If they’re not nearly rear-ending a cyclist as they blast through a red light
or they’re not driving an HGV while using a mobile phone
they’re driving with their hands clasped behind their seat, while virtually horizontal.
All videos from the last two days.
It strikes me that drivers like this seem to have no fear of ever getting caught, or no fear of the possible punishments that might result.
Could we have some enforcement please?
Back in February, I wrote quite enthusiastically about East Street in Horsham. This narrow road, in the centre of the town, was converted by our local councils into a ‘shared space’ environment over the summer of 2010.
It was an ideal target for such a conversion. The nature of the one-way systems in the town meant that the street itself did not have much motor traffic on it (drive down East Street, and you quickly end up right back where you started), and what vehicles there were on the street were heavily outnumbered by pedestrians. Despite the predominance of pedestrians, however, the street was unpleasant to walk on, with narrow pavements, and multiple parking bays.
To their credit, the council decided to do something about it, attempting to redesign the street in favour of pedestrians, and cyclists.
The result was a qualified success. This
is a genuine improvement on this –
However, my earlier, somewhat sunny, enthusiasm about East Street has been slightly tempered since the start of the year.
One of my main concerns is how a presumed ‘equality’ between road users actually pans out when you have motor vehicles rubbing up alongside pedestrians. This is something Cycle of Futility has written about recently, noting that
When a motor vehicle is in a pedestrian’s space, the motor vehicle wins. When a pedestrian is in a motor vehicle’s space, the result is the same.
Here’s how ‘equality’ works on East Street – a video, showing the conditions on this street, at around lunchtime on a Friday.
By my estimates, pedestrians outnumber vehicles by around 30:1. Yet the two vehicles that drive down the street – albeit reasonably carefully and considerately – completely dominate the environment. There is, ostensibly, an equality between what I dislike calling ‘road users’ in this shared space, but unfortunately some road users are more equal than others. Can we honestly say that East Street is ‘shared’, when the minority mode of use hogs it?
The simple solution would be to ban vehicles, at the very least between 10am and 4pm. This was, in fact, the solution applied during a trial period in 2008-9 – deliveries were made outside of these hours, and the street was closed to traffic at peaking shopping hours. However it seems that just two shops are insistent upon having deliveries to their front door at all hours of the day – so ruining the street environment for all the pedestrians that use the street, and also for the vast majority of retailers that would like to see the street fully closed to traffic, for at least the majority of the shopping day. At the moment we have large HGVs driving down this ‘pedestrianized’ street, like this one, which was urgently delivering… paper napkins and cups.
The East Street traders have themselves organized measures to make the street more pleasant for pedestrians, apparently because the council won’t act. They are attempting to ensure that their deliveries are arranged before 10am, and after 4pm, and are encouraging delivery drivers to park away from East Street, and walk their deliveries in. From the County Times of May 12th, 2011 –
Chris Holt, member of the East Street traders’ group and owner of La Source, said: “We scratched our heads and we said why don’t we come up with something voluntary – because no-one else can be forced to do this. The strong message we were having from our customers is that they were concerned about the amount of traffic on the street. We’re not just doing this for our own business, but for the safety of customers who should be able to enjoy the street. The only reason it’s been ongoing for so long is because it only takes one objection to stop the full pedestrianisation.”
It should also be pointed out that there are a large number of restaurants on the street who are, for obvious reasons, keen for the street itself to become an al fresco dining area. But sadly they are being thwarted, because the council appears uninterested in creating a fully pedestrianised street, even in the evening, when there is no need at all for deliveries.
Another problem is that the expensive street furniture – which was designed both to make the street more pleasant, and also to deliberately slow vehicles’ progress down the street – is being progressively destroyed. Of the three larger benches that were installed on the street, one was destroyed in November last year when a vehicle drove into it.
And last month, the exact same fate awaited another bench, when a motorist smashed into it –
These benches are plainly expensive; they have been removed, and have not been replaced. And this is barely nine months after the new design was opened – at this rate, there will soon be no street furniture left. And as these obstacles disappear, so it becomes easier and more tempting to drive down this street, and park on it – even though, officially, the only people allowed to do so are those making deliveries, or ‘loading’ (and this includes ordinary members of the public, some of whom seem to be interpreting ‘loading’ in a most liberal way) and those with blue badges.
There is no need for anyone to drive down, or park on, this street. There are two large car parks barely yards away from it, and alternative routes into the town centre (alternative routes, I might add, that are explicitly designed for motor vehicles, and unpleasant for cyclists and pedestrians). There is a street at the end that can quite easily be used as a loading area.
And yet without restrictions, we see the results. Motor vehicles are taking over. They are systematically destroying the pedestrian-friendly furniture. They are increasingly clogging up the street, and making pedestrians more wary of having to deal with ‘traffic.’ This same ‘traffic’ is preventing restaurants from setting up tables and chairs on the street itself, despite the vast preponderance of people on foot on this street.
I don’t want to share this street with motor vehicles any more.
An incredible story, in every sense of the word –
A doctor who caused a pile-up while over the alcohol limit walked free from court yesterday after claiming he was ‘sleep-driving’. GP Donald Clegg, who drank up to eight pints a day, was almost four times the drink-drive limit when he crashed into three vehicles.
Clegg, 59, claimed he was asleep and in a state of ‘auto-autonomy’ when he got into the Vauxhall Zafira dressed in his dressing gown and slippers after returning home from a restaurant. Witnesses describe him driving ‘perfectly normally’, but he swung out on to the opposite carriageway and clipped two parked cars before smashing into the third in December. A passerby who went to help Clegg had to snap the key out of the ignition to stop him driving away and said he was muttering about going to visit his mother.
What is remarkable about this story is that both the prosecution, and the presiding magistrate, seem to have accepted, without question, or without any apparent medical assessment, his story that his drink driving was purely the result of ‘unconscious’ sleepwalking, rather than the conscious actions of someone who was completely paralytic. The account given by Dr Clegg, and bystanders, is entirely consistent with that of someone so drunk they are barely conscious – so why was this explanation so easily rejected? Drunks do stupid things, like trying to drive off to visit their mother in the middle of the night. Indeed the BBC report that he was
talking incoherently about driving to his mother’s house
Likewise
The GP claimed the first he knew of the incident was when he woke up in a police cell.
Well, this exactly mirrors the experience of one of my friends, who was arrested for a particularly stupid piece of drink driving (and has not driven since). He was found stumbling about in the road, in the middle of the night, by a passing taxi driver, having crashed his car off the road. Like Dr Clegg, he was incoherent, having no idea about where he was driving to, and also like Dr Clegg, his first memory of the incident was… waking up in a police cell.
Perhaps he should have used a sleepwalking defence? Admittedly he was not in his dressing gown and slippers, but that’s about the only difference.
Even if we accept, at face value, Dr Clegg’s sleepwalking story, the 12 month ban seems exceptionally lenient on practical grounds, given that there appears to be nothing to stop Dr Clegg experiencing one of these ‘episodes’ in the future, especially as he is a man who “drinks up to eight pints a day.”
Dominic Howell, prosecuting, said alcohol could induce sleepwalking and Clegg’s drinking was a contributory factor to events. He said there had been a previous incident, eight months earlier, when Clegg had been drinking, began sleepwalking, and crashed his car into a tree in his driveway. He admitted that episode had not stopped him drinking.
It is indeed unfortunate (or very convenient, when it comes to a legal defence) for Dr Clegg that his episodes of ‘sleep walking’ seem to be brought on by getting drunk. Someone who suffers from this ‘condition’ should surely have their licence taken away.
Gwyn Lewis, defending, told the court the defendant had been a motorist for 40 years without incident. “This is not a conscious act by the defendant to drive a car knowing he was over the legal limit,” Mr Lewis said.”Would it be fair in these particular circumstances for him to be disqualified from driving?”
I appreciate that Gwyn Lewis has to clutch at every legal straw he can in the defence of his client, but a man who repeatedly drives a car while drunk – consciously or unconsciously – does indeed deserve to be disqualified from driving. It is utterly stupid to suggest that because Dr Clegg was unaware of his unconscious behaviour he is any less dangerous on the roads than a conscious drink-driver, and any less deserving of a ban.
I finally note that this is not the first time the judiciary have accepted, at face value, a driver’s questionable medical defence.
From the Sussex Police website –
David Howard, 46, from Meadowside Park, Lingfield, Surrey appeared before Guildford Crown Court on Thursday 9 June charged with one count of burglary and one count of dangerous driving. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five and half years imprisonment, less three and a half months he had already served whilst on remand. On February 14, Howard broke into a house in Littlehaven Lane, Horsham at around midday and stole jewellery to the value of £2000. He hid the stolen items in a wheelie bin near offices by Horsham railway station and returned a few hours later to collect it. In the mean time a description of his car was given to police by a witness who saw him coming from the burgled house carrying a pillowcase. A police patrol car spotted Howard’s white Mondeo and attempted to stop it. Howard refused to stop for police and was then followed by a police car through Horsham town centre. However, the chase was halted as soon as Howard’s driving became dangerous. He went on to hit three cars and ram a police car, causing minor injuries to the officers.
David Howard has not been banned from driving. As soon as he is released from prison, there is nothing to stop him from returning to Horsham in a car. Consequently, in a few years time, I will have to ‘share the road’, on my bicycle, with a man who has proven himself quite willing to ram other cars, injure police officers, and recklessly endanger the lives of vulnerable road users, all in a pointless bid to escape justice.
Lucky me.
This document from the Transport Committee of the London Assembly, entitled ‘The Future of Road Congestion in London’, has been attracting a lot of interest this week, principally because of the way in which it has exposed how the Conservative members on that Assembly seem to be completely opposed to steps towards what I would call a more ‘humane’ transport policy in London.
The debate centres on what is termed a ‘hierarchy’ of road users. The previous London Plan had proposed a prioritizing of walking, cycling, and public transport, over the private motor vehicle, in setting transport policy. A ‘hierarchy’. Boris has decided to remove that hierarchy from the current plan, apparently because doing so would give local transport planners ‘more freedom.’
The London Assembly Congestion document attempts to take Boris to task for this decision, writing that
the Panel Report on the draft London Plan’s Examination in Public reported that virtually every organisation which responded to the consultation, including London Councils and London TravelWatch, criticised the removal of the road user hierarchy. The report concluded that “there should be a place for explicitly recognising a hierarchy of road users in the over-arching transport policy in order to guide formulation of public realm as well as transport schemes.”
Indeed, ‘Recommendation 3’ of the document states that
In the final draft London Plan the Mayor should reinstate a hierarchy of road users, which would ensure that future schemes would support economic development and encourage more people to use sustainable and public transport.
But the Conservatives beg to differ. Indeed, they have a special ‘dissenting paragraphs’ section included in the document, which on the matter of the ‘hierarchy’ has this to say –
Roads should be thoroughfares which enable all users, whether they are cyclists, motorists, pedestrians, bus passengers, van drivers, taxi passengers or motorcyclists to get from A to B as swiftly and as safely as possible. Neither the Mayor nor the Government should impose an artificial road user hierarchy as this inevitably has the effect of deliberately slowing down some users. Further to this, the Mayor should encourage cycling by emphasising that it is cheap, healthy and quick, not by worsening conditions for other road users.
This paragraph is, of course, completely arse-about-tit. It ignores how, in reality, getting more people on bikes and public transport, as well as walking, will actually speed up, rather than ‘deliberately slow down’ (and what an odd choice of words that is), motor traffic. Congestion is caused by motor traffic, not by bicycles, or pedestrians. Getting more people to switch to public transport, bikes and walking creates more space on the road for motor vehicles. Indeed, the only way in which congestion cold possibly be ’caused’ by bicycles and pedestrians is if thousands of ‘extra’ walking and cycling Londoners materialize out of nowhere, suddenly getting dumped on top of the existing pattern of road users. Needless to say, this will not happen. ‘Cyclists’ and ‘pedestrians’ are simply people who choose not to drive. For some reason, the Conservatives seem unable to grasp this simple principle.
The other serious flaw with the Conservatives’ position here flows from their mistaken belief that if you strip away the ‘hierarchy’ of road users, what will automatically ensue is ‘equality.’ Cycle of Futility has written an excellent post which explodes that myth.
Street users, like those in the gladiator’s ring, are not created equal. Put them in a situation of conflict and some will suffer and others will thrive.
‘Equality’ amongst road users is never going to happen without intervention, despite what the Conservatives think. Any measure that attempts to redress the balance in favour of pedestrians and cyclists is seen by them as ‘artificial’, a very strange term, given that the balance between road users is always ‘artificial’ – it is a direct result of the conditions and environment created by our transport planners and legislators. As Cycle of Futility puts it, not explicitly creating a hierarchy of road users does not mean that a hierarchy will not result naturally.
A hierarchy is already in existence on Britain’s roads, one that many of us don’t seem to be able to recognize, because we are so inured to it. It’s a hierarchy with motor vehicles right at the top. The Conservatives have made the mistake of assuming that this ‘natural’ situation is one that is automatically ‘equal.’
The Liberal Democrat leader on Horsham Council, David Holmes, is keen to introduce a 20 mph limit across Horsham.
The local paper reports
Horsham town’s roads should get a blanket 20mph speed limit, a district councillor said this week. David Holmes (Lib Dem, Horsham Park) told the County Times yesterday: “It would appear that the Government are planning to introduce measures that will make it easier to introduce 20mph zones. This has been raised with the county council in the past, but the response has been: ‘Oh no, we couldn’t possibly contemplate doing that, because of the red tape.’ I definitely think it’s something that should be looked at,” he said. “It could make the town much more attractive; it could make it much safer for cyclists; it could make it much easier for young people – 12 year olds for example – to get on their bike and go to see their friends.” The Lib Dem leader said he realises that a 20mph limit is likely to be controversial, but should at least be considered.
The particular advantage of the new government plans of which Cllr Holmes speaks are to that it will be far easier, and cheaper, to introduce 20 mph limits. The limits can simply be painted on the roads, rather than requiring more expensive signage, and it seems there is no longer a requirement for complex ‘hard’ measures to accompany the 20 mph limit, which seems to have been the case up until now.
Horsham is, surprisingly, something of a ground-breaker when it comes to the introduction of 20 mph limits. The central one-way street of the town, which runs through the Carfax, has had a 20 mph limit since the early 1990s, a time when 20 mph limits were something of a novelty.
The Carfax now has a 20 mph limit, one of the first towns to adopt such a measure under new legislation.
There is, in fact, some Department for Transport literature which suggests that Horsham was actually the first town to adopt a 20 mph limit. You can see the signs marking the entry to this zone in the image below, taken from Streetview.
20 mph limits are, in principle, a good idea. However, my experience of Horsham suggests that either very few people are aware that a 20 mph limit even exists through the town centre, or they are quite happy to disregard it. I am consistently overtaken while cycling at 20 mph through these streets, and there appears to be no enforcement. (Speeds are reasonably low through the town centre, but I suspect this is not because of a general willingness to observe of the limit, rather because of the twisty nature of the streets, and there being plenty of speed humps – the ‘hard’ measures previously required to accompany 20 mph limits.)
I suspect that a blanket 20 mph limit across the town would probably serve to lower the threshold of blatant speeding from well over 30 mph, to something around 30 mph, so in this sense there would be safety gains, and some merit. I doubt that 20 mph limits would be strictly observed by drivers without enforcement, however (as my experience of the current 20 mph limit in the town suggests), and so this will be about as far as it goes. So an improvement, of sorts, but a cheap one, and certainly well worth pursuing.
Whether a blanket 20 mph limit will pass muster with the residents of Horsham when such a scheme is open to consultation, time will tell. A commenter on the West Sussex County Times article, ‘Neoburner’, is certainly dead set against –
20mph won’t ‘make the town much more attractive’ as the same amount of cars travel day in and day out.. slowing them down will just keep them there for longer and cause more of a eye sore! As to children going on their bikes, they should not be on the road without headset and pads
There is fine logic in operation here. Clearly what is needed is a raising of the speed limit to 70 mph, so making the town ‘much more attractive’ by restricting the amount of time cars are in the town centre to mere seconds. Children will no doubt continue to be protected by their ‘headsets and pads.’
I spotted this in my local paper, the West Sussex County Times.
Get ready for Bike Week!
Research shows that 77 per cent of people own a bike yet only 14 per cent use them regularly, so this year ‘Team Green Britain’ Bike Week, from June 18 to 26, is encouraging people to dust down and liberate the thousands of once-loved bikes languishing in sheds around the country. Switching journeys to bike makes sense, as it can save you lots of money and get you fit. And the environmental benefits of cycling are great, too. Bicycles are true zero-carbon vehicles and the average four-mile commute should be easily achievable for most people – and would take less than half an hour. Doing this alone would cut the average individuals’ carbon emissions by as much as seven per cent. Don’t delay, get on your bike today!
Do ‘Better Tomorrows‘ – the organization seemingly responsible for putting this piece in the paper – seriously believe that what is stopping people getting on bikes is their ignorance about the health benefits of riding a bike? Or ignorance about the low cost of riding a bike? Or ignorance about the fact that a bicycle doesn’t emit carbon dioxide?
Do they honestly think that an individual will, upon reading the above spiel, drop his paper, exclaim
“Wait a minute! Riding a bicycle can make me fit? And save me money? And I won’t emit any carbon? Why didn’t anyone tell me!”
before dashing madly out to his shed, liberating his bicycle, and pedalling it furiously into town?
Obviously not. People already know that riding a bicycle makes them fit (that’s why quite a lot of them strap mountain bikes onto their cars, so they can go off to quiet bits of countryside and ride around on them). People already know that riding a bicycle is cheap, and ‘good for the environment.’ So these cannot be reasons why people are not riding bikes.
But this is, seemingly, the official line from the organizers of ‘Team Green Britain’ Bike Week – professional cyclist Ed Clancy has been roped in to parrot, identically, this very same guff –
Ed Clancy, champion cyclist and London 2012 hopeful, says: “Cycling isn’t just a convenient way of getting around – it’s cheap, great for your health and fitness and also means that you’re helping reduce carbon emissions.”
The message is wrong. It doesn’t matter who is delivering it.
But maybe there are other stupid reasons why people aren’t getting on their bikes. Warwickshire County Council seem to think it’s because they want to ride tandems and tricycles instead.
As part of Bike Week, the county council’s Sustainable Travel Team is holding a series of bike themed events including Come Try A Bike day on Thursday (June 24). The event is open to anyone who has not rode a bike for some time, or just want to try a new type of bike.
… Klaus Stüber from Germany is bringing along his innovative Taga ‘pushchair’ bike which he uses to transport his two daughters to nursery school. He said: “It is not a bike nor a pushchair but rather a totally new way to move around and spend quality time with your child. The three wheel design makes it a much safer ride than with a regular bicycle.
Nicola Small, Warwickshire County Council’s Sustainable Travel officer, said: “There are lots of bikes out there now to meet the different requirements of individual circumstances – from tandems, to electric bikes, to fold up ones and now even a bike that turns into a double buggy! There is basically a bike for everyone – it is just a case of looking for something that meets your needs.
Perhaps there are countless Warwickshire residents who are desperate to get out on the roads on some form of pedal-powered device, but have been prevented from doing so until now because they just haven’t found the right tricycle, tandem, or converting Transformer bike-buggy device. Indeed, I am sure we will see cycling levels skyrocket in Warwickshire as a result of the council’s sterling efforts to pair these desperate individuals up with the bizarre bicycle-type… thing they have long been searching for.
The inescapable conclusion is that the organizations responsible for promoting bicycle use are just not getting it – they are completely deluded about what the problem is. We have, in David Arditti’s words, a
total, nutty disjunction between the promotion and propaganda surrounding cycling in UK, and the reality of what those who attempt to cycle discover on the roads.
The reason people aren’t riding their bikes is not because they’ve got a puncture, or because there’s a general maintenance problem. There are things called ‘local bike shops’, which anyone who really wanted to get on their bike can quite easily use to get these minor problems fixed, at little expense.
The real problem, of course, is the environment. Or, as David Arditti puts it,
IT’S THE ENVIRONMENT, STUPID!!
Using a bicycle on Britain’s roads is unattractive. Survey after survey shows that what people want is not better clothing, training advice, tricycles, fixed punctures, or even – ludicrously – being made aware about how a bicycle can make you fit, and save you money. Instead
The graphs show that while there is a widespread opinion among cyclists and non-cyclists that some form of cycle specific route would encourage them to cycle more, the preference is clearly for off road facilities. Both groups felt that these would be more likely to achieve a higher growth in cycling levels.
We need an improvement in the environment for cycling, so that people feel safer, and cycling becomes a more pleasant experience. This is the elephant in the room, that for some inescapable reason is not being addressed in all this rather breathless Bike Week exhortation. No amount of glossy promotional hype is going to overcome this fundamental barrier, and for that reason, this Bike Week, and every subsequent Bike Week, is consequently going to be doomed to failure, unless, of course, we start to address the real reason why people don’t ride bikes.
Utrecht, June 15th 2011 – what cycling in Britain could look like, if we started addressing the cycling environment
It’s raining today, and the CTC are getting ready for a ‘bike ride’ using ‘riding gear.’
We’re all sitting at our desks in our riding gear ready to go on the annual CTC staff bike ride for BikeWeek, praying it doesn’t rain!
It rained a lot while I was in Utrecht recently. Here are how Dutch people go for ‘bike rides’ in their ‘riding gear’ when it rains –
I wonder if that’s the same kind of specialized ‘equipment’ the CTC will be using?
(Thanks to Copenhagenize for drawing this to my attention)
Road.cc are reporting the trial of a driver who killed a cyclist on the A442 Telford bypass in July last year. Tragically, the cyclist, Arthur Platt – who had recovered from a serious spinal injury which had prevented him from joining the army – was attempting to cycle from John O’Groats to Land’s End, to raise money for Help for Heroes.
The driver, Stuart Cook, admits causing the accident, by taking his eyes from the road to replace a satnav device which had fallen into his footwell. However, he maintains that, in so doing, he was only driving ‘carelessly’, rather than ‘dangerously.’ Pesonally, I don’t think removing one’s eyes from the road for a long enough period that you plough into the back of a human being in front of you, at such a speed that you kill them, could ever be considered ‘careless’, and to their credit, the CPS agree, and are pursuing a charge of dangerous driving. The prosecution also seem to have evidence that Mr. Cook
not only leant down to pick up the sat-nav device, but went on to check that the screen was lit up.
Careless?
The outcome of the trial will certainly be interesting. But in googling around for information on this case, I was struck by how the death of Mr. Platt was reported at the time.
The Hampshire Chronicle – which covers the region where Mr. Platt lived and worked – had this to say –
A Hampshire cyclist who overcame a spinal condition that threatened to put him in a wheelchair has been killed on a charity bike ride. Arthur Platt was cycling from John O’Groats to Land’s End in aid of the Daily Echo-backed Help for Heroes organisation, which helps injured servicemen, when he was in collision with a car.
I appreciate the need for neutrality in reporting, so as not to prejudice the outcome of any subsequent trial, but this isn’t quite good enough. Why not ‘when a car was in collision with him’, which is equally neutral, but rather more likely, given the circumstances of the accident? The ordering implies that ‘the collision’ involved Mr. Platt cycling into Mr. Cook’s car.
But the BBC report is… beyond words.
A charity cyclist has died in road accident [sic] while on a trip from John O’ Groats to Land’s End. Arthur Platt, 37, from Lyndhurst, Hampshire, died in hospital on Tuesday after his bicycle crashed into a car on the A442 in Telford, Shropshire.
UPDATE – Cycle Of Futility has drawn my attention to his (?) correspondence with the BBC on their reporting of cyclists’ road deaths. Apparently the BBC
always think hard about the way crash stories involving cyclists and pedestrians are written.
If they were ‘thinking hard’ when they wrote that Arthur Platt’s bicycle ‘crashed into a car’ on a national speed limit dual carriageway, how would the BBC report a cyclist’s death when they’re not thinking quite so hard? Perhaps we should be grateful they didn’t report that Mr. Platt chose to arbitrarily fling himself under the wheels of the car that killed him.
UPDATE (2) – I am pleased to be able to report that Stuart Cook was indeed convicted on the more serious charge of causing death by dangerous driving. I hope the sentence he receives reflects the severity of his crime.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
