overturned”. One minor injury. No reports of any arrests made. 

Incident 6 28 October 2014 Wandsworth Road, London.

In one account: “A Waitrose truck flips over”. In another “A driver has escaped uninjured but is ‘shaken’ after his lorry overturned”. As in the previous incident the drivers seem to have had nothing to do with the inanimate objects’ behaviour. No arrests mentioned.

Incident 7 Staffordshire, 26th October 2014

This time the driver does seem to have done something wrong – he “overturned his vehicle”, and then shortly after it crashes into a house, apparently as it was left on a slope without the hand brake on. He is, however, described sympathetically as “Britain’s unluckiest HGV driver” No mention of an arrest.

I stated above that there is nothing atypical about these crashes – both in the way they are reported and the way police respond to them. The only reason why some of them reach the national media is because they feature dramatic images: they involve large vehicles and roads being closed, or something peculiar (a car in a coffee shop). Indeed, we should look at what is going on with all the normal car crashes which occur on the roads of Britain.

To get a rough idea of these “normal” incidents: approximately 4 million insurance claims are made by British motorists annually. The majority of crashes (between 75 – 90%) involving motor vehicles do not involve personal injury, and thus do not even require reporting to the Police. Ultimately this normality leads to Police and the media thinking that “nothing suspicious” has occurred, even when a high-powered car ends up in a coffee shop.


Normal crashes and the “road safety” industry

It isn’t just the Police who are implicated in tolerating and accepting this. Despite persistent anodyne requests from the publicity wing of the “road safety” movement for drivers to try to be careful, the main thrust of “road safety” has in fact been to accommodate rule and law breaking driving. Indeed, I argue that “road safety” has colluded and connived with careless, negligent, dangerous driving.



After all, billions of pounds has been spent by highway engineers on creating a road environment designed around the needs of careless, dangerous etc. driving. Cutting down and removing road side trees ; installing crash proof barriers and central reservations; placing shock absorbing structures around bridge supports and other solid structures; making lamp posts which break, so occupants of vehicles which crash into them are protected; laying anti-skid where drivers have crashed after going too fast; placing rumble strips to assist inattentive drivers etc. All of these and similar measures have been staples of highway engineering for decades.

On top of this, straightening sight lines and similar measures are based on implicitly ignoring the age-old requirement for drivers to “always drive in such a way that you can stop within visible distance”. Of course, sometimes engineers have defended these practices to me on the basis that innocent motorists may be protected from dangerous drivers (for example, those driving across the centre–line by a crash barrier). That’s true – not all these measures are to directly protect the rule or law breaking driver, as they may be protecting their victims. Nevertheless, many of them (the typical roadside tree removal) are, and all are based on accommodating rule/law-breaking driving.

…and vehicle engineering

Similarly most motor vehicle “road safety” engineering is about producing more crashworthy cars to accommodate behaviour which threatens other road users. Collapsible steering wheels, seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, side impact protection systems, roll bars etc.: all are based on an assumption that motorists are inherently likely to crash and/or be crashed into by their fellow motorists.

Even worse, it has been known for decades that this tendency exacerbates tendencies to carelessness among drivers.


So where does this take us?

I am suggesting that there is a widespread evasion of responsibility throughout our culture in general, and among those authorities supposedly responsible for safety on the road in particular. We are up against a belief system based on a sense of entitlement among motorists, which impedes both moves towards sustainable transport policy implementation in general, and reduction in road danger in particular – and the institutions and practices of official “road safety” are part of this.

That doesn’t mean we should despair. Some of us stress the low risks of travel by the benign modes, and the ways we might move forward. But what it does mean is that if this society has accepted “normal” crashes in the ways illustrated, we can and should base our demands accordingly.

For a start, although the level and extent of motorist incompetence and unwillingness to obey rules and laws may be exaggerated, it is organisations representing motorists – and those of the “road safety” industry – that are claiming that driving is inherently dangerous. Why else do drivers need the plethora of safety aids (seat belts, air bags etc.) in cars, and the enormous sums spent of engineering the highway (cutting down roadside trees, installing crash barriers and anti-skid etc.) . That means we can demand forms of driver liability in collisions where cyclists or pedestrians are involved, at least in civil law, accordingly.

It means we can argue that enforcement exercises like Operation Safeway should stop being biased towards the rule/law-breaking which is less dangerous to others, namely that by cyclists .

(At our conference on law enforcement last year  an officer in the MPS’ Cycle Task Force stated that he saw no problem in arresting law-breaking cyclists if the law is enforced for errant motorists. The point is that it isn’t).

It means that highway engineers (as well as individual drivers) should accept the likelihood of pedestrians and cyclists making mistakes: Accommodating this is less anti-social than accommodating driver rule and law breaking..

It means that vehicle engineering should be based on controls on the potential of drivers to hurt or kill others. At the very least “black box” systems to monitor crash causation should be on the agenda.

Interventions and the dominant culture

As a general rule we need to recognise that any specific intervention occurs within the culture which is car-centred and discriminatory against the non-car modes in general, and against non-motorised modes in particular.

Consider two commonly discussed areas of intervention:   calls for forceful changes in law enforcement and sentencing policy, or the re-organisation of the highway to take space away from general traffic and re-allocate it specifically to cycling, are fine in themselves, but have to be assessed in the context of the surrounding dominant culture. As theorists of risk compensation have argued, unless there is an underlying change in the extent and kind of risk taking in society, official interventions can simply press down on the problem in one area while it pops up somewhere else. In these cases, unless the reasons for cracking down on forms of driver behaviour are carefully explained in terms of the obligations and duties of care owed by the motorised towards others, in the case of law enforcement and sentencing changes we may get resentment and a lack of willingness to support other forms of road danger reduction. Re-allocation of road space to cyclists may increase the unwillingness of drivers to behave properly in highway environments where drivers will have to be in close proximity to, and sharing space with, cyclists.

Now, this does not mean that we never engage in any kind of programme of danger reduction measures, such as those above, 20 mph areas, motor traffic reduction measures, etc. But it does mean that we have to be aware of the knock-on effects of these moves, and how they are affected by – and also affect – widely held beliefs about the kind of risk taking that is acceptable in the highway environment.   Whatever the success of a specific intervention, it always has to be seen in the context of the car-centred (I have elsewhere called it “car supremacist”) culture we live in. And, regrettably, despite the best efforts of many individual professionals, the institutions of “road safety” are very much part of this culture.



Motor danger has been nornalised in the car-centred society we live in, not least by the agencies who should be dealing with it. But understanding this can allow us to move towards an alternative based on reducing danger at source and making those responsible for it accountable. This can come about by specific programmes being implemented as part of an overall cultural change towards a society where car usage – and specifically, the ways in which cars are driven – is seen in a more critical way. If we don’t achieve this, we will indeed be living in a fundamentally uncivilised society.


5:12 pm – 22 Feb 2015 · Details



Categories: Views

Infrastructure for all

As Easy As Riding A Bike - 19 May, 2015 - 07:55

Inclusive cycling infrastructure is often described as being suitable for ‘8-80′ – for the young as well as the old. It’s a good philosophy. However, it is not quite adequate, in and of itself, to capture what’s required for infrastructure to be of a suitably high standard.

For instance, a good deal of substandard infrastructure could reasonably be described as 8-80. Wibbly-wobbly crap on pavements, for instance, can be negotiated by eight year olds, as well as eighty year olds.

This isn’t, however, this kind of infrastructure that many people would actually choose to use. Nonsense like this gets avoided by people who are able (although not necessarily willing) to cycle with motor traffic.

So ‘8-80′ isn’t quite sufficient, in and of itself. What’s required is infrastructure that is suitable for the young and the old, as well as the fast, the confident and the experienced. Infrastructure, for instance, that’s suitable for 8-80, as well as for a team time trial.

The opening stage of the 2015 Giro d’Italia, on a cycle path by San Remo. Picture by Alec James

The cycle path in the picture above is one that can obviously accommodate high speed cycling, but at the same time it is also suitable for a full range of other cycling types, the slow; the young; the old.

A similar version of this test was proposed by Joe Dunckley – a ‘Boris test’.

Need an addition to the 8yo kid test of cycling schemes. The Boris test: would Boris just keep his wits about him + continue using the road?

— Joe Dunckley (@steinsky) July 9, 2014

That is, infrastructure has to be good enough for someone like Boris Johnson – who habitually disparages substandard off-carriageway infrastructure, while voicing his preference for mixing it with motor traffic on busy roads – to choose to use it, rather than opting for the motor traffic alternative.

Cycling infrastructure should accommodate all these people, on the same singular design. It should offer comfort, safety and attractiveness, as well as being direct and convenient. This is uniformity of provision, well explained by David Arditti

We know from looking at the systems of cycling infrastructure in the most successful cycling nations and cities that they design one network for cyclists, and only one, to one set of standards. They treat cycling as we treat motoring and walking, that is, as an essentially homogeneous activity facilitated on one network, built to one set of standards, for all those who do it. They recognise that cyclists, whether they be young or old, fast or slow, able-bodied or disabled, all need essentially the same things, in terms of a quality network that gives priority, directness, and both actual and subjective safety.

There is no question of us having a network of roads for “less confident drivers” and a different one for “fast and advanced motorists”, and this is how the places that get cycling right also treat cycling. They build cycle lanes, paths and tracks that work of all types of cyclists and all abilities at the same time, and have sufficient capacity to cope with all, taking the attitude that if it’s not safe enough for young children, it won’t be safe enough for anyone, and if it’s not convenient enough for commuters in a hurry, it won’t be an attractive option to anyone. They build up to a common standard that works for all, and don’t say “If you don’t like it, there’s always the busy, dangerous main road”.

Uniformity of provision is tremendously important, because its alternative – dual provision – essentially involves designing for failure. Dual provision means building something that, at the design stage, it is already accepted that people will not use. It involves building, for instance, shared use pavements that the designer knows will be avoided by people who prefer to cycle on the carriageway, because the shared use pavement is too inconvenient, awkward, or slow. Equally, it involves catering for people on the carriageway while acknowledging that many people simply won’t want to use that same carriageway because it is too intimidating, or hostile. We still continue to build infrastructure according to this failed philosophy, at tremendous cost.

Accommodating fast cycling doesn’t mean ignoring the needs of the slow, or the less confident, or the nervous. In fact, quite the opposite – cycling infrastructure designed for speed means more convenience for everyone. It means an absence of sharp corners, of barriers, of ‘shared use’ in appropriate circumstances, of pedestrian-specific design in general. If it’s good enough to ride a bicycle fast on it, then it will undoubtedly carry benefits for slower users, even those who are not on bicycles.

Fast infrastructure brings just as many benefits for slower users

That’s why aiming for 8-80, although admirable, isn’t good enough by itself. It needs to be good enough for everyone to want to use it.

Categories: Views

Cycling with babies and toddlers

BicycleDutch - 18 May, 2015 - 23:02
Some people think large bridges or other exceptional infrastructure is what draws people to this blog, but no, it’s the babies. No really, the most viewed post is the one … Continue reading →
Categories: Views


Subscribe to Cycling Embassy of Great Britain aggregator - Views