Off with the petrol heads! the tyranny of the motorists must end

If we are really going to turn Britain into a 'cycling nation' then we need to challenge the dominance of motorists. 

All we are getting from politicians is carrots, and no sticks. This isn't a complaint you hear too often, yet when it comes to turning Britain into a 'cycling nation', we are fooling ourselves if we think this can be achieved without concessions from motorists. Alongside investment in infrastructure, we need to introduce a road management system that prioritises cyclists over other road users.

This decision is based on a clear judgement of value. Firstly, cyclists are more vulnerable on the road, meaning that their safety should be put first. More importantly, cycling is generally more beneficial to our society than driving. Replacing the vehicles on our roads with bikes will mean less air pollution, decreased carbon dioxide emissions, reduced traffic congestion, and better public health. Motoring groups have dismissed the idea of giving priority to cyclists as “bonkers”, but these factors suggest that it is the right thing to do.

The clearest sign that Britain’s cycling revolution is failing comes from a simple comparison of data. Although bike use in the UK increased by eight per cent in 2012, the number of cyclists killed on our roads also went up by four per cent. This is not an obvious correlation. Common sense might indicate that more cyclists would make the roads safer and thus reduce the number of deaths. However, the facts say otherwise. Chiara Luisa Giacomini – who was tragically killed by a lorry in London last week – is the last in a long list of needless victims of our failure to make space for cyclists. Although it pains me to say it, I would challenge anyone to ride through central London and claim that our roads are safe.

Underpinning all efforts to promote city cycling must be a drive to separate cyclists from other road users. This does not mean creating hopelessly narrow cycle lanes that suddenly end amid a whirling mass of traffic. Instead we need routes protected by a permanent partition. If there is not sufficient space, then this must be taken away from motorists. A huge shift in focus from car to bike will also dramatically decrease traffic levels.

The Mayor’s Vision for Cycling in London has called for 20 mph speed limits, priority for cyclists over other road users, and an end to half-hearted attempts at segregation. We will soon see the benefits of these plans, with a new ‘crossrail for bike’ expected by 2016 and tighter restrictions for HGVs. What does concern me is the apparent scattergun approach of this investment, which allocates huge funds for grandiose plans, such as a floating cycle path in Kingston Upon Thames, when many roads in London do not even have a proper cycle lane. Despite not wishing to dampen the ambition behind these ideas, this seems akin to a starving man spending his last few pounds on a teaspoon of caviar rather than a sack of wheat.

We must also resist any superficial measures to improve the safety of cyclists. The argument in favour of making helmets compulsory – though well meaning – is a red herring. The priority should be separating cyclists from other road users, and making helmet use mandatory may introduce complacency and stultify any efforts to achieve this aim. Similarly, much has been made of comments from the Olympic gold medal winner Laura Trott about the damage caused by dangerous cycling. Although she may be right to highlight the need for cyclists to act responsibly, the majority of deaths are caused by careless driving, not cycling. A change in the law which places the burden of evidence on the motorist in the event of an accident, similar to the Dutch model, is vital.

The great killer cover up

Britain has some of the worst air pollution in Europe, so why does the government want to scrap air quality monitoring stations?

For a country whose capital city has the worst air quality in Europe, you would expect England to be taking drastic steps to curb the problem of air pollution. However, in a move of almost unparalleled recklessness, the government intends to make changes that could result in the closure of up to 600 air quality monitoring stations.

Ministers want to remove obligations on local authorities to assess levels of air pollution, a decision that could spell disaster for efforts to curb a problem that causes 29,000 early deaths every year. This scheme is part of the ‘Red Tape Challenge’, in which government departments compete to make savings to their budgets. 

What is even more mind boggling is the justification for this irresponsible cost-cutting, as outlined in the consultation document. After explaining the extensive monitoring that is currently in place to assess air pollution, the overview concludes:

“It is therefore perhaps more important that local authorities focus their actions on what is needed to… reduce the public health impacts of poor air quality rather than continue their current focus on local assessment”.

In other words, politicians wish to obscure the true scale of the problem and instead gain some positive PR through superficial measures to green up our cities. Monitoring is there for a reason – to inform and direct action. It is impossible to have an effective air quality management strategy without it.

Justine Greening, the excellent MP for Putney, is one senior minister who recognises the importance of this process. She specifically identified the “detailed monitoring of air pollution” as a means of tackling the problem in her constituency.

The possibility of removing air quality monitoring stations is even more worrying when we consider the lack of political action that characterises the current approach to air pollution.

This summer, the government twice failed on their duty to notify the public about dangerous levels of ozone on 16 and 22 July in line with UK and international law. 

Ministers have also refused to warn drivers of diesel vehicles – potentially numbering in the hundreds of thousands – that they risk legal action by removing particulate filters which reduce emissions of carcinogenic gases.

This catalogue of errors led to a Supreme Court ruling this year that the government was not doing enough to tackle the problem of air pollution. This decision by the highest court in the land could also pave the way for legal action by the European Commission, which has the power to levy huge fines for the government’s failure to meet air quality targets.

What is needed is a total rethink of our approach to the problem of air pollution in our society. Using a comparison originally made by the environmental journalist George Monbiot, we need to make the same fuss over deaths caused by car fumes as we do with cigarettes. Forget passive smoking, what about “passive driving”.

With smoking, it is accepted that people have a moral right to harm themselves through their own lifestyle choices but that this cannot be at the expense of others. Therefore, people falling ill through passively inhaling cigarette smoke is rightfully seen as unacceptable, and this is used as a justification for nearly all government policies to discourage smoking.