Fighting against the greater good.

There is a recurring theme from a small but vocal minority of cyclists. They tend to speak with great authority on their subject (for they *are* the cyclists), yet despite providing very little evidence for their cause, appear to have a disproportionate influence in the public mindset. This is business as usual for the politics of fear:

Hold on tightly to your nurse, for fear of finding something worse.

These are the anti-infrastructure cyclists, the I'm all right, Jack cyclists, the vehicular cyclists. Here is the latest crass example that seems to pass for journalism.

These are the cyclists who appear to have no real interest in increasing the safety or modal share of transport cycling. They participate in a predominately male niche activity, an exclusive club. And they'd like to keep it that way. All this nonsense about 'don't need more cycle lanes', 'Britain is not Holland' [sic] or 'we have a different culture' appears to be just a method to distract from the unfounded fear of losing their 'right to the road' or the very real fear their 'club' may not remain exclusive.

Segregation has formed the basis of every safety improvement we have made to almost every mode of transport. We segregate people from motor vehicles using pavements, bridges and underpasses, yet people have not lost the right to walk on the roads, except for motorways. Even on motorways we partially segregate HGVs from light vehicles - all in the name of safety.

We almost entirely segregate rail traffic from road traffic. Why? Well, 100+ tons of express train does not mix well with vehicles. There were seven fatalities at level crossings last year. When a tragedy occurs there are calls to remove these dangerous points of conflict. I do not hear any vehicle or train passengers calling for them to be retained. As a nation, we have invested heavily in making air, sea and rail safe.

Yet we are expected to accept that people on bicycles will mix well with fast moving 2-40 ton vehicles? We have a selfish few, claiming to represent the vulnerable, fighting against investment in safety. How absurd is that?

Let me put this very simply: 

• I can find no evidence that significant increases in safety and modal share occurs without segregated cycle provision.
• I can find plenty of evidence (from Netherlands to New York City) that segregated cycle provision significantly increases safety and modal share. 

So, if you think segregation should not be front and centre then increases in safety and modal share are clearly not your priorities. 

Footnote: Whilst we're talking about absurd arguments, I suggest anyone berating others for not wearing a helmet whilst riding a bicycle on the road should consider how effective a seat belt would be on a level crossing. Similar physics.

Bikes for Transport: Word Association

This is a follow up to my previous post about Bikes for Transport.

It's not always about the bike¹. Sometimes it's about riding the bike. Sometimes it's about the journey. Often it is about simply enjoying a shared pleasure with other people or for getting from A to B.

Entirely understandably, but sadly, nonetheless, in the UK the 'best' choice of bike for commuting is frequently in the style of a racer. We're mixing it daily with large vehicles, trying to stay safe in an environment that is designed solely for motor vehicles - we need to be fast and agile. As a result, as Councillor Deirdre Alden so eloquently put it, the perception is that cycling is dominated by white young men. Of course this isn't true. Granted, you have to be fit and confident to cycle on UK roads in rush hour but these are just the cyclists most visible to motorists.

It is this twisted perception of those decision makers, influencers and general public that we have to try to change. Play this word association game with your friends & family (and strangers in the pub). For me it went a bit like this:

1. Road/racing Bike (responses: men, lycra (always, the bloody lycra), red lights, saddle, fit, young, Wiggo, racing)
2. Mountain Bike (responses: teenage boys, dirty, baggy shorts, hills, effort, fun)
3. BMX (responses: teenagers, hoodies, caps (backwards), pavements, tricks, cool)
4. Dutch Bike (responses: ladies, commuting, healthy, comfy, practical, pretty, chic)

You can of course include other types of bike - tandem (fun), tricycle (aaaah), recumbent (what? Oh.), but the general theme is that the negatives out weigh the positives.

All except the Dutch bike provide plentiful ammunition for editors, politicians and Mr Angry from Purley to reinforce the stereotype. Yet all are perfectly valid bikes for transport and/or pleasure.

So perhaps I should have been more explicit in my previous post:

If we want to overcome some of the prejudices against (transport) cycling, we (may, sometimes) have to ride different bikes.

Stupid? Yes. Illogical? Yes. But hey, we ain't dealing with smart or logical, are we?

1. ^↩ Yes, I know this conflicts with Rule 4 but I'll take my chances.

Bikes for Transport

I tend to avoid the term 'road bike'. To me (being an old geezer), it is a 'racing bike'. Drop handlebars, head down, bum up, it's all about getting there as quickly, or perhaps as efficiently, as possible.

A 'road bike' is not really a bike that is well designed for the road. No built-in lights, mudguards, storage etc. Often accompanied by special pedals, shoes, clothes. The equivalent in motor vehicle terms would be something like this:

Not quite a racing car, street legal, but stripped to the bone. Probably comes with some H&S advice to 'wear safety equipment'. Sound familiar?

Now imagine most of the cars you saw on the road looked like (and were driven like) this? What would be your perception of car drivers? Imagine if there were hundreds, or perhaps thousands of them all out for a 'motorsportife'?

We are culturally indoctrinated to blindly accept millions of 'ordinary' cars on our roads, but how could we fail to notice these?

In order to progress cycling as transport, so eloquently advocated by Chris Boardman, we have to change public perception of the bicycle.

There will be no political will to do the best for this country until people demand it. Politicians will do nothing to risk the low hanging votes. Nothing will change until there is the political will to allocate funding. Nothing will change until we have leaders who have the best interests of the nation uppermost in their mind. We have to make that happen.

While ever cycling is regarded as a 'sport', it will be treated as such. We have to separate sport cycling from transport cycling.

We have to ride different bikes.

In Italy recently, the driving was absolutely tedious. As in the UK: zero pleasure. However, on the borrowed bike I was transformed. It was an upright, staid affair, with a basket on the front. No head down rush, just flowing. This is what transport cycling should be.

Italy: the birthplace of chic. Chic sells anything, but cycle chic is probably the most under utilized tool in the armoury of active travel advocates.

Here is the UK version of cycle chic: helmets. No, no, no, no, NO! For crying out loud! Wrong again. Go to the back of the class and hand out pencils. And make sure you do your homework properly next time.

Now let's try Copenhagen. Better. Much better. Now look at the bikes. Bikes you can ride in normal clothes. Bikes that can carry things.

This is what we need to sell.

People on bikes. Not cyclists. Just people.




Update: A follow up post after feedback on Twitter.

How to Convince a Lobbyist?

This was originally going to be a private letter, but having received 'boilerplate' responses from every politician I have contacted, I thought it would be more productive to have this kind of policy lobbying discussion in the open.

Although I have concerns about the policy being lobbied for, I have far greater concerns for how the foundations upon which that policy were built. I really need to try to understand more about the process of how that lobbying viewpoint is formed. My fervent belief is that government (and government policy) should be for the benefit of the society it serves as a whole. As they used to say: "For the greater good."

I read with interest the assertion of Mehboob Khan on Twitter:

Been convinced by the strong case for compulsory helmets & will start lobbying in my private capacity for a change in law @cyclingweekly
— mehboob khan (@cllrMehboobKhan) July 22, 2014

As I was a little late to the conversation, I went back over Mr Khan's timeline to learn more. As a result, I would dearly like to open a dialogue and possibly meet Mr Khan to try to understand how he managed to be convinced to do the wrong thing. This is important. This is not an insult. Mr Khan is clearly a smart man who has great energy and passion for his causes. I admire that. Yet, even based solely on the anecdotes he has chosen to use, I cannot, for the life of me, arrive at the same conclusion that he has.

Here is the question every helmet compulsion advocate should ask of themselves:

Would you entrust the life of your child to a cycle helmet on the roads of the United Kingdom?

If your answer is 'Yes', then you need to do a bit of research about cycle helmets. They are not motorcycle helmets and the vast majority of KSIs (Killed or Seriously Injured) of people on bicycles are not from head injuries.

If your answer is 'No', then you should devote your energy to campaigning for a solution to the cause, not attempting to stick a plaster on the symptom. Campaigning for helmet compulsion is a distraction. It does not solve the problem. It will never solve the problem. People will continue to die unless you address the root of the problem.

That's not to say you shouldn't wear a helmet if you are cycling for sport. I wear a helmet. I make my children wear a helmet (unless we're on holiday in Denmark). I usually wear a helmet when I ride on the road, but I am under no illusion. It will not protect me from an impact with 2-40 tons of vehicle at any speed. Cycling for transport is not dangerous. Being hit by people driving motor vehicles is.

There are many interesting statements from Mr Kahn's on his timeline, some of which I may address later. For now, I would like to focus on the several 'savings to the NHS' comments, as these are symptomatic of the fallacious logic in  almost every other argument put forward for helmet compulsion.

Even by TRL's flawed analysis, helmets may save just 15 lives per year. Well, that's 15 people who would be still alive, so that good isn't it? Well, no it isn't. Because along with those hypothetical 15 saved lives, are over a hundred lives will still be lost and thousands of lives will still be irrevocably changed through serious injury. Additionally, we have tens of thousand of people who die each year from polluted air in our towns and cities and tens of thousands more who die as a result of an inactive lifestyle. Many, many thousands more in both groups suffer a long slow decline, placing a huge burden on the economy and the health service.

Danish government figures show the health benefits of cycle infrastructure to be DKK 2 billion krone per year for Copenhagen residents alone. [pdf]. Yes, I had to read it again too, DKK2,000,000,000 just in Copenhagen, each and every year.

So, potentially, we could save the NHS £200 million every year for each city and large town in the UK. That has to be a greater incentive than the cost savings of (perhaps) 15 lives per year. But it gets better. With proper infrastructure, those 15 lives (and the hundred or so others) will not be lost.

There is no other national project that can give such a massive return on investment to the economy and the health of the nation than building proper cycle infrastructure.

It is an absolute no-brainer. A slam dunk. A sure thing. Yet neither side of the house has politicians with sufficient courage to do the right thing for the nation.

I hope, Mr Khan, you read this far.

I hope you seek out the wisdom of people who can give you guidance.

I hope you have the grace to acknowledge there is a far, far better solution than helmet compulsion.

I hope you have the passion to lobby our political decision makers for the courage to do the right thing for the greater good.

National Policy Statement for National Networks

My response to the National Policy Statement for National Networks:

I am responding to the consultation on the draft National Policy Statement for National Networks (NPS).
This nation does not need 40% more road capacity. There is no 'national need'.  DfTs 'forecasts' have been proven to be wrong time, after time, after time. We need courageous politicians who do what is best for the country, not simply repeat the mistakes of the past. This weak and feeble 1970s policy.
We are fighting a losing epidemic of obesity caused by unhealthy and inactive lifestyles. Encouraging yet more inactive travel is not the answer. Studies by the Danish government show that for every £1 invested in active travel (primarily cycling infrastructure), the health service will save £7. Where else can one get a 700% return on investment?
Building more roads would be a disaster for the many people who suffer from respiratory problems as a result of the current levels of air pollution from traffic, yet section 3.4 tries to limit objections based on CO2 emissions. The UK government is responsible for the long and drawn out deaths of its own citizens from air pollution but now wants to make the situation much worse. This is immoral.
I suggest you fix the appalling state of the current roads first and do what is best for all the people of this country: invest in active travel.
Because of all these grave concerns, I oppose this draft policy as it would set a disastrous course for transport in this country.             

Advocacy or Direct Action?

I read with interest the news that a national rollout of Space4Cycling was being proposed. This seemed like great news - the message is clear and concise. Yet there were some murmurs of discontent. 

Then I read with dismay the CTC support for the use of cycle funding for a 'turbo' roundabout, that really isn't cycle infrastructure at all. Their response to objections was not at all helpful - these are not idealists with keyboards, these are people trying to get about on bicycles! 

This brings to the fore the question of what actually is it we need to do in order to achieve any progress towards a more sustainable transport culture in the UK.

However, that is really the wrong question. What we should be asking is why has every single campaign for better active travel conditions in the UK failed for the last 40 years?

Advocacy is great. Every great plan needs an advocate to promote it. Particularly if it perceived as 'not how we do things'. I'd like to think I'm a cycling advocate. I tweet, I blog (a bit) and I talk to anyone who will listen about the benefits of active travel vs the detrimental impact of our car centric culture (whilst being very aware of the dangers of 'puke evangelism').

But what have I actually done? What changes are on the ground that are there because if me? Well, when it come to cycling, actually none. And I'm slightly ashamed if that.  Yes, I have a busy life, young children, trying to fit everything in and also make a living. 

It wasn't always this way. Before life was quite so family focused, I was part of a group of residents who tried to make a positive difference in our village. We were non-political bunch of people who were fed up with the main road being used as a rat-run. There were no committees (I have an aversion; too many, 'mm's, too many 'tt's and too many 'ee's) but plenty of discussion with all affected residents. It was time consuming, but allowed us to find a consensus and draft a number of letters signed by a large number of people. These letters gave the active few a degree of 'authority to speak' to Parish Council, Borough Council and most importantly, the senior surveyor of the local Highways Agency. 

To cut a long story short, I believe we made a difference. There are still too many cars, but the number of lorries has been significantly reduced (the road is now 'Unsuitable for HGVs). Although we haven't managed to reinstate the road width, it has at least stabilised for the time being, so traffic speed is not increasing.

In these pre-social media days, we took inspiration from the historic turnpike milemen. Each of us felt we had the best insight into the issues blighting our particular section of the road, simply because we were there, on site for the most time. We saw the crashes, the near misses and the dangerous driving.

Could we apply this type of localised direct action to the design and implementation of space for cycling? Small face to face meetings with decision makers resulted in change. These were almost always on site and always well prepared with support from local residents and the Parish Council. We were very diplomatic, non-political but quite insistent that residents should be prioritised over through traffic. Perhaps we were just lucky and had an understanding highways surveyor?

Cycling needs advocates, but without positive change 'on the ground' (both literally and metaphorically), we are getting nowhere. Large institutions such as CTC clearly struggle with momentum and politics. We need institutions but to have positive change, we need to be free to be able say to infrastructure designers: "Stop. This is wrong. Local people do not support this." with the evidence to back up the statement.

For positive change to happen, perhaps we need local action by local milemen, with a national (or international) network of expertise to support?

Helping out the ASA

The Advertising Standards Authority (@ASA_UK) have landed themselves in a little hot water. An adjudication of complaints against one of Cycling Scotlands misguided Niceway Code campaign videos. This particular video was actually one of the few that was not disingenuous or victim blaming, so it is somewhat ironic that the ASA decided it was 'socially irresponsible'.

However, the assessment is clearly written by a person who has little understanding of neither cycling or the Highway Code. Given that the ASA is likely to be a little busy sending out stock responses to all who have complained about the adjudication, I thought I'd save them some time by re-writing the assessment:

Assessment

Not Upheld

The ASA acknowledged that the ad was primarily encouraging motorists to take care when driving within the vicinity of cyclists. This is a good thing.

We noted that the cyclist in the final scene was not wearing a helmet or any other safety attire, and appeared to be more than 0.5 metres from the gutter. We also acknowledged that the cyclist was shown in broad daylight on a fairly large lane without any traffic.

We understand that UK law does not require cyclists to wear helmets. However, it would be detrimental to the health and well being society as a whole to attempt to enforce (by proxy) the wearing of cycle helmets by only allowing helmeted cyclists to be seen in advertisements.

We understand that drivers of motor vehicles have an extra duty of due care and attention towards vulnerable road users. Reflective clothing may provide additional visibility in the dark or in poor conditions but it does not absolve drivers of their responsibilities. This advertisement shows a clear day with exceptional visibility. 

Furthermore, the person on the bicycle is riding in a safe position that ensures she is seen by other road users and also to avoid the dangerous road surface ahead of her. This advertisement clearly condones a safe approach to cycling in an urban environment.

Drivers of motor vehicles should expect such behaviour and drive at an appropriate speed and distance from vulnerable road users to ensure their health and safety. Under the UK Highway Code, Rule 213:

Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

The driver of the overtaking vehicle should expect to have to slow down and to use the right hand lane to overtake only when it is safe to do so.

Action

None.

Update

@magnatom has written a reminder of where our focus should lie. I cannot disagree with anything he says - we must fight to get justice. However, it was a jury of our peers that found a man not guilty of anything after killing a man in broad daylight. 

These jurors are influenced by the media. Advertising is all pervasive and (deliberately) trying to influence opinion. 

The ASA judgement, if allowed to stand, will reinforce the belief that only motor vehicles have the right to be on our roads. The message could not be clearer: drivers are absolved of any responsibility towards vulnerable road users who stray into the motor domain.

The pernicious nature of this continual drip of pro-motoring, anti-cyclic rhetoric from perceived 'authorities' has a real and lasting impact on the safety and well being of vulnerable road users.

It is absolutely critical that we continue to address both the justice and the culture that shapes that justice.

Cyclophobia. Part 1: Accountability.

Cyclophobia

Noun: The irrational fear of bicycles.

This was going to be the original name for this blog. I've been thinking about it for a long time. What is it that makes people fear other people on bicycles? Particularly those with a modicum of 'authority'?

Part 1: Accountability

Cyclophoia takes many forms but today I want to focus on what is perhaps the most insidious of manifestations: the perceived lack of accountability.

Throughout human history, various groups have been perceived to be 'getting away with it' (whatever 'it' is). Authoritative figures demonize this group in order to curry favour with their supporters. The language may vary, but it usually goes along these lines:

We must be able to punish this group for the harm they wreak on society. We will hold them collectively responsible for the actions of any individual wrong-doers in the group. 

We can't hold them accountable, unless we can identify them. So we must make them all wear an identifier that shows they belong to this group, just in case they might do something wrong. They must wear their registration whenever they travel. 

Just in case.

Is the (fear of) harm people on bicycles might unleash worthy of mass registration? Of course it's not. That would be silly. Really, really silly.  Sigh.

So how does someone such as Nikki Sinclaire (MEP) arrive at such a conclusion? How can a seemingly intelligent person not understand why there might be a vitriolic backlash to such a proposal? You're not in a debate, Nikki. You're on the wrong side of history.

Please Nikki, please provide the evidence of the scale of damage caused to society that would justify such a draconian registration of an entire group of people who simply want to travel. In addition, please provide any evidence that enabling a person to ride a bicycle safely is detrimental to society?

You ask 'what price safety' (yes, that old chestnut), so please provide evidence of how registration would enhance the safety of anyone? It certainly would not enhance the safety of people on bicycles or of people on foot who are killed or seriously injured in their thousands each and every year by people in motor vehicle who are not held accountable by the justice system despite be 'registered'.

You ask why cyclists are so 'afraid of accountability'. What a bizarre statement. People who are 'afraid of accountability' are 'afraid of accountability' whether they are on a bicycle, run a bank or stand for parliament. Wearing an item of clothing doesn't suddenly make you unafraid of accountability. In the unfortunate event of a crash on the road, the person on the bicycle is more than likely going to end up dead or badly injured in the gutter. How's that for accountability?

Of course, a person intent on doing wrong would be sure to wear their registration clothing, wouldn't they? Wouldn't they?

If they don't dress like me, they're
not responsible citizens.

Just as politicians of the past used pictures of themselves holding babies, trying to persuade the voters they were a good upstanding person who could be trusted, there's the obligatory photograph that screams "Look at me! I'm a cyclist! I'm qualified!".

No, Nikki, you're not qualified. You've published a picture of yourself dressed as you think cyclists should be. Wearing high-vis, helmet and constrained in the gutter, out of the way of people deemed 'more important'. This gross caricature is exactly how the media and politicians would like the public to see cyclists because it fits the false stereotype of people on bicycles being an 'out-group'.

If you want to see how people travelling on bicycle should look, just watch this. No high-vis, no helmets. No riding in the gutter. No victim blaming. Just courageous politicians doing what is right for the people of their country by providing a safe environment for people.

UK politicians of all parties have failed to provide safe, efficient infrastructure that is desperately needed by the people of this country. Where is the accountability for this failure? We are a nation that is being faced with environmental and lifestyle induced health issues that will paralyse our Health Service. We need people to travel in a more sustainable way. You are not helping the people of this country.

Remember, these are people on bicycles. Lightweight, human powered machines. Like prams. or roller skates. Or scooters.

We might as well suggest all people wearing sunglasses need to be registered. Just in case.

Taking the lane or taking the mickey?

Why do some people on bicycles insist on riding down the centre of the lane?

A: Well, that's easy. They want to make it to the end of their journey on their bike. Not in an ambulance. And certainly not in a hearse.

No, seriously, why can't they ride at the side of the road and let faster traffic pass?

For starters, they are the traffic. They may take up much less space than a person in a motor vehicle, but they are still the traffic.

They may also be faster overall in towns and cities than a person in a motor vehicle (as demonstrated by Richard Hammond).

This image was posted by Jeremy Clarkson (you know, the silly one off Top Gear) along with the comment:

"It's middle of the road point-makers like this who make car drivers so angry about cyclists."

One of the good things about the internet is you frequently get to hear the other side of the story. As is often the case with Mr Clarkson, the other side is usually a lot more interesting.

For example, we now have information that suggests the photograph was taken here by Mr Clarkson whilst driving (and leaning out of his window). Dracott Place is a short, narrow, two way residential street in London. Most of it has no centre line and cars parked on both sides at the western end. Cars are parked along its length on the left (relative to the photo) and there are numerous side junctions.

In other words, a regular residential street, with all the regular dangers posed to (not by) people who are not in motor vehicles. In this type of residential environment, the street is ridiculously 'designed for motor vehicles' forcing people on bicycles to either 'take the lane' and be safe or place themselves in mortal danger in the 'dooring zone'.

Dracott Place is 0.17 miles long. That's less than 300 yards. The speed limit is 30 mph. If you were foolish enough to drive at 30mph on this residential road it would take a mere 20 seconds to go from one end to the other. The person on the bicycle looks to be fairly fit, so was likely moving at 15-20mph. If he were to travel the whole length of the road at 15mph it would take him 40 seconds.

So, Mr Clarkson, are you suggesting that the additional 20 seconds you would have gained from driving at 30mph for 300 yards are worth more to you 'celebrity' life than all of the remaining life of another human being and their loved ones? Starting to look a little petty now isn't it?

Yet, not content with valuing your 20 seconds of life over the life of another, you publish a photograph to more than 2 million people with a title guaranteed to fuel animosity between fellow human beings?

What kind of person does that make you?

People on bicycle are subject to frequent 'near death experiences' because of the animosity engendered by this kind of inflammatory publication. Many people (on bicycles and on foot) die and many more suffer life changing injuries because of the lack of care and consideration given by people in motor vehicles toward other people. In part, you are responsible for endangering the lives and well-being of others.

I realise (as do you, I'm sure) most of what you do and say is just fluff - some might say attention seeking - but is it really worth it when the fallout has such a negative impact on so many?

Update: Jim Davis (@lofidelityjim) pointed me to this:



In Jim's words: "It's the most beautifully paced intelligent piece of stand-up." Quite agree.

Salting the fields in springtime

140 characters is never enough, so here is a quick reply to Beverley's Twitter response to my first post:

I'm really pleased I managed to paint a bigger picture, but I'm pretty certain that picture would be better painted by people who have a bigger audience. Indeed, I think people with a national audience and the ear of policy makers have a responsibility to paint (or at least sketch) the bigger picture. Splashing paint around in one corner distracts those with short attention spans from the whole scene.

The OED has two definitions of ideology. Sadly, the use of the word in modern politics and journalism has push the word towards negative connotations. Often you can/should substitute dogma.

That said, I'm going to accept that my post contains some 'ideology stuff' (based on the archaic definition in OED) and take it as a compliment because I think that's how it was meant. However, my words (and thoughts) are, for better or worse, based on logic rather than ideology. I just happens to be the way my brain is wired and has not always been helpful...

Onto the subject of brains on bonnets. Up to the 90's, car manufacturers spent millions in R&D to make their vehicles (bonnets in particular) more pedestrian friendly. Then the marketing people came along and sold the all gullible people a pup in the shape of a Vanity4x4 (but that maybe another post). The ride height of these vehicles means people get dragged beneath, where their bodies are crushed and mangled - the very problem manufactures spent millions trying to avoid. Progress eh?

And finally (most importantly?), mandatory helmets for children. We all know how fickle teenagers are. How as a parent would you enforce this? Would you rely on the police and criminalise your children? Would you accept a criminal record for yourself because your child 'forgot' or removed their helmet?

People should not require protective equipment just to move from A to B under their own power.

Most likely, the result will simply be to scatter salt on the beautiful meadow that our children represent. A few hardy plants will flourish despite the unfavourable soil but for the majority, these conditions will set the tone for the remainder of their lives. They will physically wither.

Never let evidence get in the way of a good anecdote.

Everybody has a novel in them. So they say. Well, these days it seems, everyone has a blog in them. I don't know if this blog will survive, whether I will find the time or be motivated to post more than one entry. But sometimes, things have to be said in more than 140 characters.

There will be errors in this blog. There will be spelling errors, syntax errors, grammatical errors and maybe the occasional error of judgement (and too many brackets (in one of my lives, I am a programmer)). There will also, without doubt, be factual errors. However, I will be more than happy to change my views and opinions if I am shown evidence of what I have written is incorrect.

Evidence (noun)

From the Oxford Dictionaries ("The world's most trusted dictionaries" - how do I find the evidence to support the statement?), evidence is defined thus:

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

Anecdote (noun)

Once again from OED, anecdote:

a short amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person

There have been many stories that I thought would inspire me towards my first post, but in the end it was a simple tweet from  Beverley Turner, a journalist, wife, mother and probably all round good (but knackered) person. Most likely a very smart cookie, yet seems somewhat taken aback by the response to her suggestion helmets should be mandatory for people on bicycles.

This being the internet, of course anything you say will get the usual vociferous responses from a vocal few (I'm not sure why Beverley found that BIZARRE). Many also thought it was in poor taste (some might say crass) to use Schumacher's off piste skiing head injury as a jumping point for her article.

Yet there were also some very measured responses pointing towards the evidence that helmet compulsion was detrimental to health of the nation. I have not seen any response or column inches given to this evidence by Beverley or any other journalist. Does anecdote trump evidence in the search for the journalists version of the truth?

I understand how close this is to Beverley's heart, after all, anecdotally, her husband owes his life to a helmet. I have no issue with her advising others to wear helmets or to state she would not allow her children to ride without helmets.

When I say, I understand, let me explain: My grandmother was hit on the head by an unsecured lorry door whilst walking on the pavement. She died not long afterwards, not directly from the injury but as a result of the debilitated state she was left in. This has not made me a supporter of mandatory helmets for pedestrians. It has made me very aware of my responsibilities as a driver for my vehicle and it's load.

A fair portion of one of my lives has been spent working in an environment where injuries were frequent and almost accepted as 'part of the job'. Somehow, I came through unscathed, but with a few lucky near misses. I was fortunate that my college tutors were enlightened long before the Health and Safety Executive achieved a degree of success. This was their mantra:

I have tweeted this image as a response a couple of times. I could probably post it every day.

The empirical evidence in every dangerous industry or environment shows that the maximum benefit is from elimination of risk. Note the PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) is right down there at the narrow 'minimal effectiveness' end of the scale. From the horses mouth: "Only use PPE as a last resort".

Next time any journalist, blogger or spokesperson feels they want to save peoples lives, please campaign for what is proven to work. Do not be a distraction to policy makers because you have (or have heard) an anecdote. Focus on where you can achieve maximum benefit for the greatest number of people. Start at the top of the chart and as you influence improvements to policy, work your way down,

The 'developed' world has some massive issues to address. Mandatory helmets for people on bicycles addresses none of them. It is a dangerous distraction that will result in a greater risk to a greater number of people.

Is that a goal worthy of column inches?

A huge amount of time and energy continues to be devoted to addressing the minimal effectiveness of advocating mandatory helmets for people on bicycles. That time and energy would be far better focussed on productive advocacy that will improve the health and well-being of the nation.

Now that is a goal worth pursuing.