Discussão entre defensores da bicicleta em tráfego segregado vs compartilhado feita no blog velorution

13 June 2005Lesson from F1

Filed under: All, Transport Policy, Facilities, Velorutionaries — Andrea @ 23:08

As disagreable it may be, one must pay respect when credit is due. When Ayrton Senna died, the governing body of Formula One racing decided to make some changes to make the sport safer. They realised that cars were going too fast. These were some of the measures they adopted: brakes were made less efficient, tyres had to grip less, and the chassis had to be redesigned, again to decrease the grip; in other words, the authorities made changes that superficially seemed to make the cars more dangerous. In fact they understood that these changes would produce a change in the behaviour of the drivers, who would likely drive less fast, making crashes less likely and less lethal.

This is just one of the seemingly paradoxical anedoctes narrated by John Adams at a lecture this evening. ‘Seemingly paradoxical’ until one understands the concept of risk compensation, which Adams explains in his seminal book, Risk. The key principle is that any safety feature will produce changes in behaviour: most people, as natural risk managers will barter some of the increased safety with perfomance enhancement, thus either negating the safety benefits or transfering the increased danger to other players.

Needless to say, Adams is a big fan of Hans Monderman, the Dutch urban engineer on a mission to ge rid of traffic signs, lights, barriers, etc. Adams provoked a bit of ruckus at the end of his speech, when he criticised what is probably the most advanced London cycling facility, with the audience ferociously split between pro- and anti-segregated cycle lanes. Fortunately Adams is a person of great charm and good humour and he rekindled the peace by suggesting that segregated facilities are only a step towards a more appealing environment where speed is reduced not by humps and barriers but by the sheer co-mingling of various players. More tomorrow.

2 Comments » We are fortune enough in Edinburgh to have at present (until some of them are ruined by the proposed tram system) former railways as off road cycle tracks and they are completely segregated and traffic free. Not only are they considerably more pleasant, quite different and safer then being on the road but they are an excellent resource for new (of any age) or returning cyclists to go several miles without meeting a motor vehicle, thus allowing the safe building of both fitness and cycling skill before entering the fray of the road network. Whilst I can see the arguement for not having all cyclist segregated each locale should have some for this very purpose.

Secondly I think it was Jasper Carrot, the comedian, that in one of his routines, many years ago, reckoned that all the seat belts, air bags, abs, etc should be removed from cars and replaced with a large metal spike coming out of the centre of the steering wheel. That would make drivers a bit more carefull - sounds as if he wasn’t so far off the mark!

Comment by Alistair — 14 June 2005 @ 17:40

Jasper took a leaf from Adams’ book.

Comment by Andrea — 14 June 2005 @ 21:32

29 June 2005Power talk

Filed under: All, Transport Policy — Andrea @ 23:47Paul Gannon, probably the most cogent promoter of segregated cycle lanes, has recently written a long critique of John Adams’ approach of humanising our roads by enhancing uncertainty. It is a good read.

There is value in both approaches: they use different tactics in the fight to reclaim our streets. I therefore wish that both sides respect each other’s positions and direct their intellectual fire towards their common enemy.

And the message to all readers: don’t cower when cattle tries to bully you: adopt the style that works best with you, and let’s all stand up to the daily aggression of the automobile. The metal of their bonnet will crumple against our steely resolve.

Here are excerpts from Paul’s essay:

The facts of power and status on the roads - which people understand tacitly- is what lies behind people saying that cycling is dangerous. Theeffectiveness of the cavalry attack depended on the horse and rider,individually or in a mass, approaching at a high speed and with weight. Ifa square of soldiers could withstand the shock of the attack, they couldsurvive; if they dithered and cowered, or as individuals, they never stood achance. The psychological component of the weapon was intimidation, playingupon the natural human inclination to get the hell out of the way when ahalf a ton of fast-moving mass is coming straight at you. The modernequivalent of the charging horse is the motor vehicle (and not just the 4x4)because it uses the same effect as the charger to establish its priority byfear of ‘flesh to metal interaction’.

…

The simple fact of the matter is that people do not want to have to be putin the position of constantly having to face the life and death decision of‘do I carry on or give way’. When the odds are so heavily against you inthe event of an error (in terms of asymmetric physical consequences forcyclist/pedestrian and vehicle driver), factors of power are unavoidable.The fact that the car is the ultimate modern symbol of status and desire,that its dominance is evident in road design, police attitudes and the like,gives it an automatically higher place in the power league, in addition tothe physical power of its approaching mass. To be a cyclist is, to somedegree, inevitably a challenge to the dominant system of power and status inpresent day society.

To cycle successfully in London, I am sure you will all agree, requires

assertiveness. Show a driver by body language that you intend to pull in tohis/her lane to turn right and they will give way to you more readily thanif your demeanour indicates that you are uncertain and are waiting for themto give way.

Fine, if you like that sort of thing, but not if you are not naturallyassertive, or are prepared to be assertive but find it a nuisance and youwould much prefer an easier life.

Rules enable differences of power and status to be subordinated to widersocial goals, so that who goes first is not decided by power and status butby what becomes custom or the ‘standard’. Predictability reduces thepotential for conflictual decision making.

I do not think that we should be campaigning for cycling only by theassertive and this outlook should be a fundamental aspect of our approach tothe provision of cycling facilities. One problem is that assertiveness alltoo easily becomes aggression; and it is my observation that London’s roadsare ideal for aggressive people, but not for the rest of us. This is whythe age and gender profile of cyclists in London is heavily dominated by20-35 year old males, with few women, few older people and few working classpeople, i.e. the subsections of society less likely to challenge existingpower and status arrangements.

This line of argument has implications, it seems to me, for Adams’s ideas.Not everyone wants to make eye contact. Some people shrink from it. Othersreact to it with anger even violence (I once read that the most commonlyheard phrase before violence breaks out is ‘what are you looking at?’). Butalso, it is not possible to disentangle person and vehicle, just as it isimpossible to disentangle horse and rider - except by training to overcomedeeply installed behaviour, perhaps even hardwired natural instincts, andtheir continued suppression by a mistaken belief in your own invincibilityor superiority of skill.

As long as cycling requires people to take split-second, life and deathdecisions, based on only tacitly understood issues of power and status, andin which they are the underdog, it will not prosper. The powerful willprosper, the weaker will pay the penalty. That is our current system. Itis true that drivers do not want to kill people, but walking in the road ischallenging deeply installed behaviour, the fact that the car has priority.So drivers aren’t thinking about whether they are going to kill you or not,but how do they get in front or turn before you, how do they achieve theirpriority, which is rightfully theirs due to their higher status.

Now, clearly, one approach is to try to tame the car and to do it by a mixof spatial rearrangement of our roadspace plus other, less clearlyspecified, related measures, such as speed control. That is essentially the

Adams approach…

But in my view power is most effectively challenged by power, and not,unfortunately, by ideas. We all know all the very many, very good argumentsin favour of cycling, but look at what has actually been achieved on theground by reciting them endlessly. A few of us can move a few other peoplewith ideas, enough to get in some good cycle facilities if we are lucky andwork at it. By providing cycling facilities that progressively reduce thenumber and severity of interactions with motor vehicles, we canprogressively increase the number of cyclists by widening the overallcycling experience into one that is tolerable for wider numbers of people,stage by stage. From that derives growing political power and status fromgrowing numbers. As our political power and the status of cyclingincreases, so can the attraction of our ideas and a virtuous circle coulddevelop. This is what I happily describe as a ‘lower order’ approach,building up from below the power needed to challenge and surmount the powerof the status quo and the dominance of the iconic trinket of modern-daylife, the wheeled-motorized power tool.

This is where I return to Marx. The weakness with Adams’s model is that itfails to take account of the fact that technology is not neutral, and modelsabout how people react in real life must take account of that fact thatdecisions are shaped by the power and status relationships involved. Asuccessful strategy for increasing cycling will need to take this intoaccount. Adams’s approach, the ‘higher order’ approach, requires too muchto happen in response to theoretical models and involves so many factorsthat any one going wrong could undermine the whole thing when applied to thereal world. Further it provides no real account of how a political powerbase is going to come about to push for the changes needed – and theresources. It’s a top down approach, doing what a few wise people think isbest for the others. It’s greatest weakness, however, is that driverbehaviour, which is a reflection of the power and status of the automobile,is somehow going to change without the development of a corresponding powerbase having a real and present interest in demanding change. Even if thegovernment were to won over, change would have to work its way down throughlayers of police officers, magistrates and lawyers, engineers andcouncillors, steeped in decades of ‘motor-think’.

My plodding, bottom up, approach may seem to lack the urgency that climatechange demands, but things can change very quickly in society. There is anunderlying concern about global warming and with leadership people may wellbe willing to adapt their lifestyles. But, leadership, more than anythingelse of course, is about power and status. Which brings us back to the keypoint – how do we make cycling attractive to more people, quickly, withoutdepending on prior changes? Adams’s approach, it might be said, places thecart before the chariot.

Paul Gannon.

2 Comments » Cycle lanes work well on long wide roads which are capable of being segmented into us and them areas. I ride on such a road daily and welcome the extra distance I get between me and the 70 mph traffic which is confined to the other two lanes.

But. There is always a but and in the case of cycle lanes it tends to occur at junctions. How many cycle lane schemes do you know which are able to provide adequately for a cyclist’s need at a junction? The fact that most cycle lanes actually cease just before junctions and reappear again shortly afterwards shows that most road system planners don’t have a clue about how best to deal with cyclists in such cases. The end result is that we are just left to get on with it.

Turning right (in UK) requires the cyclist to cross the traffic in the ongoing lane before reaching a point in the centre of the road where the right turn manoeuvre proper can actually begin. I have yet to see a cycle lane which improves the situation. Good hand signals, a positive attitude and the co-operation of other road users usually works well and requires no additional road markings or rules.

Comment by Terry Duckmanton — 30 June 2005 @ 12:43

In my opinion the junction problems arises because streets and roads have been designed for cars… Originally, designers didn’t think about any other user but cars when they did it. Now, they are re-designing with the criteria of shutting the mouth of bike activists but, at the same time, don’t disturb to much to cars. They try to mitigate complains coming from bike-riders but the main client still been the car. The junction problem is the most evident argument supporting this thesis: uncomfortable for bikes because junctions must still been comfortable for cars. If street designers forget about cars comfort, I am sure that this problem would disappear. Other benefits like less car speed, less car pollution, few casualties would arise collaterally.

Comment by David Escudero — 1 July 2005 @ 13:36