Blinded by the Sun, M'lord

As a vulnerable road user I view certain law firms with great suspicion. I'm sure you know the type of law firm that I am talking about, the type that boasts about the fact that it got,

'Mr Jones off of a speeding conviction because we exposed some technical issue that prevented the prosecution'

Justice requires a robust defence and so these law firms are a necessary evil, although I would prefer that they would not boast about such cases. However, doing an internet search for something else I came across this particular 'boast' on one particular law firms website:

Successful defence of Careless Driving Charge

Following a trial before Mold Magistrates Court, North Wales, today, our client was found not guilty of a charge of driving without due care and attention or careless driving, an offence which is committed when a persons driving falls below that expected of a “competent and careful” driver.

The case arose from our clients involvement in a road traffic collision with a cyclist on a stretch of dual carriageway. The collision had occurred when our client had moved from lane 2 (the outside lane) to lane one, and being momentarily blinded by the sun which was low on the horizon, had not seen the cyclist and collided with him.

Neil Davies, Principal Solicitor, represented the client before the court and made detailed legal submissions, that despite the current ”blame culture”, accidents, whether they are considered coincidence or acts of god do still happen, and the occurrence of an incident does not necessarily mean that someone must be to blame. In the context of the case Mr Davies submitted that whilst there had been a collision, it had occurred as the result of this momentary blinding and that in all other ways the standard of our clients driving had met the standard expected of a “competent and careful driver”.

Following a short period of deliberation, the magistrates returned their verdict and accepted that our clients driving had not fallen below the standard of driving expected and that this was very much an accident, therefore he was acquitted. The court also granted a defendant costs order, which now allows us to recover our clients legal costs on his behalf.

Needless to say, our client was happy at avoiding 6-9 penalty points or possible disqualification and a fine, and considered it an added bonus that he will now recover his legal costs.

I have to say, upon reading this I got very angry.

Of course, before I go any further I should point out that I do not know all the facts of the case. I was not in court and I did not hear any of the arguments. However, as this statement is from the defence lawers themselves it does hold some weight, and explains why they felt that their client 'got off'. Therefore, I will base what I write from now on on the fact I have available.

As someone who cycles and drives on dual-carriageways, if I did what was described above, I would fully expect to be found guilty. Why? Let's look at the facts as described above. The sun was low on the horizon, and it would appear was in front of the driver. Therefore, any reasonable driver would be expected to know that in such situations, blinding by the sun could be an issue. Therefore, any reasonable driver in such a situation should adjust their driving to take account of this.

Yes indeed, it is possible that the sun did momentarily blind the driver, but the driver in conditions where the sun is low in the horizon should be aware that this is a possibility. Any reasonable driver would therefore drive more cautiously, wear sunglasses (no mention is made of any being or not being worn), and look well ahead on the road and make sure you can see clearly before undertaking a manoeuvre.If enough care is taken, being momentarily blinded should not result in a collision with a cyclist.

I find the suggestion that, suggesting a driver is at fault for not taking into account the conditions in which they are driving is part of a 'blame culture', insulting. In fact we do not live in a 'blame culture', we live in a 'we all need to drive and we need to use our car to get to where we want to get fast, so therefore, any suggestion that we should slow down and take responsibility for the fact that our actions can lead to serious injury or death is unacceptable' culture.

Remember I say this as a driver as well as a cyclist.

The blame in this instance was on the sun. The blame was on the cyclist for being too small a vehicle that when faced with the sun, the driver couldn't see the cyclist. Cyclists need to be bigger, they needed to take up more of the drivers visual space. The blame was on the tree or the hedge, or the road sign that just so happened to have a gap that let the sun through at the wrong moment (do cyclist appear in moments?). The blame is anywhere where it serves to protect the rights of the driver whilst minimising the rights of anyone else to expect to remain safe from other road users.

What angered me most though about the above lawyer 'boast' was the trivial way that the cyclist was treated in the commentary. It mentions that the driver and their car was in a collision with a cyclist. There is no mention of any sympathy for that cyclist. No mention of the driver being happy that (and I hope this is the case) the cyclist escaped with minor injuries, or recovered well from more serious ones. Oh no.

Their client was happy to avoid some points on their licence, a possible disqualification or a fine, and he will now recover his legal costs.

Happy days indeed.


Well done to the driver. well done to Caddick Davies Solicitors.........and God help the rest of us.

Exclusive or Inclusive

I am a person. I am also a cyclist. That is I am someone who chooses to use a bike regularly. I am also a driver. These are all, of course, just labels. Sometimes people take these labels very seriously, but in the end calling myself a cyclist does not define me. It's just something I do. Something that I enjoy immensely, but still just something that I do.

What does define me to some extent is my cycle campaigning. That is part of who I am, and is certainly something that I use when I describe myself. I am a husband, a father, a clinical scientist and a cycle campaigner. Depending on the situation, depends on which role I take.

Another label that is often used, and in my experience misused is 'serious cyclist'. That is, a cyclist who in some way takes cycling 'seriously'. I've been called that quite often, but it's a label that doesn't fit comfortably on my shoulders. Cycling for me is something that is far too much fun to be taken seriously. I take campaigning seriously, perhaps I should be called a serious cycle campaigner, but I'm not a serious cyclist.

It is however, interesting to look at how the label 'serious cyclist' is used in the UK today. Personally I find that I am called a serious cyclist by the majority of people I know who don't cycle, and I think that is the experience of most regular cyclists. Other cyclists certainly don't look at me that way.

What the label and it's use suggests is that cycling is an exclusive activity for those with enough love or passion for cycling to do it on a regular basis. It is also seen as a label for those 'crazy enough to take on the crazy traffic and all the dangers that come from that'.

I've talked about the realities of safety elsewhere, but my focus here is on the exclusivity. The fact that people pigeon-hole me and most regular cyclists into that group is worrying, and is a barrier that we need to break down. I think that barrier will be eroded with time, when (not if) we improve the environment for cycling on Scotland's roads. More worryingly though is the sense of exclusivity that I come across within the 'cycling community' (a phrase that itself suggests exclusivity).

Seven years ago I started cycling. and for about the first three years of that I argued that there was no need for segregated infrastructure. Why build cycle lanes when there are perfectly good cycle lanes already, called roads. I had an online discussion with another cyclist recently who felt this way. That's why I felt compelled to write about it.

My opinion changed dramatically when my first child started to cycle. As I watched him wobbling around the road in our cul-de-sac I started to think about how much fun it would be to go on proper cycling rides with him. Then it struck me.

Where could I take him cycling?

The cul-de-sac was fine, some of the very quiet country roads near by weren't too bad, but everywhere else was a no-go-zone. There were small pockets where my son could ride safely with me, but he was excluded from everywhere else. 

Of course, danger in cycling is generally overestimated and in general my son would probably safe riding on most roads with me (he is now 7). However, I know for a fact, considering some of the incidents that have happened to me, if my son was exposed to just one scary incident, he would probably give up cycling, if not for good, at least for a long time.

My child is not unusual. In fact most adults, whether we think it is understandable or not, feel the same way and would probably react the same way if a scary incident happened to them. Therefore, without change, without significant change, cycling will always remain exclusive.

Of course, exclusive does not mean that it will only be MAMILS or young males that will cycle on the roads. The demographic of those who are willing to cycle in the current road conditions is not limited to MAMILS or young men. Exclusivity is not based on gender, age or the type of clothes that you wear. It is based on a persons understanding or risk, and approach to risk, and we all have very different approaches to risk.

Cycling is, when compared to many other activities, is very safe. However, a large percentage of the population would not and should not have to be willing to put up with the close passes, left hooks and occasional agression that virtually all cyclists face from time to time. This percentage of the populations are not included if we base our cycling future on the roads as they are today. No amount of soft measures alone will work.

That is why Pedal on Parliament (POP),  has a vision of Inclusive Cycling; cycling where everyone from 8 to 80 and beyond can cycle in our cities. It can be done, and shining lights like Amsterdam show us the direction that our politicians must take if our cities are to be sustainable into the future. Everyone cycles in Amsterdam.

As Enrique Penalosa is quoted as sasying:

The great city is not the one that has highways, but one where a child on a tricycle or a bicycle can go safely everywhere.

Let's take that a step further:

The great country is not one that invests in more motorways, but one that invests in cycling so that everyone, child or adult can safely cycle everywhere.

By coming along to POP2 on the 19th May in Edinburgh you will not only help Scotland reach it's target of 10% of journeys by bike by 2020, but you will help us achieve a wonderful vision of Scotland as a healthy, sustainable, vibrant nation.

Help the Budget Help Cycling!

As described here and here there is an opportunity following the budget for the Scottish government to spend some capital money on cycling and cycling infrastructure. Decisions about how to spend the money are likely to happen quickly and cycling could be a beneficiary.  However, it won't happen unless we ask for it. We need you to send letters to your MSP's asking them to talk to John Swinney. We need them to put pressure on Mr Swinney to spend some of this money on cycling. I've done that. If you have time you could also send Mr Swinney an e-mail directly here (scottish.ministers@scotland.gsi.gov.uk) for attention of John Swinney.

If we don't ask we won't get so PLEASE e-mail at least your MSP. Here is my e-mail to Mr Swinney. Please don't copy it, but hopefully it will inspire you to write as well.

Dear John Swinney MSP

As a founder and one of the core organisers of Pedal on Parliament I am
writing to you with regards to the Barnett consequencials resulting from
this years budget.

It my understanding that as part of the UK budget the Scottish
Government is to receive £279m of funds to be spent on capital
investment. I also understand that there is some disagreement about what
this money actually is, i.e. that it may be in the form of loans.
However, what is clear is that the money should be spent/invested in
such a way that it gives the maximum return to Scotland, not just in
terms of infrastructure generated, but in terms of economic return.

There have been many studies conducted into the very real economic
benefits of cycling, some of which are referenced in the Pedal on
Parliament manifesto (http://pedalonparliament.org/the-manifesto/). It
has been shown that investment in cycling in the UK has a cost to
benefit ratio of up to 1:19, a large part of which is due to health
expenditure savings and productivity benefits.

London already understands this, which is why it is investing £913m over
the next decade to make London a cycle friendly city
(http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/913-million-investment-for-cycling-in-london-35892/).


With Scotland's commitments to climate change policy and it's commitment
to a 10% modal share of cycling by 2020 the time is now if we are to
invest in Scotland's future.  Whilst I am grateful that some extra money
is already being spent over the next two years (£6m), and that some
other money has already been committed, this really represents a drop in
the ocean of what is actually required of Scotland is to reach it's full
potential.

If some of this capital money was wisely spent on cycling we could start
the process of transforming Scotland into a wealthier, healthier, and
more dynamic modern Scotland. With your help, we could make Scotland a
cycle friendly nation.

Your Sincerely,

Dr David Brennan

Amsterdam - Part 2

This being 'part 2' of my description of my cycle infrastructure visit to Amsterdam, with the BBC, it really is well worth reading 'part 1' first. If you don't read it this might be confusing....my writing can be confusing enough!

.....we are at the bike shop, we have hired the bikes and we are ready to go. Brilliant! We'll, it was almost brilliant. It had decided to start raining, and it was that type of rain that you know is going to be with you for the rest of the day. Luckily I had brought a waterproof jacket and some gloves. Even luckier, David Miller had brought some waterproof trousers. As I was the star of the item (no I didn't get a changing room with a start on it...pooh), I got to wear the trousers (I'm sure there is a joke in there somewhere...).

There was one significant failure in my wardrobe though....I was wearing a helmet. I was in fact  the only person....THE ONLY PERSON, on a bike wearing a helmet that day in Amsterdam. Talk about a fish out of water! Wearing the helmet also meant that I could not wear the hood of my waterproof jacket. Perhaps this is the greatest argument against helmets. None the less, I still stayed drier and warmer than everyone else in the team.

So off we went.

Having never ridden a Dutch style bike before and I must admit I was a bit wobbly at first. However, I was nowhere near as wobbly as David was on his cargo bike. That is why I strategically placed myself behind all of the others and made sure I switched my camera on.

The plan was to cycle across town, filming as we did, and make our way to a grand and relatively new piece of cycle infrastructure. The Nescio bridge. I know in a previous blog of mine there was some criticism of us focusing on this bridge, however, I'll explain a little later why I think, in the context of the Scottish political scene, that this was the perfect piece of infrastructure to focus on. However, that's enough about that just now. We had to cycle there first.

Initial wobbles out the way, we started to settle into the riding. It very quickly became very easy. Part of that was down to the expert guidance of Gerrit, who I should add, was in no way at all dressed for the wet and cold weather. He got pretty soaked! Despite this Gerrit exuded enthusiasm and knowledge and without his help we would have been completely lost in many ways! However, Gerrit was not the main reason the cycling was easy. the main reason that the cycling was easy was the environment. The roads were just incredibly easy to cycle on.

Yes, I can hear the car lobby shouting in the backround as I type.....IT WAS EASY BECAUSE IT WAS FLAT! Yes, indeed, physically is was a very easy city to cycle around, but the ease I am talking about has nothing to do with physical exertion.

It was ease of the interactions with other traffic.

My one regret was not getting to cycle during the rush hour. I'd have loved to compare that to what I am used to back home in Glasgow. However, it wasn't exactly quiet during the time I was on the bike. There were cars, there were lorries, there were trams, (none of those in the major Scottish cites.......yet.....) and there were plenty of them. There were also plenty of cyclists and plenty of pedestrians. We all had to interact. Yes there were quite a few segregated cycle lanes, and these were great to cycle on, but there were also plenty of sections where you were on the road with traffic. 100% segregation is not the answer in Amsterdam and it certainly will not be the answer in Scotland.

The formula was incredibly simple: segregate where you can, and placate where you can't.

It really was that simple. Where we were mixing with cars, speeds were low. Where we were segregated the cars could often drive a bit faster and were on main arterial routes.

One of the biggest surprises to me personally was the success of the cycle only contraflows, that is roads where cyclists can go both way, but cars can only come one way. I know that these sections of road are succesful mainly because..... I didn't even notice I was riding on them. Seriously! Gerrit took us down some streets that were narrow and had parking to one side. Whilst cycling down them we did come across some cars and vans, but it didn't occur to me that they were only coming one way. It didn't occur to me because we were cycling down them and we were chatting away to each other, as it felt so safe.

I only noticed that I had been cycling down these cyclist contraflows when I watched my helmet camera footage back!

Why did they work? They worked because the road had been narrowed and there were speed humps. Cars had to drive slowly, not through enforcement, though I am sure there is some, but by design. Brilliant!

But, BUT.....Amsterdam has so much more space than us!

Poppycock!


Of course you wouldn't get segegated cycle space on these streets, and there are many in Scotland that would be in a similar situation. Amsterdam shows that you don't need to. Where space is tight....make it tighter!

My video does of course show examples of lovely segregated lanes, and yes they were absolutely wonderful to cycle on. (Note the lack of potholes as well....). But they only exist where space is available, or where space has been taken away from cars. Each street, has it's own optimum design. Of course, all is not perfect yet, and even in Amsterdam it's still a work in progress. In the video above there are certainly examples of door zone cycle lanes, and inappropriately placed bollards. But how I dream of having just these problems!

On our visit though we weren't happy to just look at the standard issue cycle infrastructure. We wanted to see something grand, so we went to the Nescio bridge. There is a good article here on it. It is 163.5 metres of cycling and walking glory that also affords you some wonderful views of the ships passing underneath (each of which always had a car on board!).

However, we, myself and the BBC, faced some criticism for having the Nescio bridge in the article at all. The suggestions is that the focus on shining gleaming, big spend infrastructure projects is counter-productive and would put politicians off spending money on cycling, criticisms which are entirely reasonable and understandable. However, I still think that the inclusion of the Nescio bridge was entirely necessary.

Anyone who follows government transport policy in Scotland knows that the current government has a love affair with big money spends. They love to spend money on 'showcase' projects that will leave a 'lasting legacy' for 'generations to come'. Take the hugely costly, and (many would argue) entirely unnecessary new Forth road bridge, or the incredibly costly plans to upgrade the A9 (safety measures could be implemented at a fraction of the cost of a full dualling). Even Keith Brown in the the Newsnight article eluded to this fact when he declared his vision for a modern Scotland was to build more motorways!

Politicians like big projects because they can look back at the end of their political careers and say...I did that.

Now I know for a fact that many who read this blog will not need to be convinced that there is no greater potential transport legacy than to deliver safe roads for everyone in Scotland by investing in cycle infrastructure. The money spend on a road bridge over the Forth would completely transform Scotland in so many positive ways. The politicians don't see it that way unfortunately. Cycle lanes just aren't......sexy.


Keith Brown: Mmmm.... Invest in cycling? There would be lots of cycle paths everywhere....lots of people keeping active.....lots less pollution.....lots less congestion.......lots less obesity and related illnessess.........but where can I cut the ribbon?!

Well, we can give you plenty of ribbons if that is what you really want Mr Brown. We can build a Nescio bridge or 20 and still have a huge amount of change left over from a Forth road crossing to invest in lots of cycle lanes that will get people young and old from where they are to where they want to go.

1 impressive Nescio bridge = £6.5m

1 impressive Forth Road crossing = £1.5bn

Number of Nescio bridges per Forth road crossing = 230

You can do big impressive cycling projects in cycling but it will still be a fraction of the cost of the big car/bus/train/HGV projects.

The Nescio bridge is also very interesting for another reason. There are often complaints that we don't have the expertise in the UK to design decent quality cycle infrastructure. If we don't have the expertise, how are we ever going to deliver on the vision/target? The Nescio bridge demonstrates quite clearly that this is not true. It was designed by a London based architect. We can do it if the vision is there!

Anyway, back to my trip...

So we did a bit of filming, got colder and wetter, and eventually headed back into the centre of Amsterdam for my final interview by the incredibly impressive bike parking outside the main train station. Imagine this outside Central Station in Glasgow!

And that was that!

It had been a whirlwind of a day, and before I knew it, it was over. Time to have a bite to eat, to head to the airport and to come back to the sad reality that is cycling in Scotland. I came back wanting to go back and see more. I also came back determined to take my family to Amsterdam at some point in the future. I am desperate to show my children what a truly modern Scotland could....no....will look like.

I could have come back depressed about the mountain we have to climb, but I didn't. I came back inspired. 


It might take some time, and we might be a long. LONG way of 60% modal share of cycling in our cities, but with your help, we will make Scotland a cycle friendly nation.

Vorsprung durch Fahrradunfall

DON'T PANIC!

Part 2 of my Amsterdam trip is coming very shortly. However, in the mean time I felt compelled to share an e-mail that I was sent as a member the Strathclyde campaign group Go-Bike.

Hello there

My name is Sarah xxxxxx and I work for Story UK, the Scottish
Governments Marketing Campaign. We are launching a new campaign in May
aimed at encouraging Scots to drive less and walk and cycle more. xxxxx
xxxxxx suggested I contact you as an organisation that could support the
campaign in the Strathclyde area.

Would it be possible to talk to someone in more detail please? My
telephone number is 0131 xxx xxxx and I look forward to hearing from
you.

All the best

Sarah

I have absolutely nothing against marketing. We will absolutely need a marketing strategy to get people out cycling. There are a lot of wonderful aspects to cycling and cycle commuting that I myself try to market in some of my videos. However, (yes you knew that was coming, didn't you?) I was flabbergasted by this e-mail. 

Why?

As Yoda would say: Straws clutching at, government is.

The government has a TARGET of 10% of cycling by 2020. Yes, it is a target, certainly if we are to believe the evidence that Nicola Sturgeon gave at a recent parliamentary evidence gathering committee (despite what Keith Brown says). We are currently sitting at about 1% across the country. We have 7 years to reach that target.

So, Mr Brown and Ms Sturgeon, what is you vision for how we are going to reach that target?

Here is the transcript for a 'fly on the wall recording' in parliament following Nicola's evidence session between Keith and Nicola (this may or may not have actually happened):

Keith: Nic! What did you say at the committee!?!?

Nicola: Umm, what do you mean oor Keith?

Keith: You very clearly said that we have a target and not a vision for cycling modal share by 2020!

Nicola: No I didn't, I was clearly stating.....

Keith: Nic! Don't try and polotic me...one of the lycra clad groups will notice what you said and hold us to the target!

Nicola: Hmmm. OK. We need a strategy. What could we do that would costs us little or nothing, but will actually get us to our target...I mean vision... by 2020?

Keith: What about Clubcard points? Could we give cyclists Clubcard points if they cycle to the shops?

Nicola: I don't think we own Tesco yet? Is there somethign we can do with the banks?

Keith: We don't own the banks either, that's Westminster....mind you after independence......

Nicola: Got it! Marketing!

Keith: Marketing?

Nicola: Yes! It works for cars. We are nearly always stuck in our cars in long tailbacks, and yet car adverts with cars swooping down quiet Alpine routes encourage us to buy more cars. Marketing works for cars, why not cycling!

Keith: I see what you mean...so if we do some filming in a few foreign countries where the governments actually give a hoot about cycling, showing how wonderful it can be with the right infrastructure in place, then more people will get out on their bikes here, despite there being absolutely none of that infrastructure here?

Nicola: Spot on! What we need though is a catchy slogan....

Keith: The Bike in Front .......nah..... The Power of Vision.....errr

Nicola: Got it again! I'm on fire today.......Vorsprung durch fahrradunfall

Keith: It sounds good....almost German...but what does it mean?

Nicola: Don't know, but it sounds good and as you say, almost German.....It can't fail......

So there we have it. Rather than actually spend any significant money on actually making cycling safer and more convenient, the government is going to tell us that cycling is safer and more convenient without actually doing anything to actually make it so.Then, when 2020 come around and they realise that miraculously, they haven't reached the 10% target...I mean vision...they can point to all the wonderful marketing campaigns that they ran.

Keith (in 2020 who will bet he Supreme ruler of an in independant Scotland ): Look at everything we did for you, and yet there is still only a 1.5% modal share of cycling across Scotland. It must just be.............a cultural thing.........