Livingstones Share the Road campaign is confused and self-defeating

Press Release

Livingstone’s ‘Share the Road’ campaign is confused and self-defeating, say RDRF

Motorists, cyclists and pedestrians in London are supposedly all being encouraged to Share the Road - the title of a new and ongoing Transport for London (TfL) campaign, launched by the Mayor of London on 4 September.

The Road Danger Reduction Forum obviously supports this aim, and agrees with the five organisations supporting a road danger reduction agenda (● CTC the national cyclists’ organisation, ● Living Streets (formerly the Pedestrians Association), ● London Cycling Campaign, ● Sustrans, ● Environmental Transport Association) that: “All road users have a duty of care to avoid endangering or intimidating one another, and to respect each other's rights.”

But this campaign will fail as it is based on mistaken ideas which will support irresponsible motoring and prejudices against cyclists. This is because:

1. Who kills whom? The RDRF insists that rule or law breaking which threatens others is crucially different from misbehaviour which does not. The difference in lethality between errant cyclists or pedestrians on the one hand, and the motorised on the other, is glossed over. Obviously misbehaving cyclists (and pedestrians) can hurt or kill others, but this is far less likely than with motorist misbehaviour. As the CTC have shown, using TfL’s evidence for 2001-05:

There were 101 times as many reported pedestrian injuries due to collisions with motor vehicles as with pedal cycles (there were 34,791 pedestrian injuries involving motor vehicles, compared with 331 involving cycles).
Motor vehicles were involved in 126 times as many fatal and serious pedestrian injuries as cycles (there were 7,447 fatal and serious injuries involving motor vehicles compared with 59 involving cycles).
34 pedestrians were killed in collisions with motor vehicles, compared with just one killed in collision with a cycle. That one fatal collision with a cycle occurred neither on a pavement nor a pedestrian crossing point.
Even on the pavement, there were 2,197 reported pedestrian injuries arising from collisions with motor vehicles, including 17 fatalities. These injuries outnumbered those involving cycles by a factor of 42 to 1.
The total number of reported pedestrian injuries in London due to collisions with cyclists on pavements was just 65 in the year 2001, and 69 in 2005. This was despite a 72% increase in cycle use over the period.

2. Not just a minority. The mayor’s statement repeats a number of times the false notion that only a “visible minority” of road users break the rules: For example, Livingstone says "The vast majority follow the rules, but there is a small and visible minority who are irresponsible and risk everyone else's safety."

This is just not true. A substantial proportion of motorists break the law on speed and other important regulations specified in the Highway Code, as can be seen by any roadside observer. And there is plenty more rule-breaking behaviour, implicated in large numbers of collisions, such as driving while tired or under the influence of drugs, that is not easily visible.

3. Choosing “easy option” rule breaking. There are numerous types of misbehaviour which lead road users into trouble – but the ones selected by TfL are not necessarily the important ones. Cyclist red light running is quite trivial in terms of threat to pedestrians compared to driver misbehaviour. And the driver misbehaviours selected for this campaign, like invading ASL boxes, seems to have been selected for the convenience of the Police and the media, and are not the misbehaviours most implicated in endangering cyclists, pedestrians – or other road users.

4. What’s it for? “Road safety” campaigns of this type are notorious for failing to meet even their own objectives. Is anyone seriously suggesting that policing at five sites in London is actually going to result in a fundamental change in behaviour, whether by cyclists, motorists or pedestrians? What will actually happen is the construction of a negative image of cycling and a refusal – yet again – to focus on reducing danger at its source, which is improper use of motor vehicles.

5. Picking on cyclists. We have already noted that the contribution of cyclists to crashes where others are hurt – even allowing for the much smaller number of cyclists than motorists – is trivial compared to that of motorists and motorcyclists. This disproportionate focus has already led to anti-cycling comment in the press (Independent 5^th September, Evening Standard 4^th September). It also identifies all cyclists as a problem, preferably to be segregated off the road, as a BBC London news item suggested (4^th September).

But most of all, this approach is based on an inequitable approach to traffic law and policing. As the Mayor himself says: "The only way all road users can get about safely and fairly is everyone obeys the rules of the road equally." If that approach had been taken initially, there would be no need to single out specific (and relatively trivial) offences implicated in a small part of London’s road casualty toll. Equity, or genuine “equality”, means that those rules and laws which regulate those most potentially lethal to others have to be seen as the most important.

If those laws supposed to prevent careless or dangerous driving were enforced – and backed up by appropriate sentencing – everybody’s safety would be protected. And we would not be subjected to confused campaigns such as this.

6. Should nothing be done to stop errant cyclists? Pavement cycling or other misbehaviours, particularly those which annoy or threaten pedestrians, are unacceptable. Programmes of on-road cycle training for adults or children run according to the new government-approved National Standards are run for London Borough of Ealing (with TfL funding) by the agency Cycle Training UK, using positive approaches with the Police to show cyclists how to behave. Such programmes could by now have been set up London-wide, and would be a productive use of the money spent on Livingstone’s misconceived “Share the Road” campaign.

7. The speed example. Transport for London has gone along with Government guidelines which restrict speed cameras to well-displayed locations where specific numbers of people have been reported as being killed or injured. Speeding elsewhere is by implication acceptable. If enforcement of cyclist misdemeanours had to be justified on the same basis, there would be none anywhere in the country.

The aim should be compliance with the law by all road users. With resources only available to deal with a tiny proportion of rule and law breaking, this has to be prioritised to the behaviours that are most dangerous to other road users., rather than everywhere where this offence is committed. Would TfL presume to restrict policing of cyclist red-light running in this way? Of course not, and the result is that the offence which is more dangerous to other road users becomes acceptable.

8. What "Share the Road" should mean. Jenny Jones, The Mayor's Road Safety Ambassador, said: "We want to change the culture of both cycling and driving in London". This should mean a properly worked out programme which educates all road users about their rights and responsibilities. It means attacking dangerous myths, such as the idea that motorists have “paid for the road” through a “road tax”, or that they are properly regulated by third party insurance, taking a “test” and occasional law enforcement.

“We have to conclude that this campaign will support those who are unaware of, or unwilling to accept, the principal problem for the safety of all road users in London,” said Richard Lewis of the Road Danger Reduction Forum. “Meanwhile the increase in traffic policing for all – and the deterrent sentencing which has to accompany it – which is required for the safety of all is delayed yet again. Respect goes to those dealing with controlling danger at source – and we won’t be giving it to Ken Livingstone with stunts like this”

-Ends –

Secretary, Dr. Robert Davis, PO Box 2944, LONDON NW10 2AX