Crime and punishment: cyclists and drivers

Our friends down in Bristol will be delighted to learn that the British criminal justice system takes a far more robust attitude to lawless, road-tax-dodging cyclists than it does to ordinary decent motorists who through no fault of their own and in exceptional circumstances sometimes find themselves going a little faster than the permitted speed limit.

A “ROGUE” cyclist spent a night in the cells for refusing to give police his name after they stopped him for using a no-cycle lane on Hampstead Heath. Jean Dollimore, spokeswoman for Camden Cycling Campaign, said it was “extreme” to arrest a cyclist using an empty path when “there are not nearly enough cycle paths on the Heath”. She added: “I imagine this man wasn’t trying to be a rogue cyclist, he just thought it was 8pm, no one was around, and it was safe to do so. 

“There is no way to cycle all the way across the Heath on a network of paths without having to get off and walk some of the way, and that needs to change.” Cyclist Eddison Joseph, 50, from Kentish Town, called for “common sense” after he was fined £330 by magistrates in March last year for riding on a no-cycle path on Hampstead Heath 

Meanwhile

Mercedes driver Shayla Christina Arnold, 27, of Tennant Road, Acomb , admitted doing 96 mph on the A64 at Tadcaster . Her solicitor, Keith Haggerty, said she was racing to get home because her daughter, a passenger in the car, was feeling ill and needed medicine. Arnold said she needed her car to do two care service jobs looking after up to 20 people a week in their own homes. She was given five penalty points and fined £170. 

Porsche driver Dean Robert Sheriff, 43, of Dalton Terrace, York, admitted doing 97 mph on the A64 at Tadcaster and had a previous conviction for speeding. He was given five penalty points, and a £200 fine. He said he had been suffering from stomach cramp, sickness and diarrhoea and was hurrying to get to a McDonalds further along the route. 

VW Golf driver Luke Tibble, 29, of Broad Green Wellingborough, admitted doing 108 mph on the A63 at Newthorpe. He was given a 28-day driving ban and £230 fine. He said he had not been in a hurry, but had had a loss of concentration.

York: the latest incredible crap

CONTROVERSIAL 20mph zones could be increasing rather than reducing the risk of accidents, a new report has warned. 

The reduced limits could be lulling pedestrians into a false sense of security, so they take less care, a transport boss at City of York Council says. 

The revelation has sparked calls for a rethink on York’s “twenty’s plenty” campaign, central to Labour’s transport strategy.

Conservative group leader Ian Gillies said Labour’s push for 20mph zones was “purely ideological”, and said: “Motorists ignore them, the police will not enforce them and there are no statistics to justify them.” 

Over to Joe Dunckley.

Cycling in York – update

(Above) The kind of advanced cycling infrastructure that has made York the safest and most attractive city in Britain for cycling. 

Yes, make no mistake – York is a city where the cyclist is number one.

And now here is the news.

The AA starts lobbying against the next fuel duty rise

Drivers facing 6p-a-litre surge in the price of petrol as AA warns price could soar to record levels 

The alarming prospect is revealed in a new AA Fuel report. It has sparked renewed calls for Chancellor George Osborne to abandon the 3p per litre tax rise he has already deferred from August 1 to January 1. 

And who can doubt that the crap Coalition will capitulate yet again to the fossil fuel lobby rather than risk being represented by the meeja as the vicious oppressor of the ordinary decent British motorist?

But as Cycalogical remarked a while back:

So why fuel duty? Why not cut VAT? Fuel duty only helps families who rely mainly on the car to get around. And it helps most those who drive high mileages in big, thirsty cars. In other words, it is regressive. And it conspicuously doesn't help those who have been hit by above-inflation increases in rail and bus fares. Or those who choose more active modes of travel.

Putney roundabout collides with Audi

News from a 30 mph zone.

A former racing driver and close friend of Lewis Hamilton died following an horrific 78mph crash at a roundabout following a night out drinking with friends.

Crap cycling in Richmond

Quote:

Richmond’s strategy is to increase cycling by 40%! Yes, in seven years’ time, cycling’s modal share needs to rise to a whopping 7%. Except we’ve no idea how to get there. I asked about the strategy, and the strategy is … to increase cycling’s share. 

Luckily the London Borough of Richmond has come up with some exciting ideas, which include:

Advanced cycle stop lines at signal junctions for cyclist safety 

[meaningless white paint on the carriageway which many drivers will choose to ignore]

Extensive widening of footways 

[the current flavour of the month among London’s deranged transport planners, who are doing their bit to suppress even the current low levels of cycling by making things even more off-putting for vehicular cycling by forcing cyclists even closer to overtaking motor vehicles]

Pedestrian ‘countdown’ at all signal junctions to indicate the time allowed to cross the road 

[Richmond is doing its bit to terrorise pedestrians and remind them that the most important thing in life is smoother traffic flow]

There will be CCTV enforcement of traffic violations that impede traffic movement

[there will be no enforcement of laws that protect walking and cycling but drivers who slow things down for other drivers can expect a fixed penalty notice]

Number of car parking spaces (on and off street) will remain the same

[Richmond is as car-sick and car-sodden as anywhere else in Greater London and its crap council plans to keep it that way]

Sadly there are a few malcontents who are not persuaded by these improvements:

surely any plan to get rid of bus/cycle lanes could easily see the introduction of dedicated bike lanes and still have scope to increase pavement width? 

And those ingrates in the local cycle campaign have even dared to suggest that Richmond's transport planners don't understand cycling:

The council is convinced this is an improvement, completely misunderstanding why people do not choose to cycle in the borough.
 
But I expect Richmond is like the London Borough of Waltham Forest. The roads are just too narrow for cycle tracks on the Dutch model. In Waltham Forest our transport planners are making every effort to improve cycling safety by discouraging cycling altogether.

Here on Wood Street in Walthamstow (aka the B160), a direct through route for cyclists has seen expensive “street scene improvements” which involve widening the footway and replacing the cycle lane with parking bays. Cyclists are pushed closer to overtaking motor vehicles and some lovely new bike logos have been painted on the carriageway. This model appears to be being pushed out across Greater London, but as usual pioneering Waltham Forest was there first.

Isn't this a lovely street for going shopping? If trade is suffering I expect it's because there isn't enough car parking.

The European Cyclists’ Federation and the ‘Safety in Numbers’ myth

For dodgy statistics, bogus comparisons, and unwarranted conclusions I suggest you start here and follow the link.

Quite why a European cycling organisation illustrates its material with a photograph from a Critical Mass in Canada is baffling.

For an admirable critique of “Safety in Numbers” you could start here, and also consider this:

The greater rate of cycling in some European countries could be a result of more safety, rather than their greater safety arising from their greater numbers. In addition, and even more problematically, the graph simply fails to take account of a wide range of variables that might also have an effect on cyclists’ safety, of which, perhaps in order of importance, we could name physical infrastructure, policing, speed limits, even (if we are looking at a rate of cycling fatalities) quality of emergency medical treatment. 

And let’s not forget this concrete example:

The relatively high volume of cyclists — coupled with the atrocious fast and confusing road design, signalling conflicts, and appalling road use discipline — puts this junction in London’s top ten for cyclist casualties. So much for safety in numbers. 


If there really is safety in numbers, then shouldn’t the safest place to cycle in London be Hackney? And if the fewer the cyclists, the more the danger, then surely the London Borough of Waltham Forest should be a very dangerous place to cycle? After all, Hackney has at least six times as many cyclists as Waltham Forest.

Yet KSI rates for Hackney are much, much higher than for Waltham Forest. It might be, of course, that there are other factors determining KSI rates, outside cycling numbers. For example, Hackney may be a borough with more lorry trips than Waltham Forest.

The fact remains that no cyclist has been killed in Waltham Forest since 2007. The same does not hold true for Hackney, which has an alarming fatality rate.

There are some interesting statistics in this parliamentary report. although unfortunately they refer to parliamentary constituencies rather than London boroughs. Nevertheless, to my mind they demolish “safety in numbers” as defined by KSI.

Here are some of them.

KSI cyclists

Hackney South and Shoreditch

2005: 12
2006: 7
2007: 14
2008: 19
2009: 8
2010: 10

Hackney North and Stoke Newington

2005: 4
2006: 9
2007: 9
2008: 14
2009: 10
2010: 9

Leyton and Wanstead

2005: 0
2006: 3
2007: 1
2008: 3
2009: 3
2010: 5

Walthamstow

2005: 2
2006: 3
2007: 5
2008: 8
2009: 6
2010: 8

Chingford and Woodford Green

2005: 1
2006: 3
2007: 0
2008: 3
2009: 1
2010: 1

Conclusion 

It’s a scientific fact that where there are almost no cyclists at all, very few cyclists will be killed or seriously injured.

However, this does not mean that an area with very few cyclists or with a low KSI rate is safe for cycling.