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.