Letter In Response to Tony Sparsis

A letter appeared in Cambridge News on Friday titled "Protection for Drivers Please!" which sought to sound fair and from an educated basis, just to repeat the same erroneous views that often get used by those who espouse their own experience only. Unfortunately, letters do not seem to appear in the online version. I decided to reply as follows.
UPDATE: The letter did not make the weekly printed version. One letter asking motorists to behave and stop thinking that they are without blame did appear, but none of the factual errors have been taken up. The problem is that doing so does create a rather long behemoth like below! --------------------------------------------------------------------------

I’m sorry to see so many factual errors and unsupported hypotheses from someone who claims to want to work for both cyclists and drivers. Let me take some of his points and explain why they are wrong. This is based on peer-reviewed scientific study, available on the internet (please do look for yourselves!) not some ad-hoc guess or random personal anecdotal experience.

1. Ignoring red lights. Yes, this is a problem, and I urge cyclists to think what they are doing. I also urge drivers to do the same as nationally studies show a higher percentage of drivers jump red lights than cyclists. For drivers this usually occurs when the lights are changing, just when pedestrians are about to cross. Also, some studies show that some cyclists jump red lights to get out of the way of danger, usually waiting next to HGVs in their blind spot. 
2. Wearing Cycle Helmets. This is a common misconception amongst many, so let’s make it clear. Cycle Helmets are designed to protect heads when in a fall from a bike under 12mph. They are not designed for collisions with vehicles. The British Medical Journal suggested recently that kids should wear helmets, as they are more likely to suffer a fall. It also said the evidence they protect adults against serious head injury is “equivocal” (i.e. questionable). It’s sad that Mr Sparsis uses his experience in the medical profession in such a misleading manner. Clearly he is not an expert in this area despite hinting at it. Also, a study by Dr Ian Walker (Traffic, transport and environment psychologist) shows that wearing a helmet leads to drivers pass closer when overtaking, thus increasing the danger to the cyclist. 
3. Riding poorly maintained bikes. Again, I urge cyclists to perform maintenance. It’s actually not that difficult to do. I also urge drivers to do the same, as many cars are not fit for the roads either. 
4. Ignoring the need for lights. Cycling without lights is silly. I just got another pair for £3. However, in a recent crackdown, police only managed to catch 1 person every 80 minutes. Hardly the problem it would seem to be. 
5. Ignoring the basic rules of the road. Without repeating the first item above, this is something for everyone again. Looking at police studies, over 158 thousand drivers where spotted speeding in 17 weekly locations last year in Cambridge. And in another police study, only 25% of vehicles were driven in a way that would avoid prosecution for speeding in a location in south Cambridge. 

 I think it wrong to think of cyclists versus cars versus pedestrians, we all have to share. And all of us are responsible for our own behaviour when doing so. We all make mistakes, that is inevitable. However, making a mistake in 1 ton of metal has much more consequence than when on a bike. I drive and cycle and know that I make mistakes on both. I try very hard to limit them, and when driving, spend a lot more effort being slower and much more aware of possible dangers, like someone stepping off the pavement without looking. I take on that responsibility, as we all should do, when I get in a car and take control of a large, powerful machine. The best protection against having an collision in a car where the cyclist is at fault (which is pretty rare) is to give enough space, and spot potential issues a long time before they occur. Far too many drivers seem to switch off from this behaviour and follow an automaton process not paying enough attention.

Finally, the little disc on the front of each car is Vehicle Emissions Duty. Paying for this disc is based on how much the car pollutes the air. Lots of low emission cars pay nothing. This, and petrol duty, and parking charges, and all the other things do NOT pay for the roads. In fact, even if it were ring-fenced (and it’s not), if you added it all up, it still comes in short. Our roads are paid for by general taxation, including council tax. Again, studies have shown that nationally those who cycle earn more and thus contribute more to this than those who don’t.

As I say, if you disagree with the above analysis, please do search amongst the studies that are available online. Don’t just assume because you think you see differently sometimes, that you know everything. And don’t assume I do either, read the research!

Snowy Camping

Some of my non-camping friends always think I'm balmy camping in winter, especially in the recent snows. So, here's a brief pictorial guide to how it's not so bad.

First, you get these kind of views as soon as you get up.
 

And plants seem to cope okay.


My tent closed up, with a solar panel for night time lighting. Yep, I'm using a cheap pop-up tent. There's no wind, and the fabric copes with low temperatures like the -15C we got one night. So a simple tent is fine, although the really cheap £10 festival tents probably aren't going to work!


My tent open showing that it's fine and dry inside. With it being cold enough to have no water, keeping everything clean is pretty easy. When the temperature is 1C, life gets much harder!


My tent inside with fairly simple bedding. I've inherited sleeping bags over time and now use a 3-bag technique to keep me toasty warm.

Since I drive to site, it's not essential to minimise weight and packed space, so this is fine and cheap. Having Thermorest or Alpkit self-inflating air mattresses is vital, and makes a big difference. Others might use blankets I guess. Final trick, as I'm not sweating during the day, I sleep in my day clothes.I've never been anything bar toasty warm doing this, with no need for hot water bottles.

Here are some of the others tents.


And our camp fire place. Looks a bit awkward to light?


In the afternoon, the sun starts to come through giving some more views of tents.


And the view out across the Fens.


Our Willow tree is quite amazing, and lit at night resembles the holy trees in Avatar.

But, there's a wire going across the picture, why might that be?

A longer view shows the outside of our workshop, with stove producing smoke!


Inside, you can see the random nature of the work from our bench.


But also deduce that it's not quite as cold as outside from our stove fire!

Cycling in Walberswick Nature Reserve

I was considerably surprised when I read the article in The Times, titled "Britain’s most beautiful cycle ride". I looked at the route, knowing that side of Suffolk very well, and thought "You can't cycle there".

Not that I'd want to detract from the article, it is a beautiful place to ride and, apart from the A12 (and one or two other A-roads!), criss-crossed with delightfully quiet lanes and bridlepaths. Maybe this is enhanced by the tourists to the area who are mostly looking for birds and other quiet relaxing pastimes. Not one for the road racer!

No, I just was quite taken aback by a large part of the route that follows footpaths. Now, as many people may not be aware, cycling along footpaths is not necessarily illegal, although there is no right of cycling. There actually has to be a bylaw stating that cycling is banned along a footpath or area of footpaths. The only definite legal issue is civil tort where the landowner could take a cyclist to court for damage to property, which is highly unlikely. It's not covered by the 1835 and 1888 Highway Acts that specifically ban cycling along footways next to roads (or as we call them now, pavements). This article from the well researched Bike Hub might help clear up the minds of those with eye-brows still raised.

Anyway, I thought I'd explore the Walberswick to Dunwich section, which is where the derelict windmill in The Times article is photographed. I know this area well having spent a good part of 45 years coming here and have family living 5 miles away for the past 15 years. There are few roads and tracks I've not cycled!

The Assistance of Mapping

First, I looked at the maps available online and at the reserve. Just to start with, the three I found are not consistent.

Here's the ordnance survey 1:50k map. This clearly shows the part between Dingle Cottages and Stock Lane End as a public footpath, but sections to the south and north as a public bridleway.

The maps are reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Then, this is the map supplied by Walberswick Nature Reserve on page 7 of their leaflet online. This agrees with the Ordnance Survey map but adds in a curious (and somewhat circuitous) blue-dotted Southwold-Dunwich cycleroute.


Finally, here is the sign that appears in a variety of places around the reserve itself, although not displayed when approaching from Dingle Cottages. This doesn't agree with the above maps about the public bridleway sections.


So, what are cyclists meant to do? As I was there this weekend, I thought I'd take the camera along and record the routes around and through the nature reserve.

Dunwich to Walberswick

I started by cycling from Dunwich up to Walberswick. This is speeded up, so it's not a lengthy chore!

My main thought was that there wasn't a single sign along this route telling me not to ride a bike, and the two signs at either end tell me it's a bridleway. So how would any cyclist know not to ride, if indeed that is the case?

My second thought was that the route was a bit awkward, in that there are several places where a cyclist has to dismount. It wouldn't draw me if I wanted to have a good burn on a bike. I did think I'd like to do it when I wanted to relax on a bike! And, as for the Southwold-Dunwich cycleroute, the left turn required at Dingle Cottages is not signed at all.

I met a few walkers whilst doing the route. Both conversations where about whether it was possible to get through all the way, and one interested in the ability to ride the route!

Walberswick to Dunwich, a Cycleroute?

So, going back. This time, I went to search out the Southwold-Dunwich cycleroute as well as check the access from the north side of the reserve at Hoist Covert where the OS map shows another short bridleway. Travelling into the sun for the first bit of this didn't give a very good picture, but that is made up by the second half views!


The back road, called Sandlings Walk, is well known. I've used it many times, most notably riding to Southwold before dawn on New Year's Day 2000 to watch the sun rise (almost the earliest over the UK) after 3 hours sleep.

The investigation of the Hoist Covert bridleway gave me my first encounter with a "No Horses or Cyclists please" sign on the whole reserve. This matches the OS map bridleway to footpath change of use, and is the route from the north towards the derelict windmill on the marshes. I suspect this is the way the majority of people get onto the marshes. It has the nearest car park.

Luckily, there is a short bridleway route out, allowing cycling back up to Sandlings Walk and the Southwold-Dunwich cycleroute. Mind you, the short route offroad was worth it!


The offroad part of Sandlings Walk, after Westwood Lodge, is fun and well laid out. It is sandy, has large puddles, and has the odd rise and fall, so choosing a line is very important. I lose concentration at one point and have to stop and shift sideways!

Once at Fiveways, the Southwold-Dunwich cycleroute goes back on itself on the south side of the reserve. Well, that's what the map says. There is no indication whatsoever. In fact comparing the map to the reality on the ground, there is no cycleroute. The blue dotted line heads off into the middle of the thick woods of Dunwich Forest. I decide to follow the yellow topped posts. It's still a maze to follow, but when out of the denser woodland, the views are fantastic! The maze proves very difficult towards the end and I make several wrong turns (cut from clip!).

So, there is not a Southwold-Dunwich cycleroute. The trail does get nearest it at either end of this section, but it's not for the easily confused. And, yes, you saw the Exmoor ponies! Thus careful riding very important.


Conclusions

So, what to conclude about cycling around Walberswick Nature Reserve? I suspect things may change over the next few years. I hope this is not for the worse. I suspect a lot of the signage is not around because there has been a fair amount of change in the past few years. Certainly, I've heard reports of (illegal) signs put up by residents saying "no cycling".

I can understand the desire for at least one route (and probably the easiest) being cycle free. I wouldn't complain about that as long as others are permitted.

I'm not sure whether this should be seen as a great speedy offroad route for bikes. It's more of a place of relaxation. If conflict between pedestrians and cyclists arise, it's more likely that cyclist permission (and that is all that exists now) would be rescinded.

And finally, don't expect cyclists to do twice the distance just to get around a pedestrian area! What simply happens is you get no cyclists. That's in no-ones interests.

Red Light Jumping vs Speeding Cars

I'm not for cyclists doing Red Light Jumping, it's not a good idea. But think we should be doing more of other things to save more lifes of pedestrians and all other traffic.

General Ignorance

There's a lot of prejudice about red light jumping by cyclists around. From the camera junkie pundit on the One Show (at 4:41) that claims to know what all cyclists do, and including the BBC that puts this point of view against factual evidence, raising it to that status without reason. Combine that with the Cambridge resident who sent a letter to the Cambridge News and Crier stating in mock shock she'd just witnessed a cyclist stopping at a red light. And again, the newspaper printed it, albeit without any more substantial context thus leaving the reader to make their own mind up about the writer.

I used the word "prejudice" above which for many people would seem harsh. After all, cyclists are a menace and deserve what they get on the roads and the poor motorist has to suffer the consequence of the "war" on them with spiralling costs and charges and fines, yada yada (please do check the notes at the bottom for why this is a sarcastic statement).

The Facts

So let's have a look at some facts. First, from 2007 there's the TfL Study of Cyclists Jumping Red Lights which looks at several junctions in London. The summary conclusion is that watching 7,502 cyclists,

• 84% of them obey red light signals (in section 7.3 on page 29/30).

So, in other words, the opinion offered by the pundits above is a long way from the reality. This is brilliantly displayed in this infographic from Smells Like Glue.

It can also be noted from this report that a quarter of cyclists (so 4% of the overall total) who did jump the lights were turning left. This is something that the RAC and Boris Johnson are seeking to legalise on safety grounds. If that would be the case, then 88% of cyclists obey red lights.

Now, here's a summary of the Cambridge Police Speed Surveys done in February to July 2011. It shows that the slightly smaller figure of 82% of drivers obey the speed limit. So, more drivers speed than cyclists break red lights. Additionally, as this article points out drivers often react to seeing luminous jackets, so it certainly could be argued that this figure is a low figure. As opposed to the Red Light Jumping Survey which, even if luminous jackets were worn, isn't likely to affect behaviour.

Anyway, it would seem that 158,219 drivers were seen speeding in 17 locations which even makes the 4000 caught speeding on three roads in Cambridge seem a low value.

This 82% figure being described as a high is borne out by another survey done by the police in South Cambridge and reported by Richard Taylor. In this survey, the highlight value is that watching in the region of 43,000 vehicles

• only 25% drive in a way that would avoid prosecution for speeding.

The Outcome

What's the outcome? This is a crucial question as the difference between cyclists and drivers misbehaving is quite different.

Ironwit, in his ironically titled blog, quotes from Transport for London statistics that shows the following.

• In a study of the figures from 1998 to 2007, precisely 0 deaths of pedestrians were caused by cyclists jumping red lights. In the shorter period of 2001 to 2005, 7 deaths of pedestrians were caused by car drivers jumping red lights.

The CTC on page 4 of their Cyclists’ behaviour and the Law document gives considerably more damning generic statistics about pedestrian casualties for 2001-2010.

• Pedestrians killed by CAR 3722 and by CYCLE 22
• Pedestrians seriously injured by CAR 50179 and by CYCLE 510

So, 100 times more serious injuries are caused by drivers than cyclists and 170 times more death.

Whilst we are here, we might as well look at that hoary chestnut of the danger of cyclists on pavements. On page 8 of the same report, the injury statistics for London pavements for 2001-05 are as follows.

• Pedestrians killed by CAR 17 and by CYCLE 0
• Pedestrians seriously injured by CAR 387 and by CYCLE 40
• Pedestrians slightly injured by CAR 1793 and by CYCLE 52

So, even on the pavement pedestrians are over 40 times more likely to be injured or killed by a driver than a cyclist.

Finally from this document, on page 10 one study found that red light jumping is not even in the top ten of causes of death or injury to cyclists. But then from the other side of the coin.

• in London (2001-05), 3 cyclists & 7 motor vehicle occupants were killed when a motorist jumped a red light.
• in London 2006, over 130 drivers were caught jumping red lights every day, according to the Mayor

Also, there is growing evidence that cyclists staying behind the line next to traffic is a major cause of death (as Ironwit talks about in his blog).

• In fact, there are rumours of an unpublished Transport for London report that shows it is riskier to cyclists to wait alongside traffic at a junction than it is to break the law and jump through the red light.

I've been asking Caroline Pidgeon (Lib Dem Leader on the London Assembly) about where this report has got to and she's promised to follow it up with the Mayor of London.

Summary

So, when I see headlines like Cambridge Police are to get tough on anti-social Cyclists I do have a certain gladness that something is done to stop the way cycling's image is tarnished by a small minority. However, I do think about the waste of resource that is going into this being based on ignorance. It will actually end up costing more lives than if the same resource was put into targetting poor driving.

Some Final Notes

Actually, most cyclists (that's the 84% mentioned above) dislike other cyclist's Red Light Jumping as well. Here's a nice anecdotal clip of a policemen catching one and being roundly applauded by other cyclists.

As for the "war on the motorist", it's utter pith. Driving a car is still subsidised in this country based on the revenue raised from motorists and looking at the costs of maintaining the road network (even without including details such as the £200-300m costs of mending pavements damaged by cars).

To answer Griff Rhys Jones who thinks cyclists should use cycle lanes (on the One Show at 6:00). That's all very well, but some are designed as death traps (by people who clearly haven't ridden bikes in their lifes) and should be avoided at all costs. Second, I pay for the roads (and I pay a lot), why should I not be able to use them?

I'll end by saying this is a very poor comparison based on different bases for either set of statistics. I wish there were stats for Cambridge cycling, as that is likely to be the biggest factor causing any kind of difference in these figures. Having said that, I can't see why or what other criteria should be used to tie these two sets of statistics together. I'm very sorry Ben Goldacre, I know this is a poor excuse but there it is.

Cycle Helmets

the quandary that not wearing helmets actually improves the health of the nation

Oh no, not again! Yet another athlete appears on TV, shakily showing a broken helmet and talking about how it saved their life. The story is full of shots showing roads, traffic, maybe some rough camera footage, and talks in a scary way about an accident. Usually, they are backed up by a well known cause, most often Headway, a charity helping people with head injuries.

"What's wrong with this?" I hear you say. Well, a whole load of things.

We'll start with the backing, Headway. They are a magnificent charity doing fantastic work with and for people with brain injuries. However, that's it. They are not a cycling organisation and have no remit towards the health of cyclists, they simply want to reduce head injuries. So, they simply repeat the "wear helmets" mantra without considering anything else in the cycling sphere.

Second, although this is a good story, full of gripping drama, it's just an anecdote and not a very scientific analysis of the situation. If I were a parent, it'd scare me. I would start to think that perhaps I shouldn't let my kids out on their bikes. And if I wasn't a parent, it'd scare me. If I didn't have enough money to get a helmet, I'd consider stopping cycling, as it's clearly far too dangerous as this story shows.

The other effect of a heart-wrenching story is the upswing in calls for legislation. It's usually called for by people who have no interest or understanding of the issues, they just see a good story and get stuck in "righteous indignation" mode. Especially when people see cycling as mostly in the prevails of children.

I'm not going to pretend that cycling doesn't have a degree of danger to it, that would be ridiculous. But actually, for many it's much, much less than this story implies. And importantly, helmets have a much lower effect on safety than a whole series of other measures. More of them later.

Finally, there's the oh-so-subtle message "wear a helmet, it'll save you". The problem is, it's just not true in the majority of accidents. Most people think helmets are some kind of magic protection that will save cyclists in collisions with motor vehicles. Worryingly, most of these people drive cars! This study from the Transport Research Laboratory done for Department for Transport shows that helmets are just not designed to assist in these collisions. In fact, one study from Dr Ian Walker of the University of Bath, has shown that wearing a helmet actually makes cars passing more dangerous.

So what's the other angle here? Pretty much all cycling organisations say that helmet wearing should be a case of individual choice. So, why do they dislike this kind of newstory?

Well, for one, it doesn't promote cycling, in fact it detracts from it. The safety issue (as above) is the main factor here. This is saying that travelling by bike is inherently dangerous, when in truth, it's nowhere near as dangerous as the newstory purports.

Promoting cycling means the need to reach out to those people who don't already cycle. By running stories about accidents less people are likely to even try bikes. Also, there's the need to appeal to those who would consider wearing a helmet a detraction on their personal style. Most cyclists (or potential cyclists) are just trying to get a short distance to an event, be it work, a party, a social activity, a meeting. Many of these activities for many people would require a dress sense, some of which will not fit easily with helmet wearing. This may seem a silly issue when it comes to safety, but it's what a good proportion of people would cite as an issue to riding. The Institute of Advanced Motorists study found so, and it was seen as bad for business in Northern Ireland.

As for helmets being the main way to save lives on the road, by far the bigger impact would be for our collective driving standards (including cyclists) to improve.

Recently the AA got some stick after a cycle helmet promotion stunt. Their members thought it would be good to give helmets to cyclists, mistakenly believing it would save them in a vehicle collision. It concerned many cyclists greatly as it stank too much of "blaming the victim". Again, this promoted the idea that somehow cyclists are saved in motor vehicle collisions amongst drivers. And prompted cycling organisations to promote better driving standards as a better way of reducing cycling injuries.

Cycling is well known to be good for health. In fact a recent study shows (and I wish I could find a link!) that for every £1 spent now on cycling infrastructure will save £4 in healthcare later on. This means that putting in cycling infrastructure will actually save money.

Interestingly, another study (towards the end) shows that there are more child accidents when walking (whilst also finding some pro-helmet studies are shown to be misleading). So, why don't we insist children wear helmets when walking?

Of course, the whole helmet debate is quite poorly done in the media. Like a number of other issues (climate change & MMR spring to mind as examples of the media being shown getting it so wrong), they pick on a good story without paying much attention to the serious scientific work done which shows exactly the opposite of their narrative.

Luckily, there are a few good stories out there, based on the evidence and not just a good story. Such as the study in the British Medical Journal giving a reasoned point of view against compulsory helmets. And fortunately the Transport Minister Baker defends helmet-free cycling, so compulsion is not likely any time soon.

So, in summary, why is this kind of newstory bad?

• it makes cycling look dangerous
• it mis-states the way most people would ride
• it reduces cycling appeal to newbies
• it's setting the slippery slope toward mandatory helmets
• it reduces the general health of the population by not increasing cycling
  

Athletes, lycra-clad speeders, off-road davedevils, and other higher risk groups probably should be wearing helmets. But they are a small minority of those who should be cycling. And athletes really shouldn't attempt to speak for these people generalising their experiences into everyones.

And now the revelation, I wear a cycle helmet. Yep, I do. But then I fit into several of the above groups and feel it may help me. But whether it'll help others is not for me to say or to tug at heart strings with anecdotal stories of woe that detract from the wonderful thing that is cycling.

For a much more in-depth analysis than my paultry piece here go to
cyclehelmets.org