Speed Limits

The thing about speed limits is that they don’t seem to work that well for anybody, but are they the best we’ve got?

This post describes the journey towards my current thinking… (a narrative that should be read as a whole.)

My starting point is as someone who does not like being told what to do by ‘the authorities’, especially when confident in my own initiative and ability. With regard to driving, I have always had a good sense of spatial awareness and very good eyesight. I have to date never caused an accident despite being involved in a handful of non-fault collisions, largely due to impatience and inattentiveness. I have a motorbike license too, the training for which I have found extremely empowering, especially, in fact, for when cycling. Motorcycling and cycling demand a sharpened awareness and an appreciation of the fallibility of others.

I began driving while living in a village. Public transport to nearby towns was poor; driving made life practical. As a car driver I was consistently frustrated with the encroaching limits and restrictions imposed on me by the roads in my locality.  Over time, lower speed limits and cameras came creeping in in an ever more invasive way to make driving less and less of a pleasure and more of a stress.

There’s little denying the ‘need for speed’ thrill that many, perhaps the majority, including myself would admit to. Even when travelling within the limits of the law, a good stretch of 60 or 70 m.p.h. road can quench that thirst. Trawling along a major trunk route behind a lorry at 40 miles per hour, when used to travelling at upwards of 59 m.p.h.* can without a doubt be a drag. Keeping at 40 is even more testing if there is a completely open road with clear visibility either side. Speed cameras just punctuate the journey with nerving reminders that one could be caught out.

*no one wants to incriminate themselves!

To that extent, I understand and sympathise with the Association of British Drivers. I really do. I have seen silly speed limits put up around the area I lived with unforeseen negative consequences (tailbacks causing accidents due to impatience, choking fumes, gridlock etc.) I also don’t like the use of the phrase “speeding kills”, because it doesn’t. Hitting people at speed does. I find the ABD’s approach to speed limits, which challenges their arbitrary nature, quite refreshing in what feels like an increasingly over-regulated world.

Though as I said, we are all fallible. The consideration that people have different levels of eyesight, spatial awareness etc. must be a key factor in decision and policy making. I used to know two individuals who found my driving very frightening, but I found theirs equally so. The difference is that I would go too fast for them and they would drive too close to the car in front for my liking. The common factor between them was their shortsightedness, literally, not figuratively. I was sympathetic but not very surprised to learn that one of them had driven into the back of a lorry (he was unscathed but shocked). An impaired ability surely increases the risk of an accident; for him, a lower limit could have saved him an accident.

It now seems pig-headed but I have at times considered, for the purposes of preserving my precious little ‘right’ to drive as fast as I deem safe, the idea that drivers could be assessed on their ability to perceive risks, exercise peripheral vision and have the kind of brain that interprets the road well. Those of us who excel could be free to drive as fast as we like! (Utterly unworkable, I know!)

The ABD believes that drivers should have more freedom to use ‘common sense’ in order to drive safely. I entirely accept their view that as roads become more regulated, people drive in a less attentive manner, but this is difficult to reconcile with the range of ability in driving that is found on our roads. I guess a statistical examination of accident rates and speed limits might be the best way of working out where to draw the line between safety and sense; after all, we could not go back to the days of the red flag!

Where we might disagree is with urban areas, not because I dispute the ability of good drivers, but for what might seem a disconnected consequence from the perspective of motorists. The emergence of pressure groups campaigning to make our cities more pleasant places to live has highlighted that limiting speeds for the purposes of accident reduction is not the only reason for doing so. On Twitter, @TheABD describe themselves as “…the UK’s leading campaign group for drivers who can THINK for themselves.” This eloquently frames the real issue as I see it, which is that they cannot think for other people. I recently made a presentation at a community group in Elgin about the work that Sustrans does with our Street Design (Scotland) and DIY streets (England) projects. Residents were wondering whether they should have a 20 m.p.h. speed limit in their street. Even I was shocked at their resounding response when I suggested that actually, 20 m.p.h. might still seem too fast for their children playing out in the street. I encouraged the residents to do a simple speed test to see whether 5, 10, 15 or 20 m.p.h. would be most appropriate.

This, in my opinion, is the thing that always trumps any perceived right to drive at the speed one feels safe. If the existence of cars in our towns and cities is pushing people out of our streets, causing the inactivity of our children and leading to a likely epidemic of heart disease, we should be moving towards to banning cars, not introducing unenforceable speed limits. It is the perception of safety that is critical here, not the actual speed. Children have not yet developed the ability to judge distance and speed; parents know this and naturally, want to protect their children.

Apart from there being no statutory mechanism for speed limits lower than 20 m.p.h. to be introduced, it is my belief that 20 is just too low, in comparison to the preferred speed of most motorists in urban streets, to be seriously adhered to. While costly, I am sold on the idea that the re-design of streets must be, in the long-term, crucial in pacifying the car in urban areas. It should be physically impossible to drive at more than 10 m.p.h. through vibrant residential streets, but no speed limit to that effect would be effective in causing that.

I am not a fan of speed limits in urban areas; they are too arbitrary, their signage is ugly and they can be interpreted as a prescription to go faster than is appropriate. In suggesting they should be completely removed, I think that I might go further than the ABD.

Speed limits do, in their defence, offer a legal footing which gives the courts, law enforcement and users a benchmark, but a design-led approach to streets is capable of a far more dramatic reduction of speed and the risk of serious collision in towns and cities.

The irony is that following a design-led approach, I fully support the ABD’s quest to be able to use their own skill in determining appropriate speed in urban areas.

Roundabouts are “better for cyclists and pedestrians”. NOT!

I took objection to a little factoid on this article from the BBC which charted the rise in use of the British style roundabout in the US. The nugget stated the opinion of a British traffic engineer that roundabouts are “better for cyclists and pedestrians”.

My response to the BBC read:

“Sir,

I refer to the article:
“Is the British roundabout conquering the US?”
By Tom Geoghegan.

It is simply not true that roundabouts are better for pedestrians and questionable whether good for cyclists either. This is in contrast to a view that was quoted from Clive Sawers, British traffic engineer.

The crossing width for pedestrians is far wider in addition to the lack of signalised opportunity. There is particular risk from vehicles exiting the roundabout. The free flowing nature of traffic means that pedestrians have to dodge traffic and hurry to cross at a roundabout. In addition to this, roundabout layouts usually involve increased road margins, often with pleasant looking landscaping which, unfortunately, wastes premium space. This keeps buildings apart and makes urban areas even less walkable. Add to this the route deflection and, for cyclists, the added dangers of lane discipline when leading up to and negotiating a roundabout and the point is crystal clear.

Roundabouts are almost always inappropriate for urban areas.”

This image shows the area where a chunk of the traditional and historic ‘urban grain’ of Bristol City Centre was ripped out to make way for the now-defunct inner ring road including a large roundabout. On removal of the roundabout and reversal of the area back to an appropriate density, as is proposed for the future, pedestrians will no longer feel shunned. (Hat tip Google Earth)

If you are interested in my proposal for the site, please open the St. Mary Redcliffe, Planning and Design Quality Project.

I continue:

“Mr Sawers as a ‘traffic engineer’ does not seem to be qualified to comment on the effectiveness of roundabouts towards pedestrians and cyclists; he would not make such a claim. Please consider removing this comment, or at least clarifying it.

On a more general point, as a nation with perhaps the least walkable cities on the planet, the USA does not need our roundabouts sealing their unfortunate addiction to the private vehicle. Granted, there are safety benefits for interactions between motorised vehicles on roundabouts. These are undeniable, however, there are other ways of managing junctions that do not compromise the pedestrian; these alternatives should not fixate on making vehicular journeys as fast as possible.

The hinterlands of British cities often mimic the suburban ‘feeder road’ style of development that US cities take. Such development is now regarded in the UK as regrettable when contrasted to UK government guidance (Manual for Streets) or Scottish policy (Designing Streets). We certainly do not want to be sending out a message that lower density development of that sort can be improved for the vehicle, at the further detriment of the pedestrian.

Speeding up car journeys will only further cement the driving habit, which is the only viable option to the majority of US commuters. It takes unfathomable amounts of effort and broad thinking to encourage, enable and facilitate car users – globally – to use alternative modes of transport, therefore by donating a car-centric invention such as the roundabout stateside, we are only making the development of diverse transport solutions less appealing and a shift towards them more painful.”

Engineers are charged with weighing up the largest risks and considering the safety of road schemes. It is understandable that they must be risk-adverse. However, without an holistic, urban design approach to the problems that heavily used roads in our cities cause, there will always be undesirable, and I argue severely underestimated spin-offs. When will we begin to weigh up the less obvious risks – heart disease, social isolation, land wastage, environmental impact – to name a few, with the single aim of making traffic flow more efficiently?

This is where urban design as a profession can transcend the disciplines of planning, architecture, development and engineering and propose solutions that make our streets safer for and between motor vehicles and for pedestrians and cyclists.

The (in)complete thoughts of Alex Bottrill… inspired by Josie Long. Part II

Twitter invites, by its nature, a right to reply. I make absolutely no apologies for wanting to challenge the comments that Josie made, not purely out of disagreement, but out of wanting to grow and cause growth. I want to be shaped and I want my thoughts to be able to shape others, and I agree with something Josie went on to say in her show which was more or less that she wants people her (our) age to engage with politics and not be passive. That is why we spoke in the first place, that is why I went to see her and that is why I am blogging now.

Meanwhile… I turned up to the gig at the comedy box in Bristol, really red faced. This was not because of fear of discovery though. Instead, it was partly because I had played footy earlier and partly because the heating in my car is broken; Its broken stuck on full heat. The room was packed. There were a couple of acts before a break, followed by Josie’s bit, entitled ‘Be Honourable’. The other acts were good too, but I just wanted to hear Josie and I wanted her to make sense to me.

Josie called the Tories ‘Cunts’ to a rousing cheer. I knew it was coming; it was only a matter of time! One thing that she also did, which would have been quite impossible through the medium of Twitter, is to let us into her heart. This is the reason why I came and this is what I wanted to hear. You could sense her emotion and conviction at what she believed. This spoke more than the words themselves and was highly persuasive.

The cuts that George Osborne announced are dramatic. To the wealthy, they are noticeable but to the poor they are really painful. No one I have spoken to or read the work of is pretending that they aren’t. The anger and passion for which Josie slated the cuts and their effects was refreshing, it engaged with me in a way that took me back to how I felt during my experiences of the USA.

I was lucky to be able to study in Chicago for a year and, being in the States as another English speaking country, meant that picking up on the culture, politics and state of society was relatively easy compared with elsewhere. One issue with writing about political themes within the US is that things can vary greatly from state to state, and even from city to city. In Chicago however, I was horrified by some of the inequalities engrained in the school system. The funding for public schools is linked to property taxes based on the value of those dwellings within the same school district as that school. Redistribution of funding for education within the city is not a function of the system, although there have been one or two initiatives at a federal level, for example the 2001 “No Child Left Behind Act”. Despite that, generally, if a child lives in a poor area, attending a school funded by those property taxes, their education will be severely limited.

I have views about fairness and equality that might clash with those of socialists and I’ll come to them and attempt to justify them at some point in this series, but fundamentally, I have great conviction that the opportunities that young people have from the very start will determine their ability to break out of social and economic limits. The form of Conservatism I encountered in the US actually sent a chill up my spine, I didn’t know how to react when hearing the more affluent peoples in a highly polarised country saying “why should I pay for their kids…”. Having had time to think, my answer to that now is: Because they are kids and they are born innocent. That is why we should all pay for each other’s children. There is a Nigerian proverb “Ora na azu nwa”. Translated as: “It takes a village to raise a child.” Anything else is selfish.

So I have just had a dig at the Conservatives abroad, whose policies are somewhat mirrored in the UK, although to a far less extreme degree, but I cannot ignore the reckless policy making of Labour that is probably well-meaning but wrong. How can a whole village raise a child in the UK when Labour have brought in measures to enforce ‘involved villagers’ to have criminal records checks regardless of how trusted they are by the parents. Of course, those who wrote the bill will argue that it is for the child’s protection, but this assumes that we are all guilty of abuse, and, perhaps more damagingly, can prevent children getting the best out of society; individuals will be cautious to get involved in an overly-suspicious society. There has, gladly been something of a U-turn on this matter, but the fact is that even in centre-right-poverty, there is at least the freedom to decide who is safe to look after a child and the freedom to be ‘socialist’ in childcare.

My stance on politics continuously weighs up the over-stratified yet ‘laissez-faire’ – personal freedom Conservative perspective against the draconian yet equalitarian socialist perspective and says: why can’t there be another way?

I apologise for this not being more of an academic or scientific essay, it is reasoned through personal experiences with quotes thrown in to suit. Hopefully it still serves to communicate my stance and it would be even better if it justified it!

To be continued…

The (in)complete thoughts of Alex Bottrill… inspired by Josie Long. Part I

The following post is one of two relating to my interactions with Josie Long. I decided to break them into separate posts due to their size.

Josie Long is funny. Lucky really since she’s a comedienne. She makes me laugh with her style of delivery and her comic timing. I stumbled upon her (figuratively) on a panel-style TV programme (can’t remember which one) which I switched on half way through. I ended up actually reading the credits so that I could find her name and ‘youtube’ her. After I’d put a name to a face, there was ‘Skins’, the E4 TV programme. Josie had a cameo role as an adorable careers adviser and English teacher (who ironically doesn’t do swearing) to a bunch of Bristolian kids in what are, in my opinion, some of the funnies scenes of the programme. Back in the non-fictional world, when I saw that Josie was on Twitter, I did not hesitate to start following her, because she really is funny, really funny.

A few months later and the change of government happened. With it, a trend in highly charged tweets coming from Josie’s twitter account, which is where my personal interaction with her began! Josie broadcasted several messages that made me think, but the minus with twitter is that you do not have enough words to adequately discuss the detail (140 characters per message). I won’t pretend I just wanted clarification. Like her, I have spent years of my life deliberating and forming a perspective on what I believe, and I saw, in her comments, some things that left large gaps, when measured against the understanding I have of how politics and society work. This does not necessarily mean I think she was wrong in her views, things just did not add up. These blog posts aim to explore why.

It’s a really strange and horrible experience to fall out with someone whose public persona is warm and completely engaging and who seems personally familiar, but it happened, and it sucked! We had clashed in the midst of the cuts announcements, something I know many socialists, amongst others, feel raw about and something that there is disagreement as to the necessity of, fuelled, as always by the media circus and their political allegiances. A few more cautious tweets later and we seemed to have somewhat ended our feud and agreed to disagree.

As the air had been cleared, I still found myself fascinated with how someone who I perceived to be similar to myself (in age and upbringing) could entertain such conflicting sentiments about politics and life. I found myself browsing a website which informed me that Josie was coming to Bristol on the 22nd October. The next day!

She had told me via twitter a while earlier that I shouldn’t go to her show because I wouldn’t like it. However, I thought that if I am to stand any chance of engaging with her perspective, at least in a meaningful way for me if not for both of us, then I should go and listen to her, with more than 140 character twitter messages, be able to explain what the heck she’s on about. I should say at this point that I’ve been to comedy clubs before where they have picked on and embarrassed the hell out of someone. What if she found out I was there and then decided to be a complete bitch to me? Well I thought that I was keen enough to explore her viewpoint that I’d go anyway!

The combination of our twitter conversations and listening to her show have prompted me to blog again – something I have not done for a while! So the following posts will be some of my thoughts on our perspectives, and hopefully a good dose of reasoning.

To be continued…

Vélib – Freedom Bikes

Upon arrival in Paris, I was instantly aware of ‘Vélib’ stations dotted all over the city; places where you are able to hire a bicycle in order to navigate your way through the metropolis. Paris has a comprehensive network of cycle paths running alongside but separated from the main vehicular traffic flow; the only problem is that often pedestrians seem unaware that they are straying into a cycle lane. I saw a couple of near misses but no actual collisions.

The technology which the Vélib system uses allows cyclists to pay to use a bicycle (at something resembling a pay and display machine) . This releases the bicycle from the recharging stand points.

Vélib’s website has information regarding hire. When you hire a bicycle, as is stated online: ‘…the first 30 minutes of every journey are always free of charge.’ a cost of €1 applies for the next half hour, then €2 for the third half hour and €4 for each subsequent half hour. The website also states that you can hire a bicycle with a day, week or year subscription. The bicycles are well maintained and can be returned to any of the hire stations. For further information, go to Vélib’s website at: http://www.en.velib.paris.fr/ Bon effort Paris!