Utter, utter CAPS

There are two documents that are worth at least glancing at before reading this blog. The first is the Pedal on Parliament manifesto. You'll find it here. In summary it asks for:

1)    Proper funding for cycling.
2)    Design cycling into Scotland’s roads.
3)    Safer speeds where people live, work and play
4)    Integrate cycling into local transport strategies
5)    Sensible road traffic law and enforcement
6)    Reduce the risk of HGVs to cyclists and pedestrians
7)    A strategic and joined-up programme of road user training
8)    Solid research on cycling to support policy-making

The second document is the government's new Cycling Action Plan for Scotland (CAPS 2013). It can be found here. If we compare this latest 'vision' document from the Scottish government, the document that sets out the governments ACTION PLAN for Scotland here is how it compares to our manifesto:

1) Absolutely no commitment whatsoever to any funding at all. The councils can do it.

2)Design cycling?! Not our job. The councils can do it.

3) Safer speeds?! Not our job. The councils can do it.

4) Ah now this is one the councils can do.

5) Strict liability? Not our job, not the councils job....Westminster's job!

6) HGV's drive in council areas don't they...?

7) Mmm. Maybe we can do this one. Tell people that it's safe, as the councils are sorting it.

8) Hmmm..suppose the transport minister can chat to the councils once in a while. That's research isn't it?

The above might be funny if in fact, it wasn't entirely true. CAPS 2013 is in no way whatsoever a step forward from the original CAPS. In fact it is a step back. Not only is it further suggesting that the original CAPS target wasn't in fact a target after all, it's a vision, but it is also changing the wording surrounding that target.....sorry vision... in such a way to provide wriggle room.

'10% of all trips to be made by bike by 2020' has been changed to '10% of everyday journeys taken in Scotland will be by bike'

What does that actually mean? What is the definition of an everyday journey? I suspect that there isn't one, and that is exactly what the government is depending on. They now have a wishy-washy vision to reach a wishy-washy type of a wishy-washy amount of bike trips. 

You'd almost be forgiven for thinking that the government has given up on it's commitments (assuming they ever cared in the first place) and are now planning ways to avoid an embarrassing face plant. t would appear that they are in the process of building a nice wishy-washy temperature controlled swimming pool to fall into and they are already wearing their Speedo trunks.

The government have absolutely no intention of modernising Scotland.

But wait! The government are doing something aren't they? Lest we forget the £54m figure that they continually like to mention. The £54 that is spread over several years, does not all go on cycling and of that that does, some of it is squandered on advertising campaigns telling us:

No! You're wrong! Cycling is great on Scotland's roads. We just need to ask Mr Driver to be a wee bit nicer to us and we will hit 40% modal cycling in no time! Oh and don't forget to cycle with your arms outstretched at all times so drivers can aim for your finger-tips.

It gets worse though. I can reveal that the government are in fact annoyed at us for not being more appreciative. Seriously! At the recent POP meeting with Keith Brown (Transport Minister), Mr Brown started the meeting off quite aggressively. He was annoyed with us for not congratulating him on the good work that he is doing to make Scotland a cycle friendly nation.Yes that's right. He's doing good work. Apparently.

I suppose we have to be fair though, and my blog does need some balance. Surely something good has come of all this, In fact as part of the launch for CAPS there was also a press release, and  the government and Keith have in fact made an announcement of more money for cycling. Brilliant! Well done Keith! Well....not quite. In fact, not at all. Mr Brown and his colleagues have seen fit to find an extra £79,000. Yes that's right a whopping £79k. Now remember that we are asking for a minimum of £100m to be spent on cycling per annum if we are to have any chance of reaching 10% by 2020. Being generous, the current funding is sitting at £20m per annum, so this extra takes us 0.079% closer to the absolute minimum required.

That isn't funding, it's a slap in the face.

As pointed out in this thread, that represents 0.000013% of the cost of dualling the A9. There can be absolutely no doubt whatsoever what the current governments vision of a modern Scotland is. More roads to help more people drive more cars to more places, faster.

So in effect, we have a cycling action plan that has no plan and no interim targets, and therefore will result in no significant action.

So it's goodbye 'cycle friendly nation'.

Scotland, the cyclists dismount nation.

 

A Culture of Responsibility

I've described in my previous blog my thoughts on accidents. Simply put, when it comes to road incidents, accidents don't happen. There are suggestions from some that this assertion might be too simplistic. However, I had a reason for making that assertion.  I wanted to lead on to the issue of culpability.

I'm no lawyer and I'd even go so far as to say I am no armchair lawyer (though there are plenty on the comment sections of my YouTube videos). So first let's look at a simple definition of what culpability is. A quick Google of the definition of culpability brings up the following:

Culpability is a measure of the degree to which an agent, such as a person, can be held morally or legally responsible. Culpability marks the dividing line between moral evil, like murder, for which someone may be held responsible and natural evil, like earthquakes, for which no one can be held responsible.

Ok. I'll hold my hand up and admit that this text is taken from Wikipeda. Sorry. However, looking around, this seems to be a reasonable and simple explanation of what it defines. It defines responsibility or the degree to which someone can be held responsible for some act.

This is an incredibly important concept to grasp when trying to understand what is currently going wrong with the British justice system. Judges as I've suggested earlier are prone to call incidents, accidents. Unfortunately by using this term the following equation applys:

Accident = No culpability

This is the very root of the issue with the word accident. People can argue (and are arguing) that there might or might not be outlandish situations where the word accident is appropriate, but that misses the point completely. What I am suggesting goes deeper than that. I'm suggesting that rather than argue this point (and yes I know I did that in the last blog, but you have to put up with my thought processes...) is to completely remove the use of the word accident and replace it with incident.

This has a profound effect on the above equation. It becomes:

Incident = Culpability to be determined

Now as someone has pointed out on my last post there probably is a very rare instance which we could call an accident. That is, someone of good health just happens to have a completely unexpected medical emergency that results in complete loss of control and the car  which results in hitting a cyclist. This could be labelled an unfortunate incident. In this situation:

Incident = No Culpability

What about the situation I mentioned in my previous blog where a child unintentionally dropped a nail on the road, bursting a car tyre which then resulted in the car colliding with a cyclist? 

Incident = No Culpability

What about the case where a bale of hay falls off a tractor, hitting a cyclist and killing them:

Incident = Culpable, but level to be determined by the courts

Effectively, by removing the word accident from every road incident we force the question to be asked as to why it happened, who was at fault and, when that has been determined, what is the level of culpability. As things stand at the moment the word accident gets in the way and blocks this whole process and biases it towards letting the faulty party off.

Of course there are those that will suggest that I am asking for a 'blame culture'. Not at all. In fact, the word blame doesn't even enter the argument. We need a culture where people take responsibility for their actions, especially when they are in charge of a potentially dangerous lump of metal.

It's time we had a Culture of Responsibility.

The Accidental Truth

I don't get out to the pub much days. Being a parent to three young kids and pubs don't mix. However, this means when I do get a chance to go out for a pint or three I jump at the chance, and so I was out at one on Saturday night.

The problem with pubs though is that the alcohol they purvey not only lubricates the mind, but it lubricates conversations as well. This is particularly dangerous if you are known to be a cycle safety campaigner to those you are at the pub with, and they aren't avid cyclists themselves.

Yes, you've guessed it, a heated conversation ensued. In fact it was heated enough that I decided to leave the pub early. Sometimes that is the best course of action for all involved. On reflection though (and after the alcohol has left the system), conversations like this, whilst not enjoyable at the time do focus the mind.

One of the main areas of conversation was the use of the term accident. As a cyclist I hate the use of the term as it is often used to describe incidents that I think are in no way accidents. In fact on the night I went one step further and explained to my audience that on the roads there was no such thing as an accident.

As you can imagine a statement such as this, in a pub after a few pints was met with gasps of horror.

You can't seriously be suggesting that there is no such thing as an accident?!?

Yes I was. Unfortunately, rather than me being asked to defend this statement further I was barraged with examples of situations which could not possibly be an accident. 

What if a bale of hay fell off a trailer, caused a car to swerve, and the car hit a cyclist?

What if a car just so happened to run over a nail in the road, caused a tyre to blow out and the car careered into a cyclist killing them?

What if aliens just so happened to......

...and so on.

I tried my best at the time to explain my reasoning however, a mixture of mild intoxication and my audiences incredulity at my stance meant that we just spiralled into a argument that got more ridiculous. I remember the usual comments being made about cyclists riding two abreast being a danger on the roads (I'm sorry, but the only reason you would hit cyclists who riding two abreast after going around a blind corner is if you are driving too fast for the corner), and suggesting that if there were more cyclists there would be more traffic jams.

Hmmm.

That's when I left. Having met the families of cyclists who have been killed in supposed, 'accidents' and meeting fervent opposition to my views was no longer my idea of fun. Leaving was the best thing for everyone.

But what about my assertion about accidents? Can there really be no such thing as an accident?!?

Let's imagine that bale of hay fell from the tractor. Is this an accident? Not a chance. If a bale of hay falls off, then I think it is clear that whoever secured the hay was at fault. If your load falls off and causes an incident, then you are at fault. No question. But what if a strap snapped? The strap should have been better maintained. What if the strap was properly maintained and it failed unexpectedly? Then whoever produced the strap did not design or make it properly etc..... No matter the circumstances, there is fault.

That's outrageous! Surely that's just a blame culture and will lead to everyone being to scared to get out of bed!?!

No. The level of culpability for the fault is another issue completely. It's easy to imagine a situation where there is fault, but that no-one would be censured. For example, imagine the nail situation: A child has been asked by his dad to take a few nails across to his uncle, across the road. The child on the way over drops a nail without noticing. A car comes past, tyre bursts, and a cyclist is killed.

Who is at fault here? Perhaps the child should have held the nails more securely. Perhaps the father should never have asked his child to take the nails across. Perhaps there is some shared fault. Should someone be held liable for the accident though?

I'm not a lawyer of course, but in situations like this there are certainly lessons to be learned, and some might feel guilt, but there would probably be no recourse. There was absolutely no intent, and the outcome was completely unexpected. However, and this is the crux of the whole argument, this tragedy is not an accident, it is not just an unfortunate mishap. The word accident suggests there was nothing that could have been done, and that there is nothing to learn.

It suggests that accidents happen and will always happen.

It suggests that we should just accept that people die and are seriously injured on our roads.

It's just a fact of life.

I've described a case I came across before where a judge suggested that a cyclist was injured in an 'accident'. Just one of those things. Momentarily blinded by the sun. Hey ho.

Not acceptable!

'Accident' provides justification for situations that we are worried could happen to us. As drivers we are concerned that we could be blinded by the sun, we could suddenly come across 2 cyclists around a blind corner, that the aliens could land on our car....

The label of accident puts us at ease and justifies the fact that as drivers (remember I am one) we don't always drive as carefully as we should, or that we don't plan far enough ahead to take account of the weather conditions. It allows us to abdicate responsibility.

So if I find myself in a pub again, I'll do my best to steer the conversation away from cycling. If I do fall into that trap, it won't be an accident. I'll only have myself to blame.

If I do accidentally enter a discussion about accidents, I'll make sure I point out that it is time for all of us who use the roads, whatever our mode of transport to think again about our responsibilities to other road users. Otherwise there will be plenty more 'accidents' waiting to happen.

Anger

I'd like to apologise for my radio silence. I've been notable by my absence here. There are couple of very important reasons for this. First, I've sort of been organising and taking part in Pedal on Parliament 2!

WOW!

It was bigger, better and louder (more on that later) than last year. Amazing! Personally the most amazing part for me this year was that my family were there. My kids were pretty much the inspiration for Pedal on Parliament in the first place so it was right that they should be there. They thoroughly enjoyed it and now want to cycle more. Job done.....well partly done...as we are still a LONG way from safe roads, but inspiring children is all part of our job.

I have also been very, VERY busy at work. No, I do not write this blog during work time! Unfortunately work has been severely eating into my personal time over the last few weeks. A deadline had to be met and the onus was on me to meet it. There were a few 14 hour working days in there and Sunday was my only reprieve from the onslaught of work (that's why I looked stressed!) but it is done. Until next time.

But what of this anger that I mention in the blog title? The fact is, there is a lot of it about at the moment. I'm sure most are aware now of the Twitter incident where a young girl boasted about knocking a cyclist off. There is anger there.

There was also anger at Pedal on Parliament 2.

Last year POP was very much a polite affair, and we were all far to polite to even say boo to a Panda. This year, it certainly still was a family affair, in fact even more so. There were far more children and families there than there were last year. Yet, the family atmosphere was definitely tinged with anger. Paul Wheelhouse stepped up to speak, and felt compelled to tell us what the government was doing for cycling....ahem...

We should be grateful.

Funnily enough, the crowd was having none of it and made it quite clear to Paul and the government that we are sick and tired of being told that the government takes cycling seriously, when it is plain to see that it doesn't give one hoot about it.

Feed the cyclists a few crumbs, that'll keep them quiet.

Paul found out that it won't. It's time for the government to stop being condescending. We aren't daft. Telling us that you are doing great things when you aren't just doesn't fly. You are doing hee haw.   That's what I'll be telling the Transport Minister Keith Brown next week when I meet him.

There is no doubt that the government isn't walking the walk when it comes to spending on cycling, but that is only part of the story. What are they actually spending that roughly 1% of the transport budget that they do spend on cycling on?

Here's an example. 

The government are giving Cycling Scotland money to provide training for cyclists on how to cycle assertively on the roads to keep themselves safe. It's called Essential Cycling Skills pilot. Seriously!? SERIOUSLY!?!?

Let me spell out the governments thinking.

People feel that the roads are too dangerous.  Hmmm...... yes indeed, the roads are too dangerous or at the very least feel too dangerous. What could we do? We have two options here. Making the roads, actually safer is one option.... Hmmm.... That would cost a bit of money.... Hmmm.... Might save lots of money, save lots of lives, but that wouldn't be transport budget savings....anyway health budgets are outside my remit.....Hmmmm....The other option is agree that the roads are too dangerous, do nothing about it, but teach cyclists how to deal with the dangers. Teach them some essential skills......Hmmm..... It would look like we care, cost us little and show that we are spending something on cycling that we can talk about at POP3. Mind you, by suggesting that these are essential skills will be suggesting that riding a bike isn't easy, it's difficult and that we are continuing to encourage that view....Hmmm.....perhaps we could charge a fee or a tax for this essential skill training in the future....Hmmm.......I think we'll go for option two....

Unacceptable. Totally and completely unnaceptable.

I came across a my own personal example of this line of thinking just the other day. Look at the following picture.

It's a helmet camera picture from a very busy road on my commute. A dual carriageway (Crow Road in Jordanhill for those in the know). I can honestly say in my near 8 years of cycling this road I have never, NEVER, seen any children cycling on this road. I've seen a few on the footpath, but never a child on the road, anywhere from about 2 miles back to about a mile ahead. Not one. Hee haw.

Yet, look at the top left of the picture. There you'll see a picture of a child holding out his arms asking for a bit of 'cycle space'. Brilliant. Just brilliant. So rather than make this road safe (and there is plenty of space to do it) for children, and anyone else for that matter to cycle on, lets just ask drivers, who if they are incredibly, incredibly lucky, might just come across a child cycling on that road, to give just a wee bit of space.

Yes. That'll work.

I've certainly nothing against Cycling Scotland, they are in a difficult position having the government as their paymasters. We certainly will need soft measures alongside the the infrastructure measures, but on their own they are a complete and utter waste of tax payers money. 

So yes, I am angry. Very angry. The question is, when, if ever, will we get even.

Into the Darkness? Let's Shine a light.

It all comes down to facts, and logic. Something that Spock, in the latest incarnation of Star Trek (which I haven't seen yet so no spoilers please!) knows all about. Spock knows that you just can't beat logic. When you have all the facts and figures and you have proved something beyond any reasonable doubt, there can be no more argument. The facts all point to one answer, one solution.
That's exactly where we are with cycling. Investment in cycle infrastructure is....the logical choice. It's the magic phaser...I mean bullet. Invest in cycling and you are investing in Scotland's health, you are investing in a cleaner greener Scotland, you are investing in safer roads, and you are investing in a new modern economy.

But wait....something is wrong....a black hole has appeared on the ships sensors, and it would appear to be sucking the logic away. Yes you've guessed it, there's Klingon's on the starboard bow.....better known as the Scottish Government.

We've been beaming them our facts and figures for a long time now, but their shields have remained up. No matter what attack strategy we use. Logic is wonderful, logic is right, but logic on its own never gets the crew home safely.

We need passion.

Enter James T. Kirk. James is a man full of passion, full of get up and go, full of bluster. Set him off and he'll certainly make some noise. On his own it would be a disaster. He would innevitably get himself into trouble on some distant galactic planet. However, bring Spocks's logic and Jim's passion together, and what do you get? You get the most powerful force in the galaxy.

I suspect you can see where I am heading with this ridiculous blog post now.....

Passion. We need passion, and we need it in bucket-loads. We need to back up the logic which is undeniable, and shout it so loud (politely of course) that the politicians can no longer ignore it. We need to turn up in numbers, as big as we can get, at the Meadows, in Edinburgh, on Sunday at 3pm. We need to turn up, not as cyclists, but as people. Young, old, fast, slow, Lycra'd or jeaned.

I'm not sure if we will have a J J Abrams among us on the day, but I know for sure, with enough people there, with enough polite noise, we can make a scene that will live in the memories of all who take part and witness it.

Let's shine a light into the darkness. Let's make Scotland a cycle friendly nation.