Bicycle Safety: Arms Race, or Disarmament?

I've been thinking about the "war on the motorist" and the terrorising of our residential streets by motor vehicles, coupled with a media interest in cycle "helmets" and the dangers of cycling in the UK. What are we doing? I think there are two different ways of approaching the problem.

Increased Safety for Cyclists

A large amount of effort is being focussed on increasing safety for cyclists, without making any changes to motorists at all. We see strong campaigns for cyclists to always wear "helmets", high-visibility clothing, and to take BikeAbility training courses to learn how to deal with motor traffic. The emphasis is entirely on getting cyclists to make changes.

Here is a cause-and-effect diagram I created to show how this creates an "arms race" between the danger caused by the motor vehicles, and the safety measures required by cyclists:

Here, we get perhaps some benefit from giving cyclists more protection, but we don't actually get very many new people cycling. In fact the safety equipment and training we're encouraging makes it clear to non-cyclists that their fears about the dangers of cycling are completely justified.

The reduction in danger possible by wearing polystyrene hats, or flourescent clothing, is minimal. These won't protect you if a distracted car driver drives into you. The benefits of training are also, I think, overstated. Even experienced cyclists are being killed on our roads, not just novices.

The diagram shows several vicious circles, that keep the cycle going:

• Perceived danger → More calls for safety equipment → Increased perceived danger.
• Real danger → Fewer people cycling →More cars →Increased real danger.
• Calls for safety equipment → Perceived danger → Fewer people cycling →More cars →Increased real danger → Increased deaths and injuries → More calls for safety equipment.

The main benefit of this approach is that it's very cheap. Cyclists actually pay for their own protection, and keeping children indoors doesn't cost anything.

This is an arms race, just like those between warring nations, and like our "war on terror" where every action prompts a bigger reaction. There is no way this can lead to more people cycling as a normal mode of transport. It results in people's freedoms being restricted, and much pain and suffering.

Reduced Road Danger

The opposite way of approaching the problem is to focus on the causes of the danger, rather on the safety of the victims.

Here is a similar cause-and-effect diagram:

Here we have fewer circles, and they're no longer vicious ones. In fact, the whole effect is remarkably more pleasant.

The only problem with this approach is that it's more expensive and time-consuming than getting cyclists to protect themselves. However the Dutch and Danish have shown what can be done with the right political will and a decade or two of time. Cycle facilities are orders of magnitude cheaper than motorways, and 20's Plenty for Us is extremely cost-effective.

This is disarmament: everyone lays down their weapons, the two sides talk to each other, and peace prevails. What's more, there are no vicious circles: once we've removed the danger we can relax and enjoy life!

Lovely peaceful morning

Today was a lovely morning: we woke to the sunshine, and after the seemingly endless days of windy damp days it's lovely and still.

The daily bike ride to school was almost perfect: a little chilly but no wind and lovely sunshine. People all seemed happy and enjoying the first hints of spring.

But then the grumpy, angry, pushy, annoyed car drivers start to appear, like vastly-oversized steel wasps on a pleasant summertime picnic. Engines roar, wheels spin, and there's an overall smell of burnt fossil fuels in the still air. The normally-invisible exhaust fumes are visible as steamy clouds that hang pungently in the air.

But we're not in a car, so the cars don't bother us. Life is good, and before long the cars will be extinct.

U-plus 2 tandem trailer bike stolen

STOP PRESS: Word went around locally, and our U-plus 2 was eventually returned by someone anonymous. It had been damaged a little, but is still in working order. Mindless joy-riders, we think. The mountain bike, complete with rare mount for a Miklink trailer, has disappeared forever.

Sadly someone has ridden off with our red Creswell-made U-plus 2 tandem trailer bike. Stolen in the night between 10pm Wednesday 11 August and the following morning, from our house in Lancing, West Sussex, UK. The trailer bike is large, and would need a large car or van to transport it inside, and needs a lot of space to store it: much like a tandem tricycle would.

The trailer bike was attached to my old-and-rusty pink and turquoise mountain bike, as pictured. The U-plus 2 is getting tatty (it has had several owners) with battered rear mudguards, but is in good working order. The rear handlebars are a bit loose, with a rubber shim inserted to try to keep them straight.

This is pretty-much the same bike as the Pashley U-plus 2, but the earlier model made by Creswell Engineering.



Note that we know of one other family in Lancing who own a read U-plus two, but otherwise these trailer bikes are rare (and desirable for cycling families) as Pashley no longer make them. They only appear on eBay at the rate of one a year or so.

Promises of a decent Transport Policy!

The new Secretary of State for Transport, Rt Hon Lord Andrew Adonis, made one of the best-informed speeches on government transport policy for years last Wednesday.

Lots of good aims, including:

In promoting low carbon transport, there is no lower carbon or healthier means of getting from A to B, besides walking, than cycling. Cycling has for too long been the Cinderella of transport policy – adored but neglected, when in fact it ought to be central to our thinking and planning if we are serious about a low carbon and healthier future.

and:

I am looking forward to discussing with Philip Darnton of Cycling England how we can bring about a step-change in numbers getting their bikes out of the shed or the garage and into use.

The full speech, including encouraging sections about the railways, is here:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/speeches/transportmanifesto

Sadly the current government is forced to have an election in the next year, and it doesn't look likely that Lord Adonis will be around long enough to do what he wants to. It all eerily echoes the aims of Sir George Younger (the "bicycling baronet") at the end of the last Conservative period in power: it seems that just as government realises what a good transport policy looks like, it loses power. Let's hope that this time the incoming party don't forget the lessons learnt.

Reducing car fuel prices

You may have seen the lovely "pyramid" e-mail doing the rounds, telling you:

For the rest of this year DON'T purchase ANY petrol from the two biggest
oil companies (which now are one), ESSO and BP.

If they are not selling any petrol, they will be inclined to reduce
their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have
to follow suit. But to have an impact we need to reach literally
millions of Esso and BP petrol buyers. This is really simple to do!!

Sounds an excellent way to reduce the price of fuel, and perhaps almost anything else! However this doesn't stand up to much analysis.

Starting Point

As a starting point, we have this situation:

• Petrol price around £1.20/litre
• People buying petrol from their nearest or cheapest petrol station

Stage One complete

Assuming that car drivers in the UK boycott Esso and BP in their millions (perhaps chosing to run out of fuel rather than buy their petrol) we would, apparently, end up in this situation:

• Very few people buying petrol from Esso or BP.
  
• Normal petrol price £1.20/litre.
• Price at Esso/BP reduced to 69p/litre to encourage people in.

So far so good, we've forced Esso/BP to reduce their petrol price. But we do have an awful lot of people who are now deliberately choosing to buy more expensive petrol than they could do.

The plan is that the other petrol stations will then reduce their prices to match Esso/BP. But of course there's no need for them to do so, as people are buying their petrol at the higher price already!

Stage Two complete

Anyway, assume that all petrol stations now charge 69p/litre. We all return to buying petrol at any garage. Guess what? The very next day all the garages will have put their prices back up again!

After all that effort, we have this situation:

• Petrol price around £1.20/litre
• People buying petrol from their nearest or cheapest petrol station

The Answer

What we are talking about is Market Forces, and they already work, assuming competition between petrol stations, to keep the price of petrol as low as is possible without making a loss (although I suspect supermarket stations do sell at a slight loss, to encourage people to shop for their food, clothing, etc. there too).

The only ways to reduce fuel prices in a Market economy are:

• Reduce demand by getting everyone to buy less petrol and diesel.
• Increase supply by finding a massive crude oil field with good quality and easy-to-extract oil in it. Or perhaps invade and take control of any countries that have (a) oil and (b) no nuclear weapons.

Even reducing tax would probably have little effect on prices, as the current situation shows that you can sell petrol and diesel at £1.30/litre without too much loss in business. A tax reduction would therefore result in increased profits for the oil companies.