Off-balance

I ended in a bit of a twitter-slanging-match this morning.  With Stella Creasy of all people.  I've rather admired her style and approach to politics - she seemed to really want to bring an energetic, campaigning politics back into the Labour Party.  But I was disappointed by this tweet, which excerpted parts of a newsletter from her, which seemed very negative - portraying the Walthamstow 'miniholland' project as being about cyclists versus 'everyone else'.

GazLemon Disappointed by @stellacreasy’s latest newsletter which echoes #miniholland concerns of a noisy pro-car minority http://t.co/WMiPfijqWM 22/09/2015 08:32

In our subsequent exchange, she kept emphasising how she was trying to 'balance' the competing needs.*  Which reminded me of how affirmative action campaigns for women are too often critiqued for not being 'balanced', and how often 'balance' is promoted by the status quo as a reason for keeping the status quo, as in this fun tweet that came in about the same time: 

accidentobizaro "We have got to be very careful not to do things at a speed which will make male candidates feel that the cards are stacked against them." 22/09/2015 09:16   [which links to this article. ]

Stella Creasy said that my comparison was 'silly'.  But is it?  surely our current infrastructure is built with cars and drivers as their primary concern?  

So here's my top examples of our transport infrastructure privileging cars, rather than active travel:

• Tarmac is continuous across junctions, but pavements stop

• Driveways and entrances to car parks always have dropped kerbs, but not pedestrian crossings

• 'Green wave' traffic lights that turn green for cars, but give cyclists red after red

• Wide corner radiuses that make it easy for cars to turn, but widen the crossings making it difficult for pedestrians to cross

• Push buttons on toucans - do you ever see drivers having to get out and push a button? 

• Dummy 'push buttons' on pelican crossings that are actually controlled automatically from junctions

• Half of most roadways taken up with parked cars 

• Road signs and parking meters on pavements, not on roadways, even though they deal with car regulations 

It's time to redress the balance - which is why we should all get behind the mini-holland schemes, and similar schemes elsewhere in the country. If criticism is needed, let's make it constrictive criticism, and not hide behind excuses of 'balance'. 

*  To be clear - she didn't use the word 'balance' - that is my reading of her various tweets and newsletter.  But she did say my comparison was "silly". 

Why the Evening News is wrong...

Edinburgh Road casualties 2000-2010 Click here to see the map in better resolution.

One of the less barmy claims by some anti-20 campaigners, which has featured in the local paper, is that we're targeting the wrong streets...because other streets have higher rates of accidents.  On the face of it, this seems a huge blow to the council and 20splenty supporters. 

But let's think about this a little.  Firstly, the story is discussing all accidents, not pedestrian accidents, and it is pedestrians, especially child pedestrians, as this article from the BMJ shows who really stand to benefit. While there are gains for everyone will benefit : "The introduction of the 20 mph zones was associated with a reduction in casualties and collisions of around 40%" there are particular benefits for child pedestrians:  The observed reductions were largest for the youngest children (0-5 and 6-11). "

In looking for our 'most dangerous roads', the EEN is missing half the logic of 20mph zones - to make our streets feel safer as well as be safer. 

The council's focus  on streets that have dense housing, such as tenements , or shopping areas is exactly the same logic that currently justifies our 20mph zones around schools and in quiet residential streets.  

It's not that there are more accidents in bungalowland, or around schools, but they are areas that we want to make feel safe, as well as being safe. 

If we want to keep Edinburgh a living, breathing city, we need to keep mixed populations living in and around the centre of the city -- families, older people, professionals and students.  They will only do this if the city continues to be a welcoming and enjoyable place to live - for all, including those with pushchairs, wheelchairs and zimmer-frames. 

By all means, let's also look at ways of making our most dangerous streets safer, but ignoring the streets that we live on is not the way forward. 

The 5 wackiest claims about 20mph so far...

In case you've missed these, apparently:

1. It’s too difficult to drive at 20mph 

"It will not help with road safety at all, people don't even go 30mph, so makes you think we can stick to 20mph? It is very hard to drive that slow, we have been taught to drive at 30mph, so it's almost natural, do you know what I mean by that?"  (from a taxi driver).

2. 20mph will be more dangerous

A 20mph limit in Edinburgh will caused more accidents and incidents from road rage";  "I agree that motorists will get upset at cyclists roaring past them, so revenge is foreseeable as will be "accidents";  20mph signs "will have the complete opposite impact on safety around schools to what the clowncil are trying to do. I feel that most people will ignore these new limits and it may cause them to be less aware of their speed around schools etc as all they will see is another 20mph sign"

3. Cyclists will be too scared to cycle if traffic moving at 20mph  "My self a driver, cyclist & pedestrian in Edinburgh i have been chatting to allot of people who are in the same boat and i have asked their opinion on 20 mph limits on Main Busy roads whilst cycling, and around 85% are saying they will now think twice about cycling as they will feel more put at riskdrivers will be frustrated with going slow, stuck in traffic and cyclists getting more ahead." 

4. Enforce a no Jaywalking law, because that's much easier than enforcing 20mph zones

"Jaywalking is a perfectly reasonable safety measure and much cheaper to implement than making Edinburgh a 20 mph city"  [despite the fact that it goes against the Highway code]

5. We should be putting the speed limit up not down. "Due to the fact that when the speed limits where made car brakes weren't that gd. But now brakes are far more advance and can stop in more than half the stated distance of cars from the days when the laws where passed. Plus all these car have been run of the road by the scrapage scheme. we all have new cars now so theres no reason why the limits shouldn't go up"


I've spared you the personal attacks, threats and generally ill-informed nonsense. 

10 reasons 20mph's plenty for Edinburgh

A 20mph limit's not going to transform Edinburgh drivers into sweetness and light, nor is it going to get rid of tram-related traffic snarlups, or over-heated busses, but it's still got a lot going for it.  

Here's my top ten reasons why 20's plenty:

1. Safety: there's no two ways about it, the biggest argument for 20mph is the increased safety for anyone out shopping, walking the dog,  on their way to school, or even just getting out of a car. I dare you to read this and not think, yeah that could so easily have been me, and that kid could have been my kid.  Every day five children and 20 adults are killed or seriously injured while walking or cycling on UK roads (Department for Transport, 2013).  Lower speed limits reduce the severity of accidents. Whatever data you choose to look at, there is study after study showing that survival rates increase dramatically when speeds drop from 30mph.
2. Reaction time:  Stopping distances at 20mph are half that at 30mph, which means that you're more likely to be able to avoid hitting someone at 20mph, even if a child runs out, or a pedestrian slips and falls while crossing a road. 
3. Time: We're all busy people. Can we really afford to take it slow? Most city journeys on 20mph roads will only take a few seconds or minutes more. Living Streets research suggests that an urban journey of three miles, which would take 30 minutes in a 30 mph limit,  only increased to 33 minutes in a 20 mph setting. That's a tiny price to pay for safer roads.
4. Congestion:  Slower speeds actually reduce congestion by smoothing out the bunching that occurs at higher speeds, so we should see some reduction in congestion.
5. Pollution: 20mph should also reduce most forms of air pollution in our cities  30 km/h zones reduce CO2 emissions by 15%, NOX emissions by 40% and CO emissions by 45%. Only hydrocarbons will increase, by 4%.  And bonus - cars should also be more fuel efficient. 
6. Noise: Reducing traffic speeds by  10 km/h, a noise reduction of 2-3 dB is achieved.
7. Good for business: All of those things mean that 20mph zones are also good for business, making shopping, chatting, and socialising more pleasant and more common. 
8. Fairness: At present there are 20mph zones in lots of residential areas - especially our leafier suburbs - but this would make streets that are densely populated by families, students and the elderly safer.  
9. Happier mornings: In 20mph zones, more parents are happy to let their kids walk or cycle to school, which means fewer cars on the school run, which has got to make life saner for all of us.
10. Demand: Surveys (scientifically conducted ones) repeatedly show high levels of support for 20mph.  The  2011 British Attitudes Survey showed that well over two-thirds of us, including motorists, would like a 20mph speed limit in the streets where we live. As I've already reported, 60% of the people surveyed in the Edinburgh People's Survey in 2012 supported further extension of 20mph in the city centre and busy streets, and only 5% opposed it.    

Reading material: 

I've not footnoted everything. I do enough of that at work.  The stats I have cited - and more - are to be found here.  Happy reading: 

http://www.brake.org.uk/component/content/article/18-top-level/campaigns/1196-go20coalition%20

http://www.livingstreets.co.uk/make-a-change/take-action-with-us/20mph/20-mph-myth-buster

http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/briefings.htm

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2015/01/is-copenhagen-finally-up-to-speed-on.html

http://pedalonparliament.org/world-day-of-remembrance-for-road-traffic-victims/

Easy win or moral panic?

We should be feeling elated about Edinburgh's new proposed 20mph rollout.  I had expected a huge fight over it last summer and autumn, but none materialised.  All parties except the Tories supported it, and even they were careful not to oppose the idea wholesale, and tried to convince the council that they were 'improving' the scheme.  

But in the last few days, hysteria seemed to envelope the local paper commentators (and some leader and headline writers).   

Since the vote went through, it really has felt like a classic moral panic -- drivers convinced that the city will be a ghost town, or, alternatively,  full of traffic ground to a halt.  

Apparently they're planning a protest march now, and asking for a consultation. A consultation! 

I complain about Edinburgh a lot, but it has never once occurred to me to demand 'more consultation'. At times  - worn down by one more roadshow or invitation to a 'stakeholders meeting' - I've wanted to beg for mercy. 

But, supposedly 'no-one' knew about the 20mph consultation, despite the roadshows, drop-ins, exhibitions and public meetings.  All of these were also discussed in the media and on social media.  Community councils ought to have been crucial here - but this really flags up how ineffectual they can be in transmitting information down to neighbourhoods, or stimulating debate at the local level.  

Expanding the 20mph zone has been council policy since at least 2010, as part of both the  Active Travel Action Plan,  and the Local Transport Strategy.  When the council started planning in earnest for it last year,  in light of the Edinburgh People's Survey in 2012, and the pilot, it looked like an 'easy win'.  When surveyed, very 60%+ percentages of people supported further extension of 20mph, and only single digit numbers opposed it.  How many council policies get that sort of ratings?   

So, what can we make of that? The surveys were representative and reliable (the more recent consultation was open to everyone, but not necessarily representative).  The numbers surveyed may seem small, but they were more than adequate samples.  Did the people surveyed not really understand what they were asked? Did the 'undecideds' all realise they were opposed after reading the local paper?  Or is the mob braying for blood on Facebook really just a minority? 

More broadly, it does bring home to me how amazingly divided Edinburgh can be, and how, despite innovative community groups, and a council that to my eyes, does everything it can to reach people, huge numbers of people are simply not aware, or don't have time, interest, or confidence to engage with what's going on.

So having missed the consultations, and the chance to write to their councillors, they now feel appallingly hard-done by, and righteously indignant about the lack of democracy.  The councillors on the transport committee are getting the worst of it, with some very nasty personal attacks.   I'm struck by on-line comments like those accusing them of being a 'clique' that pushed this through, when it went through on a vote of 11-3 and was approved by party caucuses.

Are these comments just gratuitous, a sign of disenchantment with all parties, or evidence of a failure to understand how council decisions are made (not something most people want to spend time worrying about)?  

The obstacles to better local government and more participatory decision-making seem very high.  

(I could write another blogpost or three on why they're wrong, but it's the tone of the debate that worries me right now, more than the content).