CTC Magazine Article on Road Rage

My article on the whole Scott Lomas Road Rage Saga as printed in the CTC Magazine is now available here.

I add only the comment that I feel that the reason that it is hard sometimes to resist getting into a counterproductive row with motorists who endanger us when we are on our bikes is that we know that formal come back of the sort that ought to occur either will not happen or will happen at greater cost to us than to the miscreant.

The BBC and 'The War on Britain's Roads'

It was with some trepidation that I watched this Leopard films production last night.  Thank heavens for Michael Hutchinson on the Today programme this morning.  It is a great shame that he was not on last night's film to explain rather better certain aspects of cycling to a largely non-cycling public.
The shots from helmet camera cyclists has been done before (and I think rather better) on the BBC's One Show back in February 2011, without the false 'them and us' dichotomy which the programme makers took care to emphasise by, for example, filming all cyclists in cycling jerseys.
The positive side of the programme was the portrayal of the courageous way in which Cynthia Barlow, Chair of Roadpeace has worked tirelessly for the last 10 years, since the tragic death of her daughter, first to find out what happened to her and second to minimise the risk that the same happens to others.  The work done by her and also Kate Cairns (similarly affected by tragedy) and others would have made great television.
'War on Britain's Roads' has had a gestation longer than an elephant's.  I was approached by Leopard Films some 18 months ago and certainly got the impression then that the planned show would be more focussed on road safety.  It is almost as though someone has looked at a proposed script at some stage and required it to be spiced up with a lot more focus on the trading of insults.  Since happily no punches were thrown, I do not care what happened after the black taxi driver who had cut up a cyclist had stopped and I care nothing for his acknowledgement in subsequent interview that he had overreacted.  Having tracked him down I would have liked the filmmakers to ask why he apparently makes a habit of passing cyclists with inches to spare and whether he has any familiarity with rule 163 of the Highway Code.  Above all I would like to know whether he acknowledges that even if, by some good fortune, he has yet to run into a cyclist, his behaviour contributes to intimidating would be cyclists off the road.  The unfortunate fact is that it suited the program's thesis better to portray the taxidriver and cyclist as two sides of a coin whilst both were standing on tarmac having a row, rather than beforehand when the driver was driving a substantial vehicle badly around vulnerable roadusers and the cyclist was not presenting any danger to anybody.
Sadly many people will take from this programme whatever they like to reinforce their own existing prejudices.  My own view is that one group that come over badly are the Police, and particularly the Metropolitan Police.
-Why did Cynthia Barlow have to spend her money on a private investigator to find out what happened to her daughter?
-With all the clips of bad driving shown on that film, why is that only one has resulted in prosecution (and no, the one was not the dreadful tanker on the roundabout)?  The black cab driver referred to above was guilty of driving without due care and consideration when he passed cyclists who had nothing to do with his subsequent confrontation.  As it is he is left still believing that his driving is acceptable.
- Why did the police not investigate the Bexley assault properly, leaving it to the victims to identify the assailant?
- Why did the Cycle Task Force officer depicted  (the one who did not hesitate to thread through a junction against a red light to catch an errant cyclist) allow a taxi driver, who had intimidated a variety of cyclists and passed close enough to have his cab bashed, on his way with reassurance he had done nothing wrong?  (I thought the deferential tone adopted with the driver in contrast to the silly patronising 'get a whistle' tone he adopted with the cyclist spoke volumes).  Unfortunately, as Sgt Castle of the Task Force explained to me when I met them, they do not believe in taking motorists up on close passes because they regard it as 'too subjective'.
There is no 'war' on the roads in the conventional sense or in the sense that the programme implied, with two sides fighting it out.  The death and destruction is all on one side.  We do not need 'peacekeepers' to keep the two sides apart.  There is however a battle in getting the authorities (who after all encourage us onto two wheels) to do sufficient for our protection.  Cycling is reasonably safe but it has an image problem and is often not perceived as safe.  I have recently completed my submission to the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group and have tried to emphasise that there should be a very low level of tolerance towards those who harm, endanger or threaten vulnerable road users.

My Response to DfT Consultation on Increasing HGV Speed Limits

Response ID ANON-KMPX-Z9JK-8

Submitted on 2012-12-04 11:05:12.725334

1 What is your name?

Name:

Martin Porter

2 What is your email address?

Email:

mp@2tg.co.uk

3 What is your organisation?

Organisation:

4 Policy option 1: Raise the national speed limit for HGVs over 7.5t from 40 to 50 mph on single carriageway roads. Is this

your preferred policy option? Please explain your answer.

q1:

No.

These roads already have a poor safety record in comparison with other types of road in the UK.

Single carriageway roads are often used by cyclists and the increase in speed in the heaviest vehicles will increase the actual and perceived hazard and danger

to them.

All the problems identified in the consultation papers ('platooning', fairness and competition) can all be dealt with better by lowering the speed limit for lighter

vehicles by 10mph and by better enforcement of limits.

England and Wales is criss-crossed by a fairly comprehensive network of motorway and dual carriageway roads. Heavy traffic will be diverted from motorways

and dual carriageways onto single carriageway shortcuts if there is no longer a significant speed differential.

Above all, lowering speed limits will save lives and this is a step in completely the wrong direction.

5 Policy option 2: Raise the national speed limit for HGVs over 7.5t from 40 to 45 mph on single carriageway roads. Is this

your preferred policy option? Please explain your answer.

q2:

No.

For precisely the same reasons given above,

6 Do you consider there to be any additional policy options, or variants of policy options 1 and 2? If so, please explain

fully and provide any evidence you may have.For example, only increasing the speed limit for HGVs over 7.5t on single

carriageways where the national speed limit applies, and retaining the 40 mph limit at other times

q3:

Yes.

Keep the current speed limits for heaviest HGVs and lower the speed limit of HGVs up to 7.5 tonnes to 40 mph and lower the speed limit for light motor vehicles

to 50 mph on single carriageway roads.

7 In your opinion does the current 40 mph speed limit cause any of the following: unnecessary costs to vehicle

operators; congestion; avoidable overtaking collisions; an uneven playing field for businesses; or anything not

mentioned in this list? Please explain your answer and provide any evidence you may have.

q4:

No. This is a leading question. The blame for these supposed problems cannot sensibly be laid at the door of the 40mph speed limit. Better enforcement of the

limit would level the playing field as would the lowering of speed limits for lighter vehicles.

8 We welcome views from HGV operators and trade associations about whether they feel the balance of savings and

costs of extra speed detailed in the Impact Assessment reflects their own experience or expectations?

q5:

9 If the speed limit for HGVs over 7.5t is not raised on these roads, collisions as a result of ‘platooning’ could continue. If

it is, the frequency of collisions could decrease due to a reduction in ‘platooning’, though on the other hand the severity

of collisions could increase.

q6:

The 'platooning' problem is best dealt with by lowering the speed limit of the other vehicles.

10 Do you have any opinion or evidence on the effect of ‘platooning’ on road safety, or on the frequency or severity of

collisions involving HGVs on single carriageway roads and what effect an increase in their maximum speed limit on these

roads would have on safety? If so, please provide it in response here.

q6a:

An increase in maximum speed limit will obviously have a detrimental effect on road safety. It is amply demonstrated that speed kills. It is beyond any sensible

dispute that equalising speed downward (and not up) would save lives and injuries.

11 Do you have any opinion or evidence on what effect an increase in the maximum speed limit for HGVs over 7.5t on

these roads would have on non- HGV vehicle speeds such as car speeds?

q7:

It is likely to increase car speeds which will itself have a detrimental effect on road safety.

12 The Department invites information on where there are single carriageway roads which are subject to the national

speed limit, or are signed at 50 mph, in areas where there are air quality problems.

q8:

13 What impacts, if any, do you think there will be to the following if an increased speed limit for HGVs over 7.5t on single

carriageway roads is introduced? a) Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs). Local authorities may have specific

evidence on the effect on AQMAs in their authority; b) EU air quality standards [1] ; c) Noise levels; d) Areas currently

identified as noise hotspots [2]

q9:

14 If as a result of either of the policy options being implemented there was a reduction in ‘platooning’ do you think there

would be a significant impact on: a) Noiseb) Air quality

q11:

'Platooning' has a calming effect in slowing general traffic and therefore reduces the adverse impacts on noise and air pollution.

15 Do you think either of the policy options goes against the underlying principles of the EU Environmental Noise

Directive [3] or of the Noise Policy Statement for England?[4]

q15:

Yes, both do.

16 Do you think that all of the potential health and social costs of the policy options have been considered in the Impact

Assessment? Please provide details if you think costs have not been included.

q12:

No.

It is government policy to encourage cycling. These are roads that are frequently used by cyclists. Overtaking of cyclists by heavy vehicles on single carriageway

roads is potentially hazardous and requires a great deal of care on the part of the HGV driver. The HGV driver travelling at 40 mph has a much greater

opportunity to see a cyclist ahead and to plan his overtaking manoeuvre.

It is a serious omission that the encouragement of cycling has not been considered in the Impact Assessment.

17 Do you believe an increase in speed for this class of vehicle on these roads will cause more HGVs over 7.5t to use

single carriageway roads, which do not currently?

q13:

Yes, clearly.

HGV operators are likely to calculate and use the quickest route. Currently it is worth a modest detour to use motorways and dual carriageways, which are far

more suitable for HGVs, because they are then able to travel significantly faster. If the speed limit differential is reduced more HGVs will be attracted away from

motorways/dual carriageways and onto single carriageway routes.

18 Do you think some freight may switch from rail or water to HGVs, if the speed limit is increased on these roads for

these vehicles?

q14:

Yes for the same reasons. Any reduction in the time taken to transport by road will increase its attractiveness relative to other modes of transport.

19 Do you think that there may be added wear and tear on these roads if the speed limit is increased for these vehicles?

Local authorities may have specific comments or evidence, with regard to roads in their authority.

q15:

Yes, obviously. An HGV braking hard from 50 mph will put far more stress on the road surface than it would braking from 40 mph.

20 Local authorities have powers to alter speed limits on the local road network, including non-trunk primary routes, in

line with guidance set out in Setting Local Speed Limits, DfT Circular 1/06.[5] Do you think that the increase in the national

speed limit for HGVs over 7.5t on single carriageways, would make it more likely that local authorities would introduce

more local speed restrictions, and if so on which roads?

q16:

It would mean that they should introduce more local speed restrictions but in practice they may well not get around to doing so until many avoidable collisions

have occurred.

21 If you are an organisation that provides information and you believe that an increased speed for this class of vehicle

on single carriageways would incur costs for your organisation in the form of publicity or conversion costs please

indicate what these may be. Also please advise whether these costs would be reduced given a lead-in time between

announcement and policy implementation as a result of costs being rolled into existing plans.

q17:

Imperial Winter Series Race 1

A first for me, I turned up on Saturday afternoon to the first race of the Imperial Winter Series as a spectator and to show a bit of support for a novice rider from my club.  Places for the 4th cat event sold out indicating that the popularity of the sport continues unabated at a grass roots level even in near freezing temperatures.  Encouragingly all rode safely and skilfully even around the final twists leading up to the finish line and all remained upright.
Good therapy for me too to watch such a well organised event.  There are still, to my mind, unresolved issues arising from my crash last September but I hope to have made sufficient mental and physical recovery to join in this series shortly (if I can secure a place!)

Cycle Superhighway 9. My observations.

Hounslow Transport Department is consulting informally on the plans in the Hounslow area.  the route goes west from Hyde Park Corner to The Bull in Hounslow Town Centre (an historic coaching inn which must still be a popular pub as the superhighway does a special dogleg in Hounslow to end there).

An example of the plans is here

I have written to the Highways Officers at Hounslow as follows:

Dear Sirs,

Cycle Superhighway 9 – Outline Designs

My interest

                I commute by bicycle from home to Central London through Hounslow and along the A315 following the proposed route of CS9.  I have been doing this for around 10 years.  I am in addition a senior lawyer who is often consulted by cyclists and their families following serious collisions resulting in the death or serious injury of cyclists.  I have a deep commitment to improving the safety and popularity of cycling.

The Outline Designs

                The designs of the proposed CS9 have some merit.  In particular the square blue box cyclist markings placed mid carriageway are useful in indicating to all road users that a cyclist can be expected to ‘take the lane’.  Comprehension of this is, in my experience, often lacking in motorists particularly in the Hounslow area.  However care needs to be exercised to place these on the approach to all junctions and bus stops sufficiently far back to encourage cyclists to move out well in advance of the hazard.

                Equally the improved advanced stop lines are useful though you will need to exercise your influence with the local police to enforce these so that they do not continue to be widely flouted.

                Also tightening up the parking restrictions along the road will obviously benefit cyclists.

                The problem with the outline design, though, is the widespread reliance on the use of narrow (1.5m wide) with flow cycle lanes.  These are positively inimical to the safety of cyclists and it would be far better to save the paint and omit these altogether.  The relevant design standard, Cycle Infrastructure Design (Local Transport Note 2/08) http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/local-transport-notes/ltn-2-08.pdf states that cycle lanes should be 2 metres wide on busy roads.  I attribute my survival after thousands of journeys on the A315 in part upon always travelling at least one metre from the kerb.  The distance from my centre line to my right elbow will take up almost the whole of the remaining 50cm.  All the 1.5m lanes will achieve is to encourage very close passing by motor vehicles, including buses and lorries, on the rare occasions when they are able to outpace a bicycle.  When stationary, as they often are, they are likely to have their wheels hard up against the cycle lane with the dual disadvantage of a narrow strip with poor visibility on the nearside and a reduction in the amount of room available for cyclists to overtake on the offside.  An appropriately trained/experienced cyclist will ignore the narrow cycle lanes, positioning him or herself as though they were not there.  This means that not only is installing them a waste of money, but that they may lead to unwelcome hostility from other road users who do not understand the principles of bikeability.  There is a particularly poorly designed section on map 9 where a kerb side cycle lane continues past an informal crossing where it would not be safe for a bus or HGV to overtake.

Speed

                The A315 is a busy road.  Traffic is frequently congested.  When it does move at speeds approaching 30 mph, that is only for a short distance before the next traffic light or traffic queue.  The designs appear to proceed on an utterly false premise that motor traffic is faster than bicycling.  This premise is not accurate over any significant distance along the A315 save in the dead of night.  What is clearly needed along this route is a 20 mph speed limit.  This would not increase journey times during the day; it would simply slow down the surges and it is a solution that is supposed to fit higher in the hierarchy of design than attempting to banish cyclists to a 1.5m wide strip alongside the kerb.

General

                I trust you find these comments helpful.  I hope you will share them with Council Members and TfL, who I assume also have some input into the design and financing of this project.  It would seem to me sensible that you consult with cycling groups such as CTC before investing considerable sums in a scheme that appears to me to avoid both proper segregation and proper integration, managing the worst of all worlds.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Porter

What's the difference between a footballer and a cyclist?

Knock a footballer over in a vicious unprovoked attack and you get 16 weeks in jail.  Knock a cyclist over in a vicious and unprovoked attack and get a police caution and the sympathies of a civil court that will bend over backwards to help you avoid bankruptcy or the seizure of your assets.
One consistent theme of the justice system is that if the victim is a cyclist the kid gloves go on.

Cycling on Dual Carriageways - An Open Letter to The Times

I wrote to the Times yesterday in response to the letter from HHJ Tonking that they printed last week about banning cyclists from dual carriageways where the speed limit is more than 30, or possibly 40, mph.  There is no sign that The Times is interested in printing my response.  They used to print stuff from me but that is before I morphed from a lawyer to a cycling-nut.



Sir,

In recent times cycling in this country has enjoyed massive highs with a summer of almost incredible sporting success but also tragic lows when individual cyclists (like Rob Jefferies of British Cycling and Mary Bowers of The Times) have been killed or have sustained quite devastating injury.  Like The Times’s campaign to make our cities fit for cycling, British Cycling’s campaign for justice for the victims of traffic collisions is soon to be debated at Westminster.  How telling that His Honour Judge Tonking’s (letters 03.10.12) response is a call to ban cyclists from many of Britain’s roads.  Cyclists historically were huge supporters of the construction of motorways, hoping that this would civilise the non-motorway network.  Many roads that by-pass existing provision (Baldock by-pass, Hindhead tunnel, Hammersmith Flyover to name but a few that spring to mind) are not open to cyclists.  Mr Tonking’s suggested blanket ban would cover many roads that form a cyclist’s most convenient direct and fast route from where she is to where she wishes to be.

Mr Tonking sits in the Crown Court and therefore deals with the most serious cases.  Sitting at the pinnacle of the state’s post collision response, he has the power conferred by Parliament to ban the worst drivers from our roads for substantial, even life-long, periods.  His language of ‘accidents’ and of ‘a moment’s inattention’ and his focus on cyclists using ‘dangerous trunk roads’ and to high visibility clothing typifies the exculpation of those responsible for, and the blaming of the victims of, bad driving.  It is a demonstration of how deeply the car culture is ingrained in our criminal justice system.

Cycling is both a leisure activity and a viable and responsible means of transport.  Cyclists will be attracted to roads that enable them to cover distance swiftly and efficiently without numerous stops and junctions.  Dual carriageways make passing slower vehicles easier and have sight lines which render  talk of momentary inattention, at any legal speed, wholly inappropriate.  By all means make better provision for cyclists so that they can reach their destination at the same speed on better infrastructure but let us not stifle cycling by withdrawing the existing facilities.

Happily Mr Tonking does not have the power to make the law.  He does though have the duty to enforce it and this is where his contribution to the safety of cyclists on our roads should lie.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Porter QC