This Saturday's FT has an article asking for more segregated cycle
facilities. Below it I have appended my letter to the editor. I did
learn a new word from it though - pandonor.
--
Tony
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/110ad456-f5a5-11db-a3fe-000b5df10621.html
A point of honour
By Harry Eyres
Published: April 28 2007 03:00
Dear David Cameron,
I recently discovered that we are cousins. So far the consanguineous tie
has not resulted in any response to or acknowledgement of various
e-mails I have sent to your office. I realise you have had a tough,
toff-bashing press from some of my colleagues, but I can assure you I am
trying to raise constructive points, not to revive an old class war that
would leave us both at the business end of a tumbril.
I like much of what you have said so far about a new politics in Britain
based on the quality of life. I am encouraged to think this might be
more than Blairite hot air. But I can't help fearing that these good
intentions might go the way of other green dawns into brown tomorrows.
After all, quality of life was being touted as the next big thing while
I was studying environmental policy at LSE, in 2001-02. In next to no
time, quality of life had translated into airport expansions, house
building on flood plains in the south east, massive new road-building
programmes and new nuclear power stations.
You recently wrote that you wanted to make England's "green and pleasant
land" one of the best places in the world to live. That is a worthy aim.
But surely it will take some tough policy decisions to deliver that goal.
Let me concentrate on just one policy area: transport, and one humble
mode within that area: the bicycle. We all know that you are a keen
cyclist, even if logistics dictate that an official four-wheeled vehicle
must sometimes follow your two wheels in to work. I expect you agree
with me that the bicycle is the most environmentally friendly piece of
technology ever devised by humankind - a brilliant solution to
transport, health and the environment all rolled into one. It looks also
as if you enjoy the freedom and exhilaration of pedal power.
Freedom, I know, is close to the heart of your political philosophy. You
explicitly espouse the libertarian side of conservatism. But as we all
know, freedom is a complex matter. A free-for-all on roads without
dedicated cycle lanes leads to carnage among cyclists. Forgive me now
for boring you with some statistics - statistics that might give you and
your wife pause for thought.
The UK is not a cycle-friendly country. Only 2 per cent of journeys are
made by bike in the UK , as opposed to 11 per cent in Germany and 27 per
cent in the Netherlands. Two of the European countries with the highest
provision of dedicated cycle lanes are Denmark and Netherlands. For
those who, for whatever reasons (the erosion of the sacred freedom of
motorists, the pundonor of cyclists' organisations), pooh-pooh dedicated
cycle lanes, consider these figures. According to a recent study, a
cyclist is seven times less likely to be injured in the Netherlands than
in England, and 10 times less likely to be injured in Denmark. The
injuries suffered by cyclists in collisions with cars, trucks or buses
are frequently horrific, when they are not fatal; cyclists have no metal
skin to protect them, no seat belts, no air bags.
You must think about this as you cycle round the city, dodging motorists
and those drivers of buses, taxis and trucks who appear to be on a
mission to notch up another pair of Lycra shorts on the side of the van.
You are a husband and father.
So what to do about it - or what would I like you to do about if you win
the next election? First of all, force local authorities to build more
dedicated cycle lanes. I mean proper cycle lanes, not ones, like so many
in London, which peter out after 50 metres, leaving cyclists stranded at
hellish intersections. It will cost money, sure, but it will save lives
and limbs and encourage more cyclists on to the roads, which will in
turn bring health and environmental benefits.
And how about this as a way of raising the money you will need? In
addition to a compulsory road test for cyclists, introduce a new, much
tougher driving test for motorists, bus drivers and HGV drivers, who at
present have no idea how to share the roads safely with cyclists (for
instance, hardly ever giving them the same room as cars when overtaking,
as laid down in rule 139 of the Highway Code). Price the new tests at a
level which would raise revenue. The tests would bring health and safety
benefits as well as raising money.
Recently I have noticed a backlash against cyclists, many of whom ignore
red lights and commit other traffic offences. Would you agree with me in
finding this reminiscent of the imprecations against the depravity of
the poor common in the 18th and 19th centuries? In the 20th century,
enlightened economists and politicians realised that the best way to
counter the depravity of the poor was to make them less poor, to give
them something approaching the quality of life enjoyed by the rich.
The best way to counter the apparently anarchic (in fact, purely
self-protective) behaviour of cyclists is to give them decent and safe
conditions in which to cycle. The over-mighty roads and car lobby is
doing its best to shift the burden of blame from the perpetrators of
manslaughter (cars kill thousands and maim many thousands more every
year) on to the victims. Will you please put your money where your mouth
has been and make cycling safety a priority? Will you do something and
not just waffle?
[email hidden] More columns at www.ft.com/eyres
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sir
H L Mencken once made the observation that "For every complex problem
there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" and Harry Eyres has
fallen for that answer in his letter to Mr Cameron (A Point of Honour,
FT 28 April)
First, while we would all like cycling to be safer, there is no cyclist
carnage on the roads - you are 30% less likely per km to be killed
cycling than walking. Second, research has consistently shown that
segregated cycle facilities are significantly more dangerous than roads
- even in the Netherlands and Denmark. The reason why cycling is safer
there is far more complex than cycle facilities. Third, cycle
facilities do not increase cycling. Over a period of ten years starting
in the late 1980's the Netherlands doubled and Germany trebled their
cycle network at significant cost and to no effect on the numbers cycling.
The answer to encouraging more and safer cycling is to ensure that
cyclists are accepted and encouraged as normal road users. As London
has demonstrated in recent years, if you get more cyclists on the roads,
other road users will both expect them and learn to interact safely with
them. Cycling in London had doubled and the number of accidents halved.
Wall us off in cycling ghettos as Mr Eyres proposes and the opposite
will happen.
Yours sincerely
Dr Tony Raven