Category Archives: Road Safety

Cable Street Road Closures

Posted on by
Reply

In addition to the closures of Shorter Street and Tower Bridge mentioned in a previous article, there are proposals afoot to close some roads around Cable Street which is not far away.

Cable Street (famous for the defeat of English fascists in the East End before the Second World War which was recently commemorated on its 80th anniversary) is a road that runs east-west parallel to The Highway. It was remodelled to accept part of the East-West Cycle Superhighway, but clearly the design was done in a rush and it contains lots of defects. The result is conflicts among cyclists (both going at high speed in two directions on a narrow strip of blue coloured tarmac), conflicts between vehicles and cyclists and between pedestrians and cyclists. It could therefore certainly do with improving, but the proposals, include several road closures effectively making the area very difficult for any through traffic or even for local residents.

This is what I have said to Tower Hamlets Council on this matter (Tom Rawlings is the Project Manager):

  1. We represent private car users nationally and I am personally responsible for the London area. I only recently learned about these proposals and I even had to issue a Freedom of Information Act request to find out the details as there was nothing publicly available on your web site and I could not get an answer by telephoning either. So please ensure that we are on the consultation list for any future public consultations on this matter.
  2. Please also note our objections to these proposals, which I explain in more detail below.
  3. The consultation leaflet you issued in March is grossly biased. It refers to “rat-running” when that is an emotive and unreasonable term to use. Roads are there to be used by anyone and a lot of the traffic is clearly either local residents or vehicles serving local residents or businesses. Some of them may have turned off the Highway but they might be doing that simply to access locations further north than where the Highway would take them. The note suggests that 76% of the road users are “non-essential” through traffic but that might apply to almost any road. Roads are meant to take vehicles from one location to another.
  4. The results of the consultation as reported in the “Briefing Note” are exceedingly biased. The pie chart showing the numbers against include the automated responses from “The Wheelers” and “LCC” (counting 176 in total), but completely ignores the 700 signatures you received on an objecting petition. Why?
  5. Please advise who organised the aforementioned petition and their contact details. 
  6. As regards the proposals themselves (and I am reasonably familiar with Cable Street as I use it occasionally), I have the following comments:  
  7. The design of the Cycle Superhighway along that stretch of road was poorly done and clearly was rushed through to ensure rapid completion of that stretch. There are numerous defects that almost ensure conflicts among cyclists, or between motor vehicles and cyclists, or between pedestrians and cyclists. Any new design should try to rectify those faults without removing vehicular traffic which is essential not just to local residents.  
  8. I will not attempt to define all the problems with the existing or new proposals, but it is clear from the responses you have already received that the proposed design does not even satisfy the views of many cyclists.
  9. I think it is most unfortunate that you appear to have consulted closely on the new design with cyclists representative groups without doing the same with vehicle users. I request that we be so consulted and I suggest you should do the same for taxi drivers, the police, ambulance services, fire service, the Freight Transport Association, etc. Transport for London (TfL) could no doubt give you a list of relevant consultees if you do not have one.

Anyone who uses the roads in the area of Cable Street should contact me, or write to Mr Rawlings at Tower Hamlets Council with your objections.

Roger Lawson

Transgender Pedestrian Lights

Posted on by
1

ave all seen those red or green lights indicating when pedestrians can cross a road or junction. Normally they show a stationary red person, or a green walking person. Whether they are male or female is not obvious.

But since June, TfL have been installing “diversity” pedestrian lights – perhaps to support those confused about their own sexuality. But if anything they are just confusing ordinary members of the public who have no idea what the symbols mean.

See the photograph below that shows one of the lights in Trafalgar Square, but there are various designs of male, female and mixed symbols.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

 

There is of course one thing wrong with this gesture. The design of pedestrian lights was previously laid down in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2015 document which had legal force (available on the web). But the 2016 version does not appear to contain the same definitions. Is this a case of TfL using a new found discretion to use alternative signs? If so it is a mistake. Traffic signs should not be subject to gesture politics but should be consistent so that they are clear, not misleading and safe to follow.

Roger Lawson

Community Roadwatch and Speed Awareness Courses

Posted on by
Reply

The “Community Roadwatch” scheme has been promoted by a number of police forces in the last few years. This is where the police train local residents to use speed guns who then report malefactors to the police who send the drivers a “warning” (one might even say “threatening”) letter. But so far as this writer is aware, such letters have no legal force. This scheme has been promoted by Transport for London and the Metropolitan police in London.

According to a recent press report, in the London Borough of Havering they have gone one step further. According to the Romford Recorder, after issuing a letter for the third time to a driver, the police will take further action by issuing a “mandatory speed awareness course” invite. It is not at all clear what legal basis the police might be claiming for having powers to do this. Could they prosecute the driver for example if the speed awareness course invite is ignored?

Of course this kind of scheme, effectively local vigilantism, is opposed by many. For example a poll by Populus conducted on behalf of the AA showed almost equal numbers of people in favour as opposed. As one person said, it was “just an excuse for local busybodies to interfere with neighbours behaviour” (quote from a Guardian article on the subject).

The writer is looking into this topic further.

Roger Lawson

Safer Lorries to Help Cyclists and Pedestrians

Posted on by
Reply

The Mayor of London has launched a consultation on proposals to improve road safety by ensuring that lorry drivers can see cyclists and pedestrians. Thousands of lorries could be banned from the streets of London as a result.

HGVs are involved in more than half of cycling deaths on London roads. Often lorries turning left and unable to see cyclists to their left are the cause. Pedestrians are affected in a similar way.

Previous proposals in this area have been changed. Now there will a star rating system for HGVs and only those rated three stars or above will be permitted into London. The proposals would be brought in between 2020 and 2024. But there are 35,000 HGVs (many of them serving construction sites) that are likely to be zero rated currently operating on the streets of London. There will be substantial costs in adapting those vehicles or replacing them.

The previous consultation on these proposals got a very mixed response with strong support from cyclists of course but lots of objections from those affected on the grounds that it would not solve the problems, be difficult to implement, on technical grounds and for other reasons. We objected because we consider it wrong that there should be different regulations in London from the rest of the country (as vehicles do travel around). It should be tackled at a national level. If there are benefits to road safety from these proposals, why should not the rest of the country get them imposed also?

See here for more information: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/safer-lorries . But it does not seem that there will be any further consultation on this matter which is unfortunate as clearly there was no unanimity in support of it previously.

Roger Lawson

Telegraph Coverage of Speed Awareness Courses

Posted on by
Reply

On the 3rd September the Daily Telegraph ran a lengthy article on speed awareness courses which included some quotes from this writer. Here’s a brief summary of the contents.

It noted that 1.6 million motorists were caught speeding last year and record numbers were attending speed awareness courses (1.2 million last year). These numbers have partly risen because the “qualifying speeds” within which you may be offered a course have been broadened (for example as much as 42 mph in a 30 limit area, or 86 mph in a 70 limit).

But there is little evidence that the courses do much good. The article quoted Chris Miller, former Hertfordshire Assistant Chief Constable, as saying “There’s too little independent oversight, too little research to show whether these highly lucrative courses, all at the expense of motorists, do any good”.

I was quoted as follows: “If you were a burglar and police let you off if you paid some money it would be a criminal offence. What’s the difference with SACs?” And: “We believe they are also used to fund police activities other than simple SAC administration contradicting what Ministers promised when the courses began”.

A really odd response was obtained from Rob Gifford, CEO of the Road Safety Trust and UKROED (who run the scheme), who was asked whether they should be independently run by the Government. He said “…police would be extremely concerned because it would give the Government the power to tell police officers what to do and historically they have never done that”. Since when were police not accountable to the Government, and to Parliament? Do they now consider themselves above the law?

The article also reported that the Government has commissioned IPSOS MORI to carry out to carry out a review of the SAC industry. As we have said, there is no firm evidence of any benefit to road safety. The only evidence that is available is based on “attitudinal surveys” done on attendees. They reported on positive responses to the courses and “greater intentions to comply with speed limits”. But of course the problem with these kind of surveys is that the respondents are likely to give the answers they think those asking the questions would like and it is easy to distort the results by the way questions are phrased.

What we surely need is to track people who attend such courses and compare their accident records with a control group who have not attended a course. And compare them also with a group who were given penalty points which the article suggested is known to be effective.

But using IPSOS MORI to do such research is very odd as they are primarily a market research company focussed mainly on public opinion polls. Indeed I would say they are the Governments favourite pollster when they wish to get the answer they want. So it looks exceedingly likely that this will be a whitewash of the evidence on this subject.

Perhaps the best comment on this topic was in a subsequent letter to the Telegraph by Andrew Tobin who said “Sir – If speed awareness courses are effective, my insurance premium should go down if I take one, as I become a lower risk. But it goes up”.

Yes insurance companies might well be able to provide useful evidence on the question of the effectiveness of speed awareness courses, but even if the ends might be beneficial (which I very much doubt), the means are illegal and unjustified.

Roger Lawson

Launch of Campaign Against Speed Awareness Courses

Posted on by
Reply

AMPOW Campaign Against Misuse of Police Waivers

We have launched a campaign against the misuse of speed awareness courses (named AMPOW) because the actions of the police in offering such “Education Courses” as an alternative to prosecution for speeding and other offences are distorting road safety policy. It is leading to the proliferation of speed cameras and threatened prosecutions because the police now have a direct financial incentive to maximise their activities in this area. This is wrong.

In our view there is no statutory support for this activity and it is contrary to law. In addition it is a perversion of justice for the police to waive prosecution on the basis of money being paid to them.

There is also no hard evidence that putting people through a speed-awareness course has any impact on their subsequent accident record, or behaviour in general. So what we now have is an enormous industry dedicated to raising money to pay course operators, the police and other organisations who benefit from these arrangements.

The Government has claimed that the police only recover their “administration” costs but that is not in fact true. They are actually using their proportion of fees paid by course attendees to finance more cameras and more staff to operate them plus to fund other equipment and activities from the surpluses generated. We can provide evidence on this.

We ask the Government to put a stop to these arrangements forthwith simply because Parliament has never approved these activities. If they do not we will consider a legal challenge to prevent these abusive practices from continuing.

More Information

You can learn more about this campaign from a web page set up to support the campaign here: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/speed-awareness-courses.htm     .

Driving in the Cycle Superhighway on Shorter Street

Posted on by
10

Car in Cycle Superhighway Shorter St-AThe  photograph above is of someone mistakenly driving into the Cycle Superhighway which runs along Shorter Street in the City of London (near Tower Bridge). The driver appeared unaware that this is not a road but a two-way cycle path.

This is an easy mistake to make because Shorter Street used to be open to all traffic but now consists of a cycle lane and a bus lane. No cars are supposed to use either but sat-navs still direct you to turn right to get onto Lower/Upper Thames Street and there is no obvious alternative route.

A few moments after the photo was taken, another car entered the bus lane, no doubt for the same reason.

The writer has been asking TfL to explain which alternative route they expect vehicles to take but I have yet to get an answer. There were many objections to the closure of Shorter Street which was totally unreasonable and shows a lack of understanding of routes vehicles need to take. I will be pursuing this issue until I get some sensible answers.

Roger Lawson

Speed Humps and Air Pollution

Posted on by
2

Air pollution from motor vehicles, particularly in major conurbations such as London, has been a hot topic of late. The impact may be exaggerated but it has certainly become a matter of public concern with the increase in diesel vehicles allegedly making it worse.

It has been known for many years that speed humps actually result in more air pollution. For example this writer published an article back in 2002 which said the following: “Pollution Caused by Traffic Calming. As a contribution to the local debate on the merits of speed bumps, it is worth covering a report produced by the  TRL (Transport Research Lab.) last year. In the past, different studies in different countries seemed to produce very diverse results, but the latest methodology seems more likely to have produced accurate figures. TRL Report No. 482 studies the effect of a number of different traffic calming measures, including road humps, cushions, pinch points and mini-roundabouts. They also studied the impact on traffic flows and delays experienced by fire engines. To quote from the report “The results of the study clearly indicate that traffic calming measures increase the emissions of some pollutants from passenger cars. For petrol non-catalyst, petrol catalyst and diesel cars, mean emissions of CO per vehicle-km increased by 34%, 59% and 39% respectively. For all three vehicle categories the increase in mean HC emissions was close to 50%. Emissions of NOX from petrol vehicles increased only slightly, but such emissions from diesel vehicles increased by around 30%. Emissions of CO2 from each of the three vehicle categories increased by between 20% and 26%. Emissions of particulate matter from the diesel vehicles increased by 30%.”

The advocates of speed humps ignored this negative evidence in their commitment to road safety even though their impact on accidents is very marginal and may be a mirage.

As confirmation for the above a recent study from Imperial College, London also found high levels of pollution from road humps – indeed higher than from other forms of traffic calming (see the Daily Telegraph on the 11/6/2016 for a fuller report on this and some quotes from me).

For example they got 47% more particulates and 64% more NO2 from a petrol car when driven over humps, and even higher figures for diesel cars.

As I pointed out in my comments to the Daily Telegraph, accidents to school children are not particularly frequent outside schools so putting humps there is unnecessary. But the health impact on children of air pollution may be particularly severe. There are numerous reasons why the use of speed humps should be banned and this is yet another – see this page for lots more information written by the author on this topic some years ago (and the facts have not changed since): http://www.bromleytransport.org.uk/Humps.htm

Roger Lawson

London Mayor Transport Policies

Posted on by
Reply

As we are coming up to the election of a new London Mayor on May 5th, and of course for representatives to sit on the Greater London Assembly as well, it looks a timely moment to look at the policies of the main parties. I will only comment on their transport policies.

There is one thing that clearly differentiates the two main candidates for Mayor. It is that one is the son of a billionaire financier and businessman, while the other is the son of a London bus driver. You can easily guess which is which of course, but their policies on transport are actually not that much different. Both candidates will continue to support that expensive hand out to the electorate called the “Freedom Pass” where both the rich and poor get encouraged to consume public transport by unjustifiable subsidies which impose a major financial burden on local borough councils (and which the public end up paying for but not transparently). Both support the proposed new East London river crossings, investment in Crossrail 2 and tougher rules on HGVs entering London.

They are also both keen to reduce air pollution in London, and to encourage cycling. So Conservative Zac Goldsmith says “Dirty cars, vans and buses contaminate the air we breathe” and he intends to “make London the greenest city on earth”. As he also says in his manifesto, he has been a lifelong environmentalist and is opposed to expanding Heathrow airport.

Labour’s candidate, Sadiq Khan, is keen to expand London’s public transport network while making it more affordable. One difference between the candidates is that Mr Khan would freeze fares for 4 years and cut Transport for London’s budget. Indeed he is threatening to take personal control of TfL by chairing that organisation. As he says, TfL is a vast organisation but he thinks it is inefficient and flabby. He suggests there are major efficiency savings to be made but he would spend more of TfL’s budget on cycling – expansion of the Superhighway network and Quietways for example. He would also spend more on support of 20mph zones. Mr Goldsmith says that freezing fares is not practical to meet the investment plans for TfL and maintain operations, i.e. that a budget could not be devised to do this.

Mr Khan also opposes a third runway at Heathrow but prefers expansion of Gatwick to meet demand for air travel growth. He supports keeping the Congestion Charge (aka “Tax”) as its current level but he would bring forward the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) and extend it to major arterial routes “or a wider section of central London” as he rates cleaning up London’s air to be a priority. He would also call upon the Government to “introduce a diesel vehicle scrappage scheme”, although that would surely not be likely to prompt a positive response.

Incidentally both candidates seem keen to pedestrianise Oxford Street. That has always been a popular concept but ignores the practicality of routing all the buses elsewhere apart from the objections from the retailers that this would deter a lot of their customers.

The Green Party (candidate Sian Berry), who actually did quite well in the last London elections, would also like more investment in walking, cycling and public transport. They would introduce a “smarter” congestion charge system with much more extensive coverage and also expand the ULEZ. They also support a workplace parking levy.

UKIP (candidate Peter Whittle) do not seem to have published a specific London manifesto at the time of writing, but historically they have vowed to scrap HS2, have opposed speed cameras being used simply to raise revenue, and opposed road tolls and congestion charging.

There are also a large number of other minor party candidates, if you don’t find any of the above to your liking. And don’t forget this is a transferable voting system (a supplementary vote where your second choice is used if there is no outright winner on first choices). So there is no harm in declaring your preference for a minority candidate. Just make sure you VOTE FOR SOMEONE.

Zac Goldsmith’s views on cycling 

Now it just so happens that I was able to ask a couple of questions of Zac Goldsmith at a recent husting meeting. I asked him what he was going to do to sort out the traffic congestion that Boris had created with the Cycle Superhighways, and whether he was a keen cyclist himself. In answer to the first question he said he would look at the issue when the works had been completed, and might consider mitigation measures if necessary. He avoided answering the second question altogether. An altogether weak response. I am afraid Mr Goldsmith comes across as a glib and slick politician but one who is not likely to win the election, particularly if he goes on in this manner. Needless to say he is trailing in the opinion polls at present.

But whichever candidate wins, it looks like we will get a continuation of the policies pursued in the last few years which have been so damaging to the road network of London.

Roger Lawson

London Divided, and Cycling Accident Rates

Posted on by
1

The Financial Times ran an article on the 31st March by Conor Sullivan which was headlined “London divided over mayor’s cycling legacy”. It highlighted the contrasting views of Londoners over Boris Johnson’s cycling policies and specifically the construction of the Cycle Superhighways. These have resulted in a major worsening of traffic congestion in London and are likely to continue to do so – we have reported on this in previous articles.

Here’s some quotes from the FT article. Sir George Iacobescu, CEO of property group Canary Wharf, said “if you come to Tower Hill any morning, there is a tailback of commercial vehicles several miles long”. Andrew Gilligan, the Mayor’s cycling commissioner, responded that most people wanted improvements for cyclists and that “There is always noisy objection, but they always turn out to be from the minority”. Members of Parliament were also reported as being unhappy as Parliament lies on the route of one Superhighway and Gilligan said “MPs were constantly tugging at the [Mayor’s] sleeve saying ‘this is a disaster’.”

Sir George noted that while only a small proportion of Londoners still drive in the city centre, those who do often have no option. He said “You have shop deliveries, commuter buses, construction traffic, white van man, the black taxi, the disabled, garbage collection, ambulances, dignitaries, Her Majesty….. this is not about private cars”.

Furious Cycling

My previous blog comment on “furious” cycling, or racing on the streets of London got some predictable comments from cyclists. For those who misunderstood, the article was intended to highlight the behaviour of cyclists not just for the problems that they create for other road users and pedestrians but because they are often a danger to themselves.

As I have been preparing a presentation on road safety, I happened to come across a chart on page 7 of the document published by the Department of Transport entitled “Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain 2014” – for the full report as it is well worth reading see:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/438040/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-main-results-2014-release.pdf

The interesting thing about this chart is that it shows that although cycle traffic has gone up considerably in the last few years, the number of seriously injured has gone up considerably more (the number killed has fallen but the numbers there may be less statistically significant and may be more affected by better medical treatment). Now if there was generally worse behaviour by other road users, you would expect to see an increase in KSIs among other road users, but that is not the case. Even the KSIs among pedestrians have fallen. This surely rather suggests that the behaviour of cyclists has changed in some way over the last few years which has led to a rise in KSIs. I therefore suggest that this is evidence that “furious cycling” is a growing problem and as the above figures are for Great Britain as a whole this problem has now extended well outside London.

Roger Lawson