I'm sorry. Yes, I am very, very sorry.
If you follow this blog you will have noticed I've been a bit....well... quiet recently. Yes, I've been a wee bit distracted. Yes, cycling is very important to me, but it had to take a back-seat whilst I work on a different project. If you are interested, you can find out more about it, here (http://www.aurumbiosciences.com/). I'm very excited about this one!
Anyway, enough of that, I'm back. I'll be honest, because of my new working status (two jobs part time), I might not be blogging as often, but I will be blogging. So don't give up on me yet!
I'm not back just for the sake of it though. No. I am back because I am angry. I am back because of....Bearsway.
If you look back through my blogs you will see that I've discussed the Bearsway cycle lane in the past. Let's be honest, I've not always been entirely positive about it. There can be no doubt that mistakes have been made. However, since then I've been to two meetings with EDC, one of which was just with myself and a Go-Bike representative, and one of which was a 'stakeholder' event. I've changed my mind.
No, I've not changed my mind about the issues, many of them remain. However, I can honestly say that the council and its employees are really trying hard to deliver an excellent scheme in what is very, VERY difficult circumstances. I really have come to understand the issues that they have faced locally in getting the first phase in, and now that they are looking to extend it (yes it will eventually go all the way from Milngavie centre, to the boundary with Glasgow), the serious issues that they continue to face.
Last Thursday there was a public consultation event. Unfortunately for a few reasons, I couldn't make it. I know a few people who did make it though. I know one of them is going to post a blog about it in the near future, so I won't go into detail, but I thought I'd share a few comments that were written down by locals at the consultation......
...another way of looking at this is that it will be an opportunity to make the road work for no-one.
What about the safety of cars.
Why not give everyone the opportunity to travel on a pogo stick for that matter. Let's be really inclusive.
Where do we que (sic) to execute everyone here working for EDC?
There were apparently more where that came from.
I also know that one cyclist at the meeting was directly threatened by a local resident, with the suggestion that the resident would aim his car at the cyclist if he ever saw him on the road.
Welcome to Milngavie.
Actually, that is a generalisation. I'm sure the vast majority of Milngavie (an affluent middle class Glasgow suburb) are decent folk who wouldn't dream of making comments like the above. But some residents did. Remember, these were not online troll comments, these were real people who turned up at a consultation event.Some of the EDC staff were understandably shaken.
Let's just get rid of the cycle lane and be done with it. More cars is good for Milngavie!!
I was pretty furious upon hearing about all of this. Bullying, threats, and downright ignorance were flying about in abundance. The people involved should be utterly ashamed of themselves, and had I been there, and had I been threatened by someone like that, I would have been straight on my phone to the police. Threats like that, and the one written down, are unacceptable. This is (though not officially) a hate crime. Simple.
I will for my part be doing everything in my power to help EDC with their plans. I will be critical where necessary, but with the understanding that the intention is excellent, the plans are valid, and the possible outcome could transform the area for the better.
They will need your help too. If you feel that the overall purpose of the scheme is good, let the council know, especially the councillors. They are the ones who need to be convinced about this.
I know for a fact that other councils are watching developments in Milngavie with interest, so lets make it obvious that investment in cycling is the future and the dinosaurs are heading for extinction....
Sunday, 22 November 2015
Tuesday, 25 August 2015
I Am An Irresponsible Parent.
I'm not going to make any detailed comment on this, I'll let you guys do that for the time being. This is the response to the letter I sent yesterday to Bridon Contracts. You can read the letter I sent here, or find it at the bottom of the response.
My only comment on is to state, I did at no time hit, tap or come anywhere near anyone's window. That is a complete fabrication. I also didn't weave and any arm movements are explained in my original letter.
So, here it is.
My original email:
My only comment on is to state, I did at no time hit, tap or come anywhere near anyone's window. That is a complete fabrication. I also didn't weave and any arm movements are explained in my original letter.
So, here it is.
Dear Mr Brennan
Thank you for your e-mail, however my operatives had informed us of the situation on Sat, I can appreciate that you were just making sure your children were being kept safe as far as your thoughts were on the road by the actions you yourself had taken by banging car windows and manoeuvring out and waiving your arms around which I am sure was also making your children nervous.
The industry we are in we have to carry out risk assessments every time we undertake any activity and I am sure if you were to have stood back and asked yourself what are the risks if I take my children on very busy road when as in your words they have not ascertained the main road confidence albeit you are experienced but to take young children on this type of road when you know that they could not keep up with normal traffic speed or become very nervous.
Although you say your children wanted to go this way home my comment to you as not only a parent but myself also being a grandparent I would have explained to them how dangerous this could be for them and agreed to provide extra training and waiting until they were older.
Please be assured I have spoken with the operatives and there is always two sides to every story and I have taken the view that both parties were at fault with regards to the situation that had occurred.
The purpose of being competent to use the road and like all equipment is to be trained prior to usage whether it be a bicycle, tools or a vehicle on the road. Have your children passed their cycling efficiency test or been trained to use the road in a safe manner.
What I would suggest is all parties think about their actions that day and as I say every time you point the finger at someone you always point 3 back at yourself!
My operatives are not please that you had taken photos of them as I am sure you would not be happy if they walked up to your children and had taken photos of them without your permission! It is ileagal.
Best Regards
Brian Whittingham
My original email:
Dear Brian,
Apologies for the long e-mail, but please bear with me.
I am a father, and as fathers sometimes do, I like taking my children on bike rides. I am fortunate in that my two oldest, D 10 and M 8, are very keen on cycling. On Saturday morning the weather was clement and thus I decided to take my two boys on a bike ride along the canal close to where I live. We live in Torrance.
Unfortunately the canal is not right next to our house. In fact we need to cycle a relatively short distance to get to it. There are two routes that we can take, one that requires us to on the path and then via some dirt cycle path, or via the road. On the way out we went the path way and had no problems in doing so.
After a while out on the bikes my two boys decided they wanted to return home, but they suggested to me that they wanted to come back the other way. They wanted to do this for two reasons, firstly because there is a relatively fast hill to come down, they enjoy the feeling of speed on their bikes, but secondly because they are keen to learn how to ride on the roads, just like their dad. You see, I am a cyclist who commutes by bike daily to my work at the Southern General Hospital, which is a round trip of about 24 miles a day, a commute I have been doing for a number of years. I have quite a considerable amount of experience cycling on the roads.
I am of course, not a fool. The roads are a difficult environment for a cyclist to be, especially the roads around Torrance. I have suffered my fair share of bad driving when out cycling. However, I also know how to keep my kids safe. I know the techniques for riding in a small group such as this and I know that my children are capable of it. Thus I agreed with M and D that we would ride the alternative route of which 0.9 miles was on the road.
The first 0.5 miles on Torrance Road were uneventful. The road was relatively quiet and for a large part downhill, and when cars did come from behind us they passed with great care and gave us plenty of room. It was only after we joined Balmore Road for the last 0.4 miles that we noticed an issue.
D and M were ahead of me, I was behind and taking a strong position in the lane. This discourages close passes, especially on my children. We were cycling at the speed of my youngest which was probably about 10mph along this road. Yes it was quite slow, but it would not take us long to get to the turn onto Tower Road and to get out of the way of the following cars. A few vehicles did appear behind us, and unfortunately at first as the road was busy coming the other way, it was not safe to pass. A short distance further and I heard the first toot of a horn. I say toot, but it was angrier than that. It wasn't from the driver behind us, who was being patient, but appeared to come from the driver behind. This was an early indication to me that trouble was brewing.
Cycling with my children in this way means I need to keep communicating with them. "a bit further right M", "move a bit closer to your brother D", etc. So knowing that there could be an issue shortly I checked they were in the correct road positions. At this point my youngest, who was at the front said, "should I indicate yet". I suggested that it was too early. Then an opportunity arose for the first car behind to overtake. They did so without a problem. Then the second car, which turned out to be a grey van overtook. Their passenger window was down.
I have no idea exactly what was shouted by the two occupants of the vehicle, but I can assure you it was abusive, threatening and horrible for my kids to hear and be subjected to. I was understandably furious. Perhaps I shouldn't of done, but I waved for the driver to pull over. I did this mainly because I wanted to get a good look at their faces, so if I had managed to get enough details I could take this horrible incident to the police. They drove on.
The next two cars again passed without incident. At this point we were getting closer to the junction and my son had asked if he could signal yet. As he asked another car overtook and again we had horrible abuse shouted at us, for what I can only assume was the short hold up. At this point, feeling very flustered and concerned for the state of mind of my children and their safety I said "yes indicate", and he, I and D all did so. This was of course earlier than I would indicate if I was riding myself. However, I had two flustered children and an understandably flustered 'me', to get safely to the right hand turn and off the road that had very quickly turned hostile.
That is when your employee decided it was a good time to overtake, when myself and my two kids were indicating we were about to turn right. Your employee gave me a 'dagger' look as he drove past. My dismay at this maneuver was compounded by the fact that the driver them proceeded to turn right up the very road that we were about to turn right up. He saved himself a whopping four or five seconds at my reckoning.
If you can understand everything that I have written above, I hope you will understand that I was angry with your driver, who stopped just along the road from my own house. As I passed I indicated (and I at no time swore, which amazed me) that that was a terrible maneuver which had put me and my children especially in danger. His answer was that it was me that was dangerous and me that was putting my children in danger.
I took my kids back to the house and returned to speak to the driver. My intent was only to get his name. He refused to provide me with his name. He and I went on to discuss the incident. The driver agreed that he had overtook after I had signaled but suggested that he had done so as I "had been waving my arms around" and riding dangerously. Yes, I had perhaps been waving my arms around, but that was at the drivers who were abusing my children and also in an attempt to try and control my children. I was pointing to where they should ride at a stressful time.
What the driver repeated a number of times was that he thought I was dangerous. We eventually got to the bottom of that when he clarified that it was 'dangerous of me to take kids on the road' and that 'he would never do that'. Effectively he was suggesting I was a bad parent. At this point, I asked for his name once more. I was refused and so I took his picture (attached).
So am I a bad parent? Does the fact that your driver thinking that I am a bad parent excuse his overtake? If I was indeed waving my arms around and cycling dangerously, is that a good time to overtake? Should you perhaps wait behind?
We live in a world that values the motor vehicle above all else, and I say that as someone who owns and drives one. Delay of any kind is unacceptable. Drivers, not all of course, but a significant proportion, will endanger you or abuse you if they feel that their delay has justified it. On this occasion two drivers felt that a short delay justified abuse towards me and my children and one driver, your employee, couldn't be bothered waiting a few seconds to allow a father and his two boys to safely get out of that abusive situation.
Might I ask that you pass this message on to the driver and let me know what his response to it is. It may also be worth pointing out that I am one of the organisers of a campaign called Pedal on Parliament. This is a campaign that is pushing for the government to invest in proper cycle infrastructure to make the roads safe for all. This would include where appropriate segregated cycle infrastructure that would keep the majority of those 'pesky cyclists' out of the obviously much more important car drivers ways. I suspect though that this particular road would not suit such segregated infrastructure and despite my best efforts it might still be the case that me and my children might hold up your driver for a few seconds.
Perhaps next time he would chose to wait a few seconds instead. is that a lot to ask?
Best regards
David Brennan
Monday, 24 August 2015
A Letter About My Family
Here is an e-mail I've just sent to a local company. I'll let the letter do the talking.
Dear Brian,
Apologies for the long e-mail, but please bear with me.
I am a father, and as fathers sometimes do, I like taking my children on bike rides. I am fortunate in that my two oldest, D 10 and M 8, are very keen on cycling. On Saturday morning the weather was clement and thus I decided to take my two boys on a bike ride along the canal close to where I live. We live in Torrance.
Unfortunately the canal is not right next to our house. In fact we need to cycle a relatively short distance to get to it. There are two routes that we can take, one that requires us to on the path and then via some dirt cycle path, or via the road. On the way out we went the path way and had no problems in doing so.
After a while out on the bikes my two boys decided they wanted to return home, but they suggested to me that they wanted to come back the other way. They wanted to do this for two reasons, firstly because there is a relatively fast hill to come down, they enjoy the feeling of speed on their bikes, but secondly because they are keen to learn how to ride on the roads, just like their dad. You see, I am a cyclist who commutes by bike daily to my work at the Southern General Hospital, which is a round trip of about 24 miles a day, a commute I have been doing for a number of years. I have quite a considerable amount of experience cycling on the roads.
I am of course, not a fool. The roads are a difficult environment for a cyclist to be, especially the roads around Torrance. I have suffered my fair share of bad driving when out cycling. However, I also know how to keep my kids safe. I know the techniques for riding in a small group such as this and I know that my children are capable of it. Thus I agreed with M and D that we would ride the alternative route of which 0.9 miles was on the road.
The first 0.5 miles on Torrance Road were uneventful. The road was relatively quiet and for a large part downhill, and when cars did come from behind us they passed with great care and gave us plenty of room. It was only after we joined Balmore Road for the last 0.4 miles that we noticed an issue.
D and M were ahead of me, I was behind and taking a strong position in the lane. This discourages close passes, especially on my children. We were cycling at the speed of my youngest which was probably about 10mph along this road. Yes it was quite slow, but it would not take us long to get to the turn onto Tower Road and to get out of the way of the following cars. A few vehicles did appear behind us, and unfortunately at first as the road was busy coming the other way, it was not safe to pass. A short distance further and I heard the first toot of a horn. I say toot, but it was angrier than that. It wasn't from the driver behind us, who was being patient, but appeared to come from the driver behind. This was an early indication to me that trouble was brewing.
Cycling with my children in this way means I need to keep communicating with them. "a bit further right M", "move a bit closer to your brother D", etc. So knowing that there could be an issue shortly I checked they were in the correct road positions. At this point my youngest, who was at the front said, "should I indicate yet". I suggested that it was too early. Then an opportunity arose for the first car behind to overtake. They did so without a problem. Then the second car, which turned out to be a grey van overtook. Their passenger window was down.
I have no idea exactly what was shouted by the two occupants of the vehicle, but I can assure you it was abusive, threatening and horrible for my kids to hear and be subjected to. I was understandably furious. Perhaps I shouldn't of done, but I waved for the driver to pull over. I did this mainly because I wanted to get a good look at their faces, so if I had managed to get enough details I could take this horrible incident to the police. They drove on.
The next two cars again passed without incident. At this point we were getting closer to the junction and my son had asked if he could signal yet. As he asked another car overtook and again we had horrible abuse shouted at us, for what I can only assume was the short hold up. At this point, feeling very flustered and concerned for the state of mind of my children and their safety I said "yes indicate", and he, I and D all did so. This was of course earlier than I would indicate if I was riding myself. However, I had two flustered children and an understandably flustered 'me', to get safely to the right hand turn and off the road that had very quickly turned hostile.
That is when your employee decided it was a good time to overtake, when myself and my two kids were indicating we were about to turn right. Your employee gave me a 'dagger' look as he drove past. My dismay at this maneuver was compounded by the fact that the driver them proceeded to turn right up the very road that we were about to turn right up. He saved himself a whopping four or five seconds at my reckoning.
If you can understand everything that I have written above, I hope you will understand that I was angry with your driver, who stopped just along the road from my own house. As I passed I indicated (and I at no time swore, which amazed me) that that was a terrible maneuver which had put me and my children especially in danger. His answer was that it was me that was dangerous and me that was putting my children in danger.
I took my kids back to the house and returned to speak to the driver. My intent was only to get his name. He refused to provide me with his name. He and I went on to discuss the incident. The driver agreed that he had overtook after I had signaled but suggested that he had done so as I "had been waving my arms around" and riding dangerously. Yes, I had perhaps been waving my arms around, but that was at the drivers who were abusing my children and also in an attempt to try and control my children. I was pointing to where they should ride at a stressful time.
What the driver repeated a number of times was that he thought I was dangerous. We eventually got to the bottom of that when he clarified that it was 'dangerous of me to take kids on the road' and that 'he would never do that'. Effectively he was suggesting I was a bad parent. At this point, I asked for his name once more. I was refused and so I took his picture (attached).
So am I a bad parent? Does the fact that your driver thinking that I am a bad parent excuse his overtake? If I was indeed waving my arms around and cycling dangerously, is that a good time to overtake? Should you perhaps wait behind?
We live in a world that values the motor vehicle above all else, and I say that as someone who owns and drives one. Delay of any kind is unacceptable. Drivers, not all of course, but a significant proportion, will endanger you or abuse you if they feel that their delay has justified it. On this occasion two drivers felt that a short delay justified abuse towards me and my children and one driver, your employee, couldn't be bothered waiting a few seconds to allow a father and his two boys to safely get out of that abusive situation.
Might I ask that you pass this message on to the driver and let me know what his response to it is. It may also be worth pointing out that I am one of the organisers of a campaign called Pedal on Parliament. This is a campaign that is pushing for the government to invest in proper cycle infrastructure to make the roads safe for all. This would include where appropriate segregated cycle infrastructure that would keep the majority of those 'pesky cyclists' out of the obviously much more important car drivers ways. I suspect though that this particular road would not suit such segregated infrastructure and despite my best efforts it might still be the case that me and my children might hold up your driver for a few seconds.
Perhaps next time he would chose to wait a few seconds instead. is that a lot to ask?
Best regards
David Brennan
Dear Brian,
Apologies for the long e-mail, but please bear with me.
I am a father, and as fathers sometimes do, I like taking my children on bike rides. I am fortunate in that my two oldest, D 10 and M 8, are very keen on cycling. On Saturday morning the weather was clement and thus I decided to take my two boys on a bike ride along the canal close to where I live. We live in Torrance.
Unfortunately the canal is not right next to our house. In fact we need to cycle a relatively short distance to get to it. There are two routes that we can take, one that requires us to on the path and then via some dirt cycle path, or via the road. On the way out we went the path way and had no problems in doing so.
After a while out on the bikes my two boys decided they wanted to return home, but they suggested to me that they wanted to come back the other way. They wanted to do this for two reasons, firstly because there is a relatively fast hill to come down, they enjoy the feeling of speed on their bikes, but secondly because they are keen to learn how to ride on the roads, just like their dad. You see, I am a cyclist who commutes by bike daily to my work at the Southern General Hospital, which is a round trip of about 24 miles a day, a commute I have been doing for a number of years. I have quite a considerable amount of experience cycling on the roads.
I am of course, not a fool. The roads are a difficult environment for a cyclist to be, especially the roads around Torrance. I have suffered my fair share of bad driving when out cycling. However, I also know how to keep my kids safe. I know the techniques for riding in a small group such as this and I know that my children are capable of it. Thus I agreed with M and D that we would ride the alternative route of which 0.9 miles was on the road.
The first 0.5 miles on Torrance Road were uneventful. The road was relatively quiet and for a large part downhill, and when cars did come from behind us they passed with great care and gave us plenty of room. It was only after we joined Balmore Road for the last 0.4 miles that we noticed an issue.
D and M were ahead of me, I was behind and taking a strong position in the lane. This discourages close passes, especially on my children. We were cycling at the speed of my youngest which was probably about 10mph along this road. Yes it was quite slow, but it would not take us long to get to the turn onto Tower Road and to get out of the way of the following cars. A few vehicles did appear behind us, and unfortunately at first as the road was busy coming the other way, it was not safe to pass. A short distance further and I heard the first toot of a horn. I say toot, but it was angrier than that. It wasn't from the driver behind us, who was being patient, but appeared to come from the driver behind. This was an early indication to me that trouble was brewing.
Cycling with my children in this way means I need to keep communicating with them. "a bit further right M", "move a bit closer to your brother D", etc. So knowing that there could be an issue shortly I checked they were in the correct road positions. At this point my youngest, who was at the front said, "should I indicate yet". I suggested that it was too early. Then an opportunity arose for the first car behind to overtake. They did so without a problem. Then the second car, which turned out to be a grey van overtook. Their passenger window was down.
I have no idea exactly what was shouted by the two occupants of the vehicle, but I can assure you it was abusive, threatening and horrible for my kids to hear and be subjected to. I was understandably furious. Perhaps I shouldn't of done, but I waved for the driver to pull over. I did this mainly because I wanted to get a good look at their faces, so if I had managed to get enough details I could take this horrible incident to the police. They drove on.
The next two cars again passed without incident. At this point we were getting closer to the junction and my son had asked if he could signal yet. As he asked another car overtook and again we had horrible abuse shouted at us, for what I can only assume was the short hold up. At this point, feeling very flustered and concerned for the state of mind of my children and their safety I said "yes indicate", and he, I and D all did so. This was of course earlier than I would indicate if I was riding myself. However, I had two flustered children and an understandably flustered 'me', to get safely to the right hand turn and off the road that had very quickly turned hostile.
That is when your employee decided it was a good time to overtake, when myself and my two kids were indicating we were about to turn right. Your employee gave me a 'dagger' look as he drove past. My dismay at this maneuver was compounded by the fact that the driver them proceeded to turn right up the very road that we were about to turn right up. He saved himself a whopping four or five seconds at my reckoning.
If you can understand everything that I have written above, I hope you will understand that I was angry with your driver, who stopped just along the road from my own house. As I passed I indicated (and I at no time swore, which amazed me) that that was a terrible maneuver which had put me and my children especially in danger. His answer was that it was me that was dangerous and me that was putting my children in danger.
I took my kids back to the house and returned to speak to the driver. My intent was only to get his name. He refused to provide me with his name. He and I went on to discuss the incident. The driver agreed that he had overtook after I had signaled but suggested that he had done so as I "had been waving my arms around" and riding dangerously. Yes, I had perhaps been waving my arms around, but that was at the drivers who were abusing my children and also in an attempt to try and control my children. I was pointing to where they should ride at a stressful time.
What the driver repeated a number of times was that he thought I was dangerous. We eventually got to the bottom of that when he clarified that it was 'dangerous of me to take kids on the road' and that 'he would never do that'. Effectively he was suggesting I was a bad parent. At this point, I asked for his name once more. I was refused and so I took his picture (attached).
So am I a bad parent? Does the fact that your driver thinking that I am a bad parent excuse his overtake? If I was indeed waving my arms around and cycling dangerously, is that a good time to overtake? Should you perhaps wait behind?
We live in a world that values the motor vehicle above all else, and I say that as someone who owns and drives one. Delay of any kind is unacceptable. Drivers, not all of course, but a significant proportion, will endanger you or abuse you if they feel that their delay has justified it. On this occasion two drivers felt that a short delay justified abuse towards me and my children and one driver, your employee, couldn't be bothered waiting a few seconds to allow a father and his two boys to safely get out of that abusive situation.
Might I ask that you pass this message on to the driver and let me know what his response to it is. It may also be worth pointing out that I am one of the organisers of a campaign called Pedal on Parliament. This is a campaign that is pushing for the government to invest in proper cycle infrastructure to make the roads safe for all. This would include where appropriate segregated cycle infrastructure that would keep the majority of those 'pesky cyclists' out of the obviously much more important car drivers ways. I suspect though that this particular road would not suit such segregated infrastructure and despite my best efforts it might still be the case that me and my children might hold up your driver for a few seconds.
Perhaps next time he would chose to wait a few seconds instead. is that a lot to ask?
Best regards
David Brennan
Friday, 14 August 2015
My Letter to Asda
Dear Mr Clarke,
Unfortunately I am writing to you with regards to the driving of one of your HGV drivers. Let me explain.
I am a cyclist, that is I cycle from my home in Torrance to my work at the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow (recently renamed Queen Elizabeth University Hospital). It is a 11 mile cycle each way. Sometimes on my way I encounter poor driving that puts me at significant risk. I therefore wear cameras to provide proof in case of any incidents. On Thursday (13th August 2015) I had the day off. However, as a cyclist who campaigns for safer roads via a blog (www.magnatom.net) and via a campaign I help to run (www.pedalonparliament.org), on this occasion I was cycling along my normal commuting route heading to a cycle campaign meeting in Milngavie. This meeting was with local council officials and representatives of other cycle organisations to discuss some local cycle infrastructure. Thus I was cycling along Balmore Road at approximately 10:15am (13th August 2015).
It is along this road that I encountered one of your drivers. Rather than describe the incident I will provide you with some video of it from my helmet camera and my rear view camera. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY3AA8C1IEk)
As you will see from the footage I was quite shocked by what was a terrible overtake. Driving of this standard is not acceptable from a car driver, never mind an HGV driver where the consequences are potentially more severe.
You are probably not aware, but very recently British Cycling has just released a video describing the issues surrounding cyclists and overtaking. It is well worth a look (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9pmw2ckQSU).
Would you consider sharing this with your workforce?
Obviously the overtake in this case was well below the standard expected of a competent driver. Please could you investigate this issue, and do everything in your power to ensure that driving like this doesn't occur again.
Your sincerely,
Dr David Brennan
Unfortunately I am writing to you with regards to the driving of one of your HGV drivers. Let me explain.
I am a cyclist, that is I cycle from my home in Torrance to my work at the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow (recently renamed Queen Elizabeth University Hospital). It is a 11 mile cycle each way. Sometimes on my way I encounter poor driving that puts me at significant risk. I therefore wear cameras to provide proof in case of any incidents. On Thursday (13th August 2015) I had the day off. However, as a cyclist who campaigns for safer roads via a blog (www.magnatom.net) and via a campaign I help to run (www.pedalonparliament.org), on this occasion I was cycling along my normal commuting route heading to a cycle campaign meeting in Milngavie. This meeting was with local council officials and representatives of other cycle organisations to discuss some local cycle infrastructure. Thus I was cycling along Balmore Road at approximately 10:15am (13th August 2015).
It is along this road that I encountered one of your drivers. Rather than describe the incident I will provide you with some video of it from my helmet camera and my rear view camera. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY3AA8C1IEk)
As you will see from the footage I was quite shocked by what was a terrible overtake. Driving of this standard is not acceptable from a car driver, never mind an HGV driver where the consequences are potentially more severe.
You are probably not aware, but very recently British Cycling has just released a video describing the issues surrounding cyclists and overtaking. It is well worth a look (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9pmw2ckQSU).
Would you consider sharing this with your workforce?
Obviously the overtake in this case was well below the standard expected of a competent driver. Please could you investigate this issue, and do everything in your power to ensure that driving like this doesn't occur again.
Your sincerely,
Dr David Brennan
Tuesday, 11 August 2015
Red Lights, and Red Herrings.
Let me get one thing straight from the start. I don't red light jump. I don't feel a need for it.
Right. Glad I got that out the way.
Some people on bikes do red light jump. That's a fact. I am though, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, not guilty of the sins of others, and thus their red light jumping in no way whatsoever reflects on my cycling.
No matter how many times I or others refute it of course, many commentators use red light jumping as a crutch upon which to build their arguments. Just today Mr Loophole, though he didn't say it specifically suggest that behaviour like it justifys the need for bike registration and legislation.
You can listen to the interview here.
Yes, we've heard it all before. But it got me thinking......
Why is it that we actually have rules on the road? Why don't we just let everyone get on with it? Surely everyone would do their best, to avoid getting killed? Well, history tells us different, and it all began with men with red flags, running in front of cars. Today we have strict rules and regulations that are there for a reason....to protect us from risk.
Driving a car is associated with risk. When you drive a car you are propelling a 1 tonne hunk of metal, plastic and fabric along at high speed. It has considerable momentum and has the potential for surprisingly considerable destruction.
Cycling on the other hand is, as Carlton Reid put in the interview above is.'a benign form of transport'. Now neither of us are claiming that cycling is risk free with regards to other road users. It is entirely possible for a cyclist to kill someone. It is however a very small risk, possibly not too dissimilar to someone accidentally running into someone and knocking them over if they are out jogging.
In that same interview (above), Mr Loophole (Nick Freeman) who is a lawyer known to get drivers 'off' charges, suggested that we need 'legislation to help identify cyclists', 'legislation to allow cyclists to be banned' and we 'need to force cyclists to wear helmets'.
I'm not going to touch on the helmets. That is dealt with very well elsewhere. I'm going to focus on one particular type of 'transgression' that Mr Loophole is almost certainly referring to.
Red light jumping.
I'll focus on that as it is something that many hate, many think is dangerous and because it has accurate statistics associated with it.
First the stats.
The source for this table can be found here. TFL
This table discusses the cause of cyclist casualties in London, a particularly busy (by UK standards) city for cycling. It shows the top five causes. Interestingly the top 5, contrary to what many might believe or suggest, does not include cyclists red light jumping. In fact the top 5 reasons are not the cyclists fault at all, they are the drivers fault.
The actual rate of cyclists accidents which are caused by cyclists running red lights, something that 'many apparently do', is 2% according to the Department for Transport.
It would appear that the nasty cyclists who are cycling terribly and running red lights are actually doing it..... umm, errr,.....well.....safely. The risk of cyclists, running red lights appears to be very small.
This got me thinking, as did this incident that I recorded the other day on my camera.
I was annoyed at the time, but the reality is that what they did was very, very safe. None of them were riding fast, none of them endangered anyone, and I'm certain that had someone been crossing, that they would either have stopped or cycled past with plenty of room to spare.
So running red lights is generally safe for cyclists to do, it would appear.
Then today I read the news from Paris that there, at certain traffic lights (almost certainly like this one), cyclists would be allowed to run the red light.
Now let me make this clear. I don't condone red light jumping here in the UK and I won't be doing it, but the reality is that cycling through a red, if done with care, is very rarely risky to anyone.
OK, so what's my point?!
My point is that the very thing that Mr Loophole and friends, get all worked up about...dangerous lycra louts, blah, blah blah, is a whopping great red herring. Cycling really is a benign form of transport. The health benefits to the nation as a whole far, FAR, FAR, outweigh the very small risk that cyclists pose to others and themselves.
The real risk, to everyone on the roads, are those that drive the 1 tonne plus of metal around.
That's not anti-car in any way, remember I drive one myself (and not a small one), it's just a fact.
So what of the law?
Well, when it comes to road law, its purpose is to keep those who use the roads safe. Road law is not there to pander to Mr Loophole and Mr Angry (perhaps the same person). Just because many are ignorant of the real risks and get angry when a cyclist runs a red light, or pavement cycles or God forbid...legally rides two abreast.....does not mean any new laws or registration is required. What it does demonstrate is that people get angry for no good reason and they often take that anger out on the cyclist, who is an easy target.
The answer, as I have said, many, many times, is to change our infrastructure, something that Mr Loophole and I agree on.
I did laugh though when Mr Loophole said
'Cyclists riding on our roads'.
No. They are not your roads. They are everyone's road. The problem is that they are currently designed as roads exclusively for the motor car. It's time we all took them back.
Right. Glad I got that out the way.
Some people on bikes do red light jump. That's a fact. I am though, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, not guilty of the sins of others, and thus their red light jumping in no way whatsoever reflects on my cycling.
No matter how many times I or others refute it of course, many commentators use red light jumping as a crutch upon which to build their arguments. Just today Mr Loophole, though he didn't say it specifically suggest that behaviour like it justifys the need for bike registration and legislation.
You can listen to the interview here.
Yes, we've heard it all before. But it got me thinking......
Why is it that we actually have rules on the road? Why don't we just let everyone get on with it? Surely everyone would do their best, to avoid getting killed? Well, history tells us different, and it all began with men with red flags, running in front of cars. Today we have strict rules and regulations that are there for a reason....to protect us from risk.
Driving a car is associated with risk. When you drive a car you are propelling a 1 tonne hunk of metal, plastic and fabric along at high speed. It has considerable momentum and has the potential for surprisingly considerable destruction.
Cycling on the other hand is, as Carlton Reid put in the interview above is.'a benign form of transport'. Now neither of us are claiming that cycling is risk free with regards to other road users. It is entirely possible for a cyclist to kill someone. It is however a very small risk, possibly not too dissimilar to someone accidentally running into someone and knocking them over if they are out jogging.
In that same interview (above), Mr Loophole (Nick Freeman) who is a lawyer known to get drivers 'off' charges, suggested that we need 'legislation to help identify cyclists', 'legislation to allow cyclists to be banned' and we 'need to force cyclists to wear helmets'.
I'm not going to touch on the helmets. That is dealt with very well elsewhere. I'm going to focus on one particular type of 'transgression' that Mr Loophole is almost certainly referring to.
Red light jumping.
I'll focus on that as it is something that many hate, many think is dangerous and because it has accurate statistics associated with it.
First the stats.
The source for this table can be found here. TFL
This table discusses the cause of cyclist casualties in London, a particularly busy (by UK standards) city for cycling. It shows the top five causes. Interestingly the top 5, contrary to what many might believe or suggest, does not include cyclists red light jumping. In fact the top 5 reasons are not the cyclists fault at all, they are the drivers fault.
The actual rate of cyclists accidents which are caused by cyclists running red lights, something that 'many apparently do', is 2% according to the Department for Transport.
It would appear that the nasty cyclists who are cycling terribly and running red lights are actually doing it..... umm, errr,.....well.....safely. The risk of cyclists, running red lights appears to be very small.
This got me thinking, as did this incident that I recorded the other day on my camera.
I was annoyed at the time, but the reality is that what they did was very, very safe. None of them were riding fast, none of them endangered anyone, and I'm certain that had someone been crossing, that they would either have stopped or cycled past with plenty of room to spare.
So running red lights is generally safe for cyclists to do, it would appear.
Then today I read the news from Paris that there, at certain traffic lights (almost certainly like this one), cyclists would be allowed to run the red light.
Now let me make this clear. I don't condone red light jumping here in the UK and I won't be doing it, but the reality is that cycling through a red, if done with care, is very rarely risky to anyone.
OK, so what's my point?!
My point is that the very thing that Mr Loophole and friends, get all worked up about...dangerous lycra louts, blah, blah blah, is a whopping great red herring. Cycling really is a benign form of transport. The health benefits to the nation as a whole far, FAR, FAR, outweigh the very small risk that cyclists pose to others and themselves.
The real risk, to everyone on the roads, are those that drive the 1 tonne plus of metal around.
That's not anti-car in any way, remember I drive one myself (and not a small one), it's just a fact.
So what of the law?
Well, when it comes to road law, its purpose is to keep those who use the roads safe. Road law is not there to pander to Mr Loophole and Mr Angry (perhaps the same person). Just because many are ignorant of the real risks and get angry when a cyclist runs a red light, or pavement cycles or God forbid...legally rides two abreast.....does not mean any new laws or registration is required. What it does demonstrate is that people get angry for no good reason and they often take that anger out on the cyclist, who is an easy target.
The answer, as I have said, many, many times, is to change our infrastructure, something that Mr Loophole and I agree on.
I did laugh though when Mr Loophole said
'Cyclists riding on our roads'.
No. They are not your roads. They are everyone's road. The problem is that they are currently designed as roads exclusively for the motor car. It's time we all took them back.
Monday, 20 July 2015
When Cycle Lanes Can Be Dangerous
Let's start with two pictures that I tweeted earlier.
Hmm.
Way back at the planning stage of this Bears Way cycle lane myself and others pointed out that having a two way lane on one side was a very big compromise. It would have been much, much better to have a single direction lane on both sides. Now I understand that there were issues with local acceptance of the scheme that would make that difficult. It wouldn't have been easy, but at the time I and others pointed out that it would be likely that cyclists coming in the 'wrong direction' would find the lane too difficult to use, unless, and this was a very big unless, the entry and exit points were very well designed.
My pictures above demonstrate that they are not. They are a disaster. In this one entrance/exit:
The upshot of this is, that I and other cyclists are generally choosing not to use the lane. It's very awkward to get into and out of, and by the time I do that (heading north), I'd be half way along the road. I discussed this with the engineer (see my reply on this blog) I pointed out that designing a lane that most cyclists would not chose to use would lead to conflict. And so it was for me recently, just before I went on holiday two weeks ago....
It was pouring of rain, the roads were greasy, and I had two people driving cars who sat right on my backside, and who both shouted at me that I should be in the cycle lane. That is, they justified their driving so close due to me not using the cycle lane that they think I should be using.
Build bad, build conflict.
I can't show you the video yet as I've not had a chance to edit it, but I will do. I had actually thought about reporting one driver to the police it was that bad, but my holiday got in the way. I'll have it up in a day or so.
I did though do a quick calculation. I looked at the speed I average along the length of road next to the cycle lane. I average 20mph. The speed limit here is 30mph. The distance is 0.84 miles. It turned out that if a car is stuck behind me the whole way and sits at 20mph instead of 30mph (no-one would dream of speeding along here...oh no...), then I would hold them up for 46 seconds.
46 seconds.
Now neither of the people driving cars two weeks ago were behind me for the full length of the road. In fact they weren't even behind me for half of it. The reality is that they put my life in danger in poor conditions (sitting 0.3 seconds from my rear wheel) for the sake of 10 seconds..... at most.
Worse than that, when I get out of the way of the second car (I actually GOT out of the way and I pulled right over to the side), they stopped for about 15 seconds to tell me that I should be in the cycle lane, so their own prejudice held themselves up more than I did.
Let me though, be absolutely clear. East Dunbartonshire council took a leap of faith. They have reallocated space from motor vehicles to cyclists and they have done so, as far as I can tell, with minimal impact to pedestrians. Perhaps even with a slight improvement for pedestrians. I really, really, REALLY want to love this. Honestly I do. I'm desperate to be positive about this. I just can't be.
As it stands, it's not crap, it is dangerous.
Change this lane to south only, and take the leap of building a lane on the other side heading north, extend it and do away with the crazy exit give ways and then we would have something that East Dunbartonshire could be proud of. But....and this is an absolutely humungous but.....use designs standards like this, build it like this, make cyclists cede to motor vehicles like this......and I and many other cyclists won't use it. Sorry.
I'll say it again, as it's very, very important....
Build bad, build conflict.
This project has proven the point.
Today I rode on what I think is finished cycle lane in Milngavie. Lost for words on this bit. Both exit and entrance. pic.twitter.com/40mgfkbuvu
— David Brennan (@magnatom) July 20, 2015
Hmm.
Way back at the planning stage of this Bears Way cycle lane myself and others pointed out that having a two way lane on one side was a very big compromise. It would have been much, much better to have a single direction lane on both sides. Now I understand that there were issues with local acceptance of the scheme that would make that difficult. It wouldn't have been easy, but at the time I and others pointed out that it would be likely that cyclists coming in the 'wrong direction' would find the lane too difficult to use, unless, and this was a very big unless, the entry and exit points were very well designed.
My pictures above demonstrate that they are not. They are a disaster. In this one entrance/exit:
- Not only do you have to give way to pedestrians who are crossing the road (this is not necessarily a bad thing), but why a give way, and why do cyclists have to give way but drivers do not?
- How do you actually get into the lane coming the other way? The hatching suggests that you can't use the main entrance. Instead you need to come in via the pedestrian island. This means you need to stop at the pinch point, cycle/walk onto the island (which is not wide enough for a bike) and then across into the lane.
- The blue paint. I have no idea what this blue paint means. It is dotted along various parts of the lane. It is slightly raised, rough, and very close to the colour of the road. It will certainly not be visible at night.
- This is the doozy. As you approach the exit, as a cyclist, you need to start looking behind you. If you see a car behind you, indicating or not, you have to assume that the car could be turning left. Until you know it is safe to continue, you should stop. That's how a give way works. So, this give way effectively removes the normal priority in this situation. Instead of the overtaking vehicle having to yeld to the cyclist, the cyclist mus yield to overtaking traffic. This is, quite simply, a serious accident waiting to happen.
- Rather than continue the curbing up until the turn itself, they have finished it early. That creates a lovely sweeping curve that will encourage the drivers to turn fast......into any damn cyclist who doesn't cede to the almighty motor vehicle, will be hit at speed. Nearly all the turns on this lane are sweeping like this.
The upshot of this is, that I and other cyclists are generally choosing not to use the lane. It's very awkward to get into and out of, and by the time I do that (heading north), I'd be half way along the road. I discussed this with the engineer (see my reply on this blog) I pointed out that designing a lane that most cyclists would not chose to use would lead to conflict. And so it was for me recently, just before I went on holiday two weeks ago....
It was pouring of rain, the roads were greasy, and I had two people driving cars who sat right on my backside, and who both shouted at me that I should be in the cycle lane. That is, they justified their driving so close due to me not using the cycle lane that they think I should be using.
Build bad, build conflict.
I can't show you the video yet as I've not had a chance to edit it, but I will do. I had actually thought about reporting one driver to the police it was that bad, but my holiday got in the way. I'll have it up in a day or so.
I did though do a quick calculation. I looked at the speed I average along the length of road next to the cycle lane. I average 20mph. The speed limit here is 30mph. The distance is 0.84 miles. It turned out that if a car is stuck behind me the whole way and sits at 20mph instead of 30mph (no-one would dream of speeding along here...oh no...), then I would hold them up for 46 seconds.
46 seconds.
Now neither of the people driving cars two weeks ago were behind me for the full length of the road. In fact they weren't even behind me for half of it. The reality is that they put my life in danger in poor conditions (sitting 0.3 seconds from my rear wheel) for the sake of 10 seconds..... at most.
Worse than that, when I get out of the way of the second car (I actually GOT out of the way and I pulled right over to the side), they stopped for about 15 seconds to tell me that I should be in the cycle lane, so their own prejudice held themselves up more than I did.
Let me though, be absolutely clear. East Dunbartonshire council took a leap of faith. They have reallocated space from motor vehicles to cyclists and they have done so, as far as I can tell, with minimal impact to pedestrians. Perhaps even with a slight improvement for pedestrians. I really, really, REALLY want to love this. Honestly I do. I'm desperate to be positive about this. I just can't be.
As it stands, it's not crap, it is dangerous.
Change this lane to south only, and take the leap of building a lane on the other side heading north, extend it and do away with the crazy exit give ways and then we would have something that East Dunbartonshire could be proud of. But....and this is an absolutely humungous but.....use designs standards like this, build it like this, make cyclists cede to motor vehicles like this......and I and many other cyclists won't use it. Sorry.
I'll say it again, as it's very, very important....
Build bad, build conflict.
This project has proven the point.
Monday, 29 June 2015
My Day in Court: The Fog Clears
Last week I attended court and at the time wrote a blog on the experience and the outcome, which for reasons I detail in that blog, I thought was wrong. It's well worth a read. I must admit my brain was pretty foggy when I wrote that blog as I had had a long day at court, had been questioned fairly vigorously, and had been on a bit of an emotional roller-coaster. That explains why I gloss over a lot of the detail in the blog as it was all a bit mixed up in my head.
It was only when I was heading home the next day that the fog lifted. I was cycling up Crow Road through Anniesland when I suddenly remembered probably the most crucial part of the trial. It hit me like a bit of a brick wall. I must admit when I got home I was pretty livid and as a result I took the weekend to chill out before writing about this. I didn't want to write it in anger.
If you look back at the trial blog, you'll see that the main issue was the identity of the vehicle. The magistrate had brought this up in the summation and effectively directed the defence to follow that line of defence. This was despite the fact that the driver was the only driver of this particular car and admitted driving along that road that evening at around that time, the fact that I shouted out the registration at the time of the incident (i.e. I witnessed it), the fact that the car appearance fitted the car that the registration matched (colour and general type) and the fact that the police, had they been asked, could have confirmed that the shape of the car from the back suggested it was an Audi.
Beyond, reasonable doubt?
However, my memory had cleared and I remembered something quite significant that happened during the trial.
As I was being shown the video the Procurator Fiscal (PF) asked me to recite the registration of the car in the video, and that I had had the incident with. I managed to recite the first four characters, but at that point my mind went blank, and I stumbled. I asked the PF if she could read back my statement to remind me (something I believe I am allowed to ask for). The PF started to look for it. As she did so the magistrate interrupted. He said something along the lines of...'this is not in dispute, is it?' First he looked at the PF and then the defence lawyer. The defence lawyer rose a little and said, 'it is not your honour'. As a result I was not asked to complete my recital of the registration.
There was no dispute.
The trial continued.
It was only at the point of summation, when the defence lawyer was trying to convince the magistrate that the car wasn't close at all, that the magistrate started questioning the identity of the vehicle. The defence lawyer never did during the trial itself. The magistrate suggested that we couldn't be certain that that car was the car being driven by the defendant, and yet the magistrate was the one who had clarified and received an answer that the registration was not in dispute and I was not required to say it in court.
I am therefore, as I am sure you can imagine, very confused as to how this all occurred.
The identity of the vehicle was not in doubt, but then it was.
I have looked into possibly of getting a transcript of the case, but I'm not sure I can, or if it even exists at all. I've seen suggestions that in non-jury trials, transcripts are often not taken/recorded in Scotland. Why?!? So whilst I am pretty angry about this, that's just about as far as it can probably go. Unless anyone knows any different of course!
In the grand scheme of things, my wee court case probably doesn't matter. It's small fish to a centuries old legal system that would appear to still be running things as if it was running centuries ago. However, something certainly conspired against me.
So what exactly is the required level of evidence for a dangerous driving conviction? I'm bu%%ered if I know.
Anyway, it just so happens, I'm off to court again tomorrow. Joy.....
It was only when I was heading home the next day that the fog lifted. I was cycling up Crow Road through Anniesland when I suddenly remembered probably the most crucial part of the trial. It hit me like a bit of a brick wall. I must admit when I got home I was pretty livid and as a result I took the weekend to chill out before writing about this. I didn't want to write it in anger.
If you look back at the trial blog, you'll see that the main issue was the identity of the vehicle. The magistrate had brought this up in the summation and effectively directed the defence to follow that line of defence. This was despite the fact that the driver was the only driver of this particular car and admitted driving along that road that evening at around that time, the fact that I shouted out the registration at the time of the incident (i.e. I witnessed it), the fact that the car appearance fitted the car that the registration matched (colour and general type) and the fact that the police, had they been asked, could have confirmed that the shape of the car from the back suggested it was an Audi.
Beyond, reasonable doubt?
However, my memory had cleared and I remembered something quite significant that happened during the trial.
As I was being shown the video the Procurator Fiscal (PF) asked me to recite the registration of the car in the video, and that I had had the incident with. I managed to recite the first four characters, but at that point my mind went blank, and I stumbled. I asked the PF if she could read back my statement to remind me (something I believe I am allowed to ask for). The PF started to look for it. As she did so the magistrate interrupted. He said something along the lines of...'this is not in dispute, is it?' First he looked at the PF and then the defence lawyer. The defence lawyer rose a little and said, 'it is not your honour'. As a result I was not asked to complete my recital of the registration.
There was no dispute.
The trial continued.
It was only at the point of summation, when the defence lawyer was trying to convince the magistrate that the car wasn't close at all, that the magistrate started questioning the identity of the vehicle. The defence lawyer never did during the trial itself. The magistrate suggested that we couldn't be certain that that car was the car being driven by the defendant, and yet the magistrate was the one who had clarified and received an answer that the registration was not in dispute and I was not required to say it in court.
I am therefore, as I am sure you can imagine, very confused as to how this all occurred.
The identity of the vehicle was not in doubt, but then it was.
I have looked into possibly of getting a transcript of the case, but I'm not sure I can, or if it even exists at all. I've seen suggestions that in non-jury trials, transcripts are often not taken/recorded in Scotland. Why?!? So whilst I am pretty angry about this, that's just about as far as it can probably go. Unless anyone knows any different of course!
In the grand scheme of things, my wee court case probably doesn't matter. It's small fish to a centuries old legal system that would appear to still be running things as if it was running centuries ago. However, something certainly conspired against me.
So what exactly is the required level of evidence for a dangerous driving conviction? I'm bu%%ered if I know.
Anyway, it just so happens, I'm off to court again tomorrow. Joy.....
Friday, 26 June 2015
More Court Case Woes
Recently you may remember that two of my dangerous driving cases were dropped. Unfortunately I still don't know the reasons why these cases were dropped despite chasing this up a few times. I have therefore made the following complaint to the 'Response and Information Unit' at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
I'm not having much luck with cases at the moment....
I'm not having much luck with cases at the moment....
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have recently been involved in two separate cases recently (case1 and case2) where I was the main prosecution witness and victim. Both were cases of dangerous driving that occurred on the same day whilst I was cycling to work. I recorded these incidents on helmet and rear bike mounted cameras, reported them to the police and was subsequently cited to appear in court for both cases. Both drivers were charged with dangerous driving.
Case case1 was dropped on the day of the trial whilst I was attending Dumbarton Sheriff Court. I was not informed at the time why the case was dropped. Upon calling the the COPFS I was informed that I would need to contact the COPFS via e-mail if I wanted to know why the case had been dropped. I did this on the 19th May 2015.
Case case2 was dropped the day before I was due to attend court. Again I was informed by the COPFS that I would have to e-mail them to find out why the case had been dropped. I duly did this on the 4th June 2015.
It is now the 26th June and I still have not received any feedback on these cases. I am still in the dark as to why these cases, which I consider to be serious in their nature, were dropped. I have sent three e-mails asking for a response for case case1 (I have received one e-mail back saying I would hear back soon, but never did). I have sent two e-mails asking for a response for case case2.
Both of these incidents were distressing for me (you can watch the videos of the incidents yourself http://www.magnatom.net/2015/06/the-failure-of-justice.html). Both the drivers in these incidents will be fully aware of why the case has been dropped and yet, despite myself chasing the COPFS up on a number of occasions now, I am still none the wiser.
Through my campaigning work for safer roads for all with Pedal on Parliament (http://pedalonparliament.org/) I have met families who have unfortunately lost their loved ones in road incidents not too dissimilar to the ones in the video above. I know that they feel like I do that the rights of the victims are treated more contemptuously than the accused.
Please can you investigate the COPFS and find out why I have not been passed on the details I have requested and please can you help me gain these details. I have attached the e-mails in question to aid your investigation.
For your information this letter will be posted on my blog (www.magnatom.net) later this evening with the case numbers redacted.
Best regards
Dr David Brennan
Thursday, 25 June 2015
My Day in Court
Despite what some may think I have never actually been in court as a witness before. Today was the first case that has actually got to that stage.
First, here is the incident itself.
This occurred back in February 2014 and has only now gone to court. The case was submitted to the Procurator Fiscal (PF) by the police with the suggested charge of Dangerous Driving. The PF agreed and a trial date was eventually set to try the driver for Dangerous Driving.
So today I went to court in Glasgow. This morning was mainly spent sitting. Waiting. Sitting. Waiting. It was a long morning. Lots witnesses were getting called and either dismissed or taken into court. Only approaching lunchtime did I hear that my case was going ahead and for some reason had been swapped from court 19 to court 20.
The PF then asked for a quick word. She asked me where my cameras were placed. I pointed out they were on my helmet and, at that time, on my downtube. That was all the PF spoke to me about before the trial.
Soon I was taken through to court and there I was standing in the witness box. There was the judge...actually a magistrate in this case, a clerk, another person who I think was a clerk and who seemed to be just doing some random work on a computer, the PF, the defence lawyer, a police officer and the accused. There was no-one in the public gallery throughout the trial.
First off the PF asked me questions. My name, age, occupation, what happened how did I feel, etc. This was all before the footage was shown. At this early stage I have to be honest, but I felt the PF was nervous, hesitant and unprepared. I was asked about passing distances, who recommended it etc.
At one point I was asked a particular question about acceptable driving. The magistrate then pointed out to the PF that this would only be appropriate if I was deemed an expert witness. The PF was hesitant about this. She was not sure about this at all. The magistrate then suggested that I be removed whilst this was discussed.
When I came back in, though I wasn't told the outcome, it became clear that I was not considered an expert and that my opinion was to be limited to what was relevant to cycling, though saying what was too close etc was ok.
In the video used in court two cars overtaking were seen from the rear camera. These cars gave me room. The magistrate asked if this could have been related to the change in lighting. I suggested it wasn't.
I was asked about my visibility, where I pointed out my lights (2 on back, 2 on front). I also mentioned my hi-vis. Yes this is not necessary, but it wouldn't hinder my case. I did not mention and was not asked about wearing a helmet, although that was probably implied by having a helmet camera!!
We started looking at the footage and after watching all the way through I was asked questions about it. What was happening, where I was, the road conditions and details about the incident itself. During this section we approached lunchtime and the case was ajourned until after lunch.
I treated myself to a roll and sausage!
Back in court the video analysis continued. How did I feel. How close did I think it was, and importantly what position did I ride on the road. This led to discussions of the primary and secondary road position. What it was, why it was recommended and where exactly I was. I was probably in a strong secondary just over a metre out.
Then the PF rested her examination. I have no idea how long it was! At a guess, 30 mins.
Then the defence lawyer started asking questions. He was definitely more assured. I can't remember everything that was asked but there were a few things he focused on....my position....did I agree that my position was an attempt to control the traffic behind me?.... was I wobbling as I went up the hill?.... Did I really swerve at all as the car passed?....and most importantly, how close was the car.
He definitely thought that his strongest defence was the car was not as close as I suggested and that it was in fact perfectly safe. He did point out at one point that I wasn't hit and thus this suggested that it wasn't dangerous. He asked about speed limits. He was keen to point out that the driver wasn't actually speeding and that the speed limit in this area was national (60mph). I agreed that this was true.
He then suggested that what had actually happened was that I had just not expected the car and had had a bit of a fright when the car had passed unexpectedly.
Then the police witnesses were brought in and they were questioned to make sure they had done the interviews etc correctly. They had.
Then, the summing up. This is where it got interesting. The defence lawyer went first. His main line of defence was that the video was not clear enough in demonstrating that the pass had in fact been dangerous. He suggested that it was in fact very difficult to determine how close the car was. Then something unexpected happened....
The magistrate interrupted and said something along the lines of....'my biggest problem is that it is not clear from the footage that it is the accused's car that is in the video.
This very obviously caught the defence lawyer by surprise, as he ummed and awwed for a few seconds. He quickly composed himself and said, 'yes, I was obviously coming to that'. The defence lawyer then focused on the fact that the registration could not be identified, and that thus there was no corroboration.
Hmm. This really surprised me. In the video, right after the incident I shout out the registration. I witnessed the car. I was one point of corroboration. The police earlier had confirmed that the driver admitted driving the car that night. He admitted that he had driven along that road at approximately that time. That was the second point of corroboration. However the focus was on the fact that the car was not identifiable from the video itself.
The PF tried to dispute this, but, in my opinion, very weakly. She pointed out that I said the registration right after the incident and that it was on camera, but this wasn't good enough. I sat there willing her to just say....but there was a witness.....me!!!!! I saw it. I also said that I remembered the reg even when I had got home. mentioned this during the trial itself. But no. The magistrate just kept focusing on the fact that from the video it could have been many different types of cars.
The driver admitting being there, and driving the car....me describing the car as a black estate car (I'm sure in my witness statement I also mentioned it was an Audi), and the fact that I had a registration that fitted all of the above, was not good enough in the magistrates opinion. Not beyond reasonable doubt.
And so the judge summed up. He pointed out that two things have to be met to reach a conclusion of guilt. First, what the car was and who was driving it (there was no doubt about who drove that particular Audi as he was the only driver). That was not proven in his opinion. So the driver was not guilty.
The other condition that had to be met was the seriousness of the incident. The incident had to be 'well below' the standard expected of a reasonable driver. On this the judge was very clear.
'Had we been able to confirm your identity beyond reasonable doubt, I would have found you guilty of dangerous driving'
And that was that.
Not guilty.
As we left I saw the the driver looking relieved and shaking his lawyers hand. It seemed this did matter to him. The PF did come out to ask if I understood what had happened. I did. In my opinion she had failed to prosecute properly. I didn't say that. However, it wasn't the defence lawyer who saved his client. It was the magistrate who didn't think there was enough corroboration.
When I went outside the police were waiting to have a chat. They were very surprised by what had happened and could not understand where the issue with corroboration was. They had done their job well, and for that I am grateful. They fully understood that this was not about this one driver, but about the big picture.
It was in my opinion, the wrong decision. However, we must respect the courts decision. I don't personally feel any animosity towards the driver. I'm pretty sure he knows what happened that night was wrong and to be fair he has suffered some punishment. You don't get legal aid for cases such as this, so he will be out of pocket by a fair bit paying for his lawyer. I suspect that he will driver more carefully in the future.
If indeed the driver is reading this, I would be more than happy to meet and confidentially hear his side of the story, perhaps over a beer or a coffee. If you are up for this, feel free to contact me via this blog. Rest assured I have no ill feeling towards you personally.
The important positive that has come out of this is that a magistrate agreed that a close pass can and does constitute dangerous driving. He made that perfectly clear. That should encourage others to report similar incidents and to request they are taken seriously.
Let me know your thoughts, and if there are any lawyers out there, let me know what you think!
First, here is the incident itself.
This occurred back in February 2014 and has only now gone to court. The case was submitted to the Procurator Fiscal (PF) by the police with the suggested charge of Dangerous Driving. The PF agreed and a trial date was eventually set to try the driver for Dangerous Driving.
So today I went to court in Glasgow. This morning was mainly spent sitting. Waiting. Sitting. Waiting. It was a long morning. Lots witnesses were getting called and either dismissed or taken into court. Only approaching lunchtime did I hear that my case was going ahead and for some reason had been swapped from court 19 to court 20.
The PF then asked for a quick word. She asked me where my cameras were placed. I pointed out they were on my helmet and, at that time, on my downtube. That was all the PF spoke to me about before the trial.
Soon I was taken through to court and there I was standing in the witness box. There was the judge...actually a magistrate in this case, a clerk, another person who I think was a clerk and who seemed to be just doing some random work on a computer, the PF, the defence lawyer, a police officer and the accused. There was no-one in the public gallery throughout the trial.
First off the PF asked me questions. My name, age, occupation, what happened how did I feel, etc. This was all before the footage was shown. At this early stage I have to be honest, but I felt the PF was nervous, hesitant and unprepared. I was asked about passing distances, who recommended it etc.
At one point I was asked a particular question about acceptable driving. The magistrate then pointed out to the PF that this would only be appropriate if I was deemed an expert witness. The PF was hesitant about this. She was not sure about this at all. The magistrate then suggested that I be removed whilst this was discussed.
When I came back in, though I wasn't told the outcome, it became clear that I was not considered an expert and that my opinion was to be limited to what was relevant to cycling, though saying what was too close etc was ok.
In the video used in court two cars overtaking were seen from the rear camera. These cars gave me room. The magistrate asked if this could have been related to the change in lighting. I suggested it wasn't.
I was asked about my visibility, where I pointed out my lights (2 on back, 2 on front). I also mentioned my hi-vis. Yes this is not necessary, but it wouldn't hinder my case. I did not mention and was not asked about wearing a helmet, although that was probably implied by having a helmet camera!!
We started looking at the footage and after watching all the way through I was asked questions about it. What was happening, where I was, the road conditions and details about the incident itself. During this section we approached lunchtime and the case was ajourned until after lunch.
I treated myself to a roll and sausage!
Back in court the video analysis continued. How did I feel. How close did I think it was, and importantly what position did I ride on the road. This led to discussions of the primary and secondary road position. What it was, why it was recommended and where exactly I was. I was probably in a strong secondary just over a metre out.
Then the PF rested her examination. I have no idea how long it was! At a guess, 30 mins.
Then the defence lawyer started asking questions. He was definitely more assured. I can't remember everything that was asked but there were a few things he focused on....my position....did I agree that my position was an attempt to control the traffic behind me?.... was I wobbling as I went up the hill?.... Did I really swerve at all as the car passed?....and most importantly, how close was the car.
He definitely thought that his strongest defence was the car was not as close as I suggested and that it was in fact perfectly safe. He did point out at one point that I wasn't hit and thus this suggested that it wasn't dangerous. He asked about speed limits. He was keen to point out that the driver wasn't actually speeding and that the speed limit in this area was national (60mph). I agreed that this was true.
He then suggested that what had actually happened was that I had just not expected the car and had had a bit of a fright when the car had passed unexpectedly.
Then the police witnesses were brought in and they were questioned to make sure they had done the interviews etc correctly. They had.
Then, the summing up. This is where it got interesting. The defence lawyer went first. His main line of defence was that the video was not clear enough in demonstrating that the pass had in fact been dangerous. He suggested that it was in fact very difficult to determine how close the car was. Then something unexpected happened....
The magistrate interrupted and said something along the lines of....'my biggest problem is that it is not clear from the footage that it is the accused's car that is in the video.
This very obviously caught the defence lawyer by surprise, as he ummed and awwed for a few seconds. He quickly composed himself and said, 'yes, I was obviously coming to that'. The defence lawyer then focused on the fact that the registration could not be identified, and that thus there was no corroboration.
Hmm. This really surprised me. In the video, right after the incident I shout out the registration. I witnessed the car. I was one point of corroboration. The police earlier had confirmed that the driver admitted driving the car that night. He admitted that he had driven along that road at approximately that time. That was the second point of corroboration. However the focus was on the fact that the car was not identifiable from the video itself.
The PF tried to dispute this, but, in my opinion, very weakly. She pointed out that I said the registration right after the incident and that it was on camera, but this wasn't good enough. I sat there willing her to just say....but there was a witness.....me!!!!! I saw it. I also said that I remembered the reg even when I had got home. mentioned this during the trial itself. But no. The magistrate just kept focusing on the fact that from the video it could have been many different types of cars.
The driver admitting being there, and driving the car....me describing the car as a black estate car (I'm sure in my witness statement I also mentioned it was an Audi), and the fact that I had a registration that fitted all of the above, was not good enough in the magistrates opinion. Not beyond reasonable doubt.
And so the judge summed up. He pointed out that two things have to be met to reach a conclusion of guilt. First, what the car was and who was driving it (there was no doubt about who drove that particular Audi as he was the only driver). That was not proven in his opinion. So the driver was not guilty.
The other condition that had to be met was the seriousness of the incident. The incident had to be 'well below' the standard expected of a reasonable driver. On this the judge was very clear.
'Had we been able to confirm your identity beyond reasonable doubt, I would have found you guilty of dangerous driving'
And that was that.
Not guilty.
As we left I saw the the driver looking relieved and shaking his lawyers hand. It seemed this did matter to him. The PF did come out to ask if I understood what had happened. I did. In my opinion she had failed to prosecute properly. I didn't say that. However, it wasn't the defence lawyer who saved his client. It was the magistrate who didn't think there was enough corroboration.
When I went outside the police were waiting to have a chat. They were very surprised by what had happened and could not understand where the issue with corroboration was. They had done their job well, and for that I am grateful. They fully understood that this was not about this one driver, but about the big picture.
It was in my opinion, the wrong decision. However, we must respect the courts decision. I don't personally feel any animosity towards the driver. I'm pretty sure he knows what happened that night was wrong and to be fair he has suffered some punishment. You don't get legal aid for cases such as this, so he will be out of pocket by a fair bit paying for his lawyer. I suspect that he will driver more carefully in the future.
If indeed the driver is reading this, I would be more than happy to meet and confidentially hear his side of the story, perhaps over a beer or a coffee. If you are up for this, feel free to contact me via this blog. Rest assured I have no ill feeling towards you personally.
The important positive that has come out of this is that a magistrate agreed that a close pass can and does constitute dangerous driving. He made that perfectly clear. That should encourage others to report similar incidents and to request they are taken seriously.
Let me know your thoughts, and if there are any lawyers out there, let me know what you think!
Sunday, 21 June 2015
The Vigilante Ped-Al-Qaeda Nazi Cyclist
Anyone who hasn't been on another planet for the last few days will have seen headlines along the lines of..
OK, that particular headline might be one I have lovingly conjured up myself, but to be fair, it is less controversial than some of the actual headlines that have graced the chip paper over the last week.
I am not going to link to any of them, so if you want to find them, you'll have to search for yourself. I would ask that you refrain from doing so, as these articles serve two purposes, the first of which is to create controversy and thus to get people clicking through to their website, or buying the paper, thus pleasing the advertisers.
The second reason is that newspapers are struggling. Print numbers are down and online competition for readers is significant. Redundancies at newspapers are not uncommon. The way we consume news is changing and the old guard is fighting for survival.
Prejudice sells.
Of course prejudice of this nature is nothing new. In fact one of my claims to fame (I mean infamy) is that I'm one of the first cyclists (perhaps not the first...) to be labelled a vigilante. I even wrote about it way back in the frontier days of 2008.
My 'proudest moment' in that debacle was being called by John Smeaton in the Sun Newspaper, Ped-Al-Qaeda.
Happy days....
So, just about everything that has been written is the recent articles has been said before. None of it is new. Prejudice rarely is.
So what's happened to me since 2008. Have a descended into a spiral of vigilantism? Do I now cycle around wearing a mask, pants outside my tights, with a butler back at helmet cam cave?
Hmm, not quite. I'll leave you to decide how I've turned out. However, one thing is certain, I wouldn't be where I am today without my helmet camming. I don't mean that it made me famous and I'm now lapping in the spoils of fame and fortune....Oh no. I mean that I learned so much about cycling, road safety, road infrastructure, and the need for change, and all that came as a result of publishing videos.
Over the years I've heard absolutely every argument against my cycling and cyclists in genaral. I honestly don't think I could be surprised by anything anyone could say. Each time I faced a new argument, I went away and learned the truth behind that argument. There is no road tax. Cyclists rarely hold up traffic. Cyclists do not generally go about terrorising old grannies.
I've also learned that it's not about cyclists at all. It's not even about people on bikes. It's about people. It's about making our cities, and our countryside people friendly and not just friendly to people who are driving a car.
The truth is that the roads don't feel safe when I ride my bike, but they feel safe when I drive a car. The truth is that I've felt my life has been seriously threatened by drivers when I'm on my bike and I've never felt that in a car. The truth is that I've never been threatened, spat at, driven at or shot at, when I've driven a car, but I have on a bike.
So, I'm sorry. I'll be wearing a helmet camera for the foreseeable future. But I will also be doing everything else I can to make cycling safer, either through Pedal on Parliament or otherwise.
If that that makes me Ped-Al Qaeda, then so be it.
Cyclist vigilante nazi scum, declare war on peace loving cuddly saintly car drivers.
OK, that particular headline might be one I have lovingly conjured up myself, but to be fair, it is less controversial than some of the actual headlines that have graced the chip paper over the last week.
I am not going to link to any of them, so if you want to find them, you'll have to search for yourself. I would ask that you refrain from doing so, as these articles serve two purposes, the first of which is to create controversy and thus to get people clicking through to their website, or buying the paper, thus pleasing the advertisers.
The second reason is that newspapers are struggling. Print numbers are down and online competition for readers is significant. Redundancies at newspapers are not uncommon. The way we consume news is changing and the old guard is fighting for survival.
Prejudice sells.
Of course prejudice of this nature is nothing new. In fact one of my claims to fame (I mean infamy) is that I'm one of the first cyclists (perhaps not the first...) to be labelled a vigilante. I even wrote about it way back in the frontier days of 2008.
My 'proudest moment' in that debacle was being called by John Smeaton in the Sun Newspaper, Ped-Al-Qaeda.
So, just about everything that has been written is the recent articles has been said before. None of it is new. Prejudice rarely is.
So what's happened to me since 2008. Have a descended into a spiral of vigilantism? Do I now cycle around wearing a mask, pants outside my tights, with a butler back at helmet cam cave?
Hmm, not quite. I'll leave you to decide how I've turned out. However, one thing is certain, I wouldn't be where I am today without my helmet camming. I don't mean that it made me famous and I'm now lapping in the spoils of fame and fortune....Oh no. I mean that I learned so much about cycling, road safety, road infrastructure, and the need for change, and all that came as a result of publishing videos.
Over the years I've heard absolutely every argument against my cycling and cyclists in genaral. I honestly don't think I could be surprised by anything anyone could say. Each time I faced a new argument, I went away and learned the truth behind that argument. There is no road tax. Cyclists rarely hold up traffic. Cyclists do not generally go about terrorising old grannies.
I've also learned that it's not about cyclists at all. It's not even about people on bikes. It's about people. It's about making our cities, and our countryside people friendly and not just friendly to people who are driving a car.
The truth is that the roads don't feel safe when I ride my bike, but they feel safe when I drive a car. The truth is that I've felt my life has been seriously threatened by drivers when I'm on my bike and I've never felt that in a car. The truth is that I've never been threatened, spat at, driven at or shot at, when I've driven a car, but I have on a bike.
So, I'm sorry. I'll be wearing a helmet camera for the foreseeable future. But I will also be doing everything else I can to make cycling safer, either through Pedal on Parliament or otherwise.
If that that makes me Ped-Al Qaeda, then so be it.
Friday, 19 June 2015
Glasgow's Message for Bike Week
As I'm sure many of you will know, it's been bike week. What is bike week? Well have a look here. Effectively it's a celebration about everything bike, and a vehicle (oh and unintentional pun there) to getting more people out on their bikes.
Yes, I do harp on about infrastructure and investment being the way to mass cycling, and that education and advertising not being the answer, but I do actually like the idea of bike week. It helps continue the drip, drip, drip of positive information that will perhaps help to change people's (and by people the important people here, are politicians) minds and attitudes towards cycling.
Most importantly, Pedal on Parliament is listed as a Bike Week event (you don't actually have to happen in bike week!) and through them we get indemnity insurance. So yeah for Bike Week!
Truth be told, not much actually happens up our way for the actual bike week. A few Dr Bike sessions, the odd bike breakfast and a few other bits and bobs, but nothing major.
This year though I got an e-mail from my employers (NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde). As part of bike week they wanted cyclists who work for them, to share their stories of cycling to and from work. The best entry, be it 'good, bad, witty or earnest', would win a prize: a bike package up to the value of £500. You could enter this either via e-mail or via Twitter using the hashtag #nhsggccycling. Now, being a bit of a Twitter guy (though not during work as the NHS does not let you use it during work, which is sort of a mixed message as they are asking you to tweet pictures....)...I decided to share my story.
I'm not going to share it all here, you can pop along to Twitter and search for #nhsggccycling if you are interested, but here are a few that were representative of my week.
It was though, a picture from today really summed everything up with regards to cycling in Glasgow, perfectly for me.....Let me explain.....
Earlier in the week I noticed that the cycle lane leaving the Clyde Tunnel had been completely blocked by building work for the Fastlink development. Those who read this blog will know I've talked about this white elephant before (here and here and here). It's a disaster for many parts of Glasgow. Creating segregated routes for buses, who really need them for their safety (ahem), so that they can get between the city centre and the SGH a little bit quicker. Many of these new segregated lanes exclude cyclists, so we are left to mix with the the traffic on the now narrower roads. Yes, they have are supposed to be putting in alternative routes for cyclists, but they are quite frankly..... a pile of steaming turd.Yes, that is the technical term.
I know no-one, not one person, who likes Fastlink.
Anyway, it is running way, way behind schedule (and almost certainly over budget) as it was supposed to be finished by now, but it is far from finished. Linthouse is currently a building site. All around there is new concrete being poured, and disturbingly, pedestrian barriers are being put up left, right and centre. In Glasgow the bus (and no, not an electric or hybrid bus, just your standard 'cough, cough' diesels) reigns supreme. I feel so sorry for the residents of the areas this is travelling through. Not only is the construction causing disruption, it is going to leave the areas they live in much less people friendly. It's very sad for the area.
Anyway, back to the main point of my story...
So earlier in the week I noticed the lane was blocked. You could get around it on the path, by bumping up and down a few kerbs and taking a few sharp turns. I mumbled a bit and one of the builders heard me. I just mentioned in passing that had they been doing work on the road, a proper diversion would be in place. They wouldn't just shut off a road. He mumbled back at me.
Here's a tweet someone else made about the same issue.
So, today, I cycle out the tunnel and I see that I have been given a response. A response that pretty much sums up Glasgow City Council and its attitude to cycling. Yes the council that claims to have 305km of cycle infrastructure, when the truth is very much far from that. You couldn't miss the response. I'm not sure it could have been any bigger...
So that's that then. Glasgow City Council's take home message for Bike Week and for anyone cycling to the spanking New Southern General Hospital, a hospital that now employs 10,000 staff, is:
Whilst I think this is the perfect photo that represents cycling in Glasgow, I strongly suspect that NHSGGC will not be giving me a £500 prize.....
Yes, I do harp on about infrastructure and investment being the way to mass cycling, and that education and advertising not being the answer, but I do actually like the idea of bike week. It helps continue the drip, drip, drip of positive information that will perhaps help to change people's (and by people the important people here, are politicians) minds and attitudes towards cycling.
Most importantly, Pedal on Parliament is listed as a Bike Week event (you don't actually have to happen in bike week!) and through them we get indemnity insurance. So yeah for Bike Week!
Truth be told, not much actually happens up our way for the actual bike week. A few Dr Bike sessions, the odd bike breakfast and a few other bits and bobs, but nothing major.
This year though I got an e-mail from my employers (NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde). As part of bike week they wanted cyclists who work for them, to share their stories of cycling to and from work. The best entry, be it 'good, bad, witty or earnest', would win a prize: a bike package up to the value of £500. You could enter this either via e-mail or via Twitter using the hashtag #nhsggccycling. Now, being a bit of a Twitter guy (though not during work as the NHS does not let you use it during work, which is sort of a mixed message as they are asking you to tweet pictures....)...I decided to share my story.
I'm not going to share it all here, you can pop along to Twitter and search for #nhsggccycling if you are interested, but here are a few that were representative of my week.
A @RoyalMail driver on his mobile phone whilst driving in Milngavie. On my way home. (Reg WR10BFJ) #nhsggccycling pic.twitter.com/zkRMs1WTHm
— David Brennan (@magnatom) June 15, 2015
Why no physical reminder for drivers that cyclists have priority here? (On my way to SGH) #nhsggccycling pic.twitter.com/mMVNEAkssK
— David Brennan (@magnatom) June 15, 2015
This is what an overtake should look like. Well done to the @EDCouncil driver! #nhsggccycling pic.twitter.com/cYEyksE9BB
— David Brennan (@magnatom) June 17, 2015
It was though, a picture from today really summed everything up with regards to cycling in Glasgow, perfectly for me.....Let me explain.....
Earlier in the week I noticed that the cycle lane leaving the Clyde Tunnel had been completely blocked by building work for the Fastlink development. Those who read this blog will know I've talked about this white elephant before (here and here and here). It's a disaster for many parts of Glasgow. Creating segregated routes for buses, who really need them for their safety (ahem), so that they can get between the city centre and the SGH a little bit quicker. Many of these new segregated lanes exclude cyclists, so we are left to mix with the the traffic on the now narrower roads. Yes, they have are supposed to be putting in alternative routes for cyclists, but they are quite frankly..... a pile of steaming turd.Yes, that is the technical term.
I know no-one, not one person, who likes Fastlink.
Anyway, it is running way, way behind schedule (and almost certainly over budget) as it was supposed to be finished by now, but it is far from finished. Linthouse is currently a building site. All around there is new concrete being poured, and disturbingly, pedestrian barriers are being put up left, right and centre. In Glasgow the bus (and no, not an electric or hybrid bus, just your standard 'cough, cough' diesels) reigns supreme. I feel so sorry for the residents of the areas this is travelling through. Not only is the construction causing disruption, it is going to leave the areas they live in much less people friendly. It's very sad for the area.
Anyway, back to the main point of my story...
So earlier in the week I noticed the lane was blocked. You could get around it on the path, by bumping up and down a few kerbs and taking a few sharp turns. I mumbled a bit and one of the builders heard me. I just mentioned in passing that had they been doing work on the road, a proper diversion would be in place. They wouldn't just shut off a road. He mumbled back at me.
Here's a tweet someone else made about the same issue.
#nhsggccycling Here's the scene at #ClydeTunnel exit this am... Lots of thought put into the alternative routes pic.twitter.com/L0PgHor86X
— Andrew Winter (@TeoWinterAndy) June 16, 2015
So, today, I cycle out the tunnel and I see that I have been given a response. A response that pretty much sums up Glasgow City Council and its attitude to cycling. Yes the council that claims to have 305km of cycle infrastructure, when the truth is very much far from that. You couldn't miss the response. I'm not sure it could have been any bigger...
So that's that then. Glasgow City Council's take home message for Bike Week and for anyone cycling to the spanking New Southern General Hospital, a hospital that now employs 10,000 staff, is:
You're just a bloody cyclist, get off and walk.
CYCLISTS DISMOUNT!
Whilst I think this is the perfect photo that represents cycling in Glasgow, I strongly suspect that NHSGGC will not be giving me a £500 prize.....
Thursday, 18 June 2015
Dundee - The City of No Discovery
Something
happens to you when you become a cycle campaigner,
something....fundamental. No, you don't start going around hugging
trees or knitting yoghurt, at least I haven't...yet....
You
start looking.
You
find that it becomes impossible to go anywhere different without
looking. Looking for cycle infrastructure.
Everywhere
I go now, even places I've been before I was a cycle campaigner, get
the treatment. I try and set some time aside to go for a walk around
to see, what I can see. And so it was today, when I had to pop up to
Dundee to do some work. I had an opportunity to go for a wander
before my train arrived.
So,
how can I best describe Dundee and its cycle infrastructure......
Hmm...ummm...errrr.....ah
yes, that's it. Dundee is......a blank canvas.
 |
| A nice enough pedestrian precinct |
I
first set off walking around the city centre and I quickly stumbled
across a pedestrian precinct. That was a good thing. As pedestrian
precincts go, it was nice enough. Shops, people and little traffic
(some goods vehicles are a necessary evil....unless of course you use
bike transport....). All good. But as I continued through the city it
became shockingly apparent that there was in fact......no cycle
infrastructure.
Let
me spell this out in detail. There was no infrastructure...at all.
Nada. Nill. Zip. Nought. None.
The
good news is that there were no ASLs or really, really narrow cycle
lanes. No feeders that take you up the left of HGVs. No door zone
lanes. No shared use paths. There were none of these. Not though, because the
council had see the light. No. There were none of these because the
council hadn't bothered to even evolve eyes.
OK,
I'll admit I'm not being entirely fair to Dundee. I did, after a while of wandering see a cycle sign.
 |
| A bike sign, a bike sign, my kingdom for a bike sign... |
I followed it and I found this.
 |
| Mixed messages |
...and then this.
 |
| By golly, it's a cyclist! |
Yes
I found a shared use river side Sustrans route that took you.... pretty
much no-where near anywhere you might actually want to go. A nice wee
cycle along the waterfront with the kids perhaps, but if you want to get to
the shops, go to work or visit your friends, then forget it. It ain't
going to happen unless you are happy to mix with the big boys and
girls.
Yes,
Dundee is undergoing a lot of work at the moment, and I'd be
interested to know from anyone who knows, what cycle infrastructure,
if any, is going in with the developments. But seriously, what the
actual feck is going on in Dundee!
I mean, it's not as if there is a shortage of space!
 |
| There's no space on that very wide dual carriageway for cyclist...stick em on the path |
Perhaps
it's time Dundee got a little.....noisy....
Thursday, 4 June 2015
The Failure of Justice
Back in July 2014 I had a horrible commute to work. The following two incidents happened within minutes of each other.
Without hesitation I took both to the police. Both drivers were charged with dangerous driving. I later heard that the PF agreed and both were set to appear in court charged with dangerous driving.
I can now reveal that both cases were dismissed, one on the day of the trial and one the day before.
I have heard an unofficial reason for one (the 4x4) of them being dropped and I am awaiting an official response on that. I know that it was a 'technicality'. I'll write more about that when I know more. The other (private hire car) I only heard about today. All I know is that the case is closed. Again, as soon as I know more I will share it.
I am of course livid. The driving in both these incidents was without doubt (in my opinion) dangerous, but both drivers are, as far as I am aware, still driving.
Well done justice. Well done.
Without hesitation I took both to the police. Both drivers were charged with dangerous driving. I later heard that the PF agreed and both were set to appear in court charged with dangerous driving.
I can now reveal that both cases were dismissed, one on the day of the trial and one the day before.
I have heard an unofficial reason for one (the 4x4) of them being dropped and I am awaiting an official response on that. I know that it was a 'technicality'. I'll write more about that when I know more. The other (private hire car) I only heard about today. All I know is that the case is closed. Again, as soon as I know more I will share it.
I am of course livid. The driving in both these incidents was without doubt (in my opinion) dangerous, but both drivers are, as far as I am aware, still driving.
Well done justice. Well done.
Tuesday, 2 June 2015
I'm a Bloke, Sorry!
I'm a bloke.
Yes I may well be stating the obvious, but I thought it needed to be stated. Yes, I have been known to scream like a girl and I do occasionally wear a dress (it's a kilt, but I know how folk from out of Scotland get that one wrong...), but I am definitely a bloke.
I am a cycle campaigning bloke. As a result of this I am very, very much in the majority. The vast majority of cycle campaigners are in fact blokes.
I am also a cyclist. Again being a bloke that also means that I am very much in the majority. The vast majority of cyclists are blokes.
Why?
Well, that's a very interesting and complicated question with a very interesting and complicated answer. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that I know the answer in any great detail, mainly because....yep, you guessed it, I'm a bloke.
Therein lies the problem. If we are to truly have mass cycling we have to address the issues that prevent people from cycling. To do that we have to have a good understanding about why this majority of people, the majority of which are women, don't cycle. As a bloke, I'm not really best placed to answer that.
That is why the Women's Cycle Forum was set up. If we want more women cycling we need more women talking about the issues they face. We need more women leading from the front. We need more woman being the invited speakers at active travel conferences. We need....you (if you are a woman!).
Are you interested? Are you a woman? .....well, actually you don't have to be a woman, just interested to hear women talking about the subject....men are definitely welcome!.... Then why not sign up for the Women's Cycle Forum at the Edinburgh Festival of Cycling on the 13th June at 6pm.
Yes I may well be stating the obvious, but I thought it needed to be stated. Yes, I have been known to scream like a girl and I do occasionally wear a dress (it's a kilt, but I know how folk from out of Scotland get that one wrong...), but I am definitely a bloke.
I am a cycle campaigning bloke. As a result of this I am very, very much in the majority. The vast majority of cycle campaigners are in fact blokes.
I am also a cyclist. Again being a bloke that also means that I am very much in the majority. The vast majority of cyclists are blokes.
Why?
Well, that's a very interesting and complicated question with a very interesting and complicated answer. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that I know the answer in any great detail, mainly because....yep, you guessed it, I'm a bloke.
Therein lies the problem. If we are to truly have mass cycling we have to address the issues that prevent people from cycling. To do that we have to have a good understanding about why this majority of people, the majority of which are women, don't cycle. As a bloke, I'm not really best placed to answer that.
That is why the Women's Cycle Forum was set up. If we want more women cycling we need more women talking about the issues they face. We need more women leading from the front. We need more woman being the invited speakers at active travel conferences. We need....you (if you are a woman!).
Are you interested? Are you a woman? .....well, actually you don't have to be a woman, just interested to hear women talking about the subject....men are definitely welcome!.... Then why not sign up for the Women's Cycle Forum at the Edinburgh Festival of Cycling on the 13th June at 6pm.
Friday, 29 May 2015
Bears Way: Not for Everyone
As you may have already read on my blog, East Dunbartonshire Council are in the process of putting in a segregated cycle lane on my commute. Yippeeee.....oh wait, not all is right as my previous blog suggests. That letter (go on, have a wee read of it) was sent and I have now received a reply.
I'm not going to post the reply in full, as I know the person who responded and there is some general chat in their to. The chap is decent and to be fair to him, he is listening. The reality of some of what he said though is definitely worth sharing. Here is the important section of the e-mail:
Now I could pick at a few things here, but there are three fundamental issues. Here is the bulk of what I wrote back:
Since I've written that, I've came across two further issues that are best demonstrated with pictures.
The first shows an island that has been placed in the middle of the cycle lane. This looks like it will contain a bollard. This is obviously there to 'traffic calm' the cyclists, but there are much more elegant ways to do that. Instead we have an obstacle in the middle of the path, that, as was pointed out to me on Twitter, will stop road sweeper access.
The second shows the lane fading into a shared use path on approach to a junction. Why? Seriously, Why? This will almost certainly mean that cyclists will not have priority at this junction, and will conflict with pedestrians. Yes, at the moment there aren't many pedestrians that use this path, but that will change when the new housing development there gets the go ahead.
I got chatting with another cyclist today just along from here. He too was looking forward to this, and he too is dismayed at what he has seen. All of the issues I have highlighted could have been avoided quite easily, but once again we are getting a very poor compromise.
I really am quite disappointed about this.
I'm not going to post the reply in full, as I know the person who responded and there is some general chat in their to. The chap is decent and to be fair to him, he is listening. The reality of some of what he said though is definitely worth sharing. Here is the important section of the e-mail:
....the design is to provide for the following target user as provided by Sustrans.
Target user: design should be attractive and comfortable for the less confident cyclist a sensible 12 year old or novice adult who is trained to National Standards / Bikeability Level 2 ? but should aim to provide for the more confident cyclist as well. Where more confident cyclists choose not to use any facilities provided their needs should also be addressed with separate provision where appropriate; they should not be compromised by the design; http://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/files/Route-Design-Resources/Principles-and-Processes-31-10-14.pdf
For the more confident cyclist the carriageway is being changed to be a uniform 3m wide (lining) therefore the cyclists who choose to remain on the carriageway can do so at a width promoted for a carriageway width in Cycling by Design. In your case this will mean you are taking the centre of the lane. (Reviewing your videos you seem to cycle 1.2 to 1.5m from the carriageway edge as I do)
Cyclists travelling north (B8030) have three options.
On activating the Toucan crossing they can then use the carriageway to travel towards the roundabout and proceed along the B8030 joining up with the advisory cycle lane. The second option is to use the segregated cycle lane and enter the carriageway at the roundabout using the minor road.
Third option is to carry on using the shared footway and enter the advisory cycle lanes using the dropped kerbs or activating the signals and enter the advisory cycle lanes travelling north.
Cyclists travelling north on the (A81) Glasgow Road.
Although we would love to have changed the whole of EDC overnight, the scheme implemented at this time has a start and an end point. Due to the current road conditions of Glasgow Road it was viewed that the carriageway would be used by competent cyclists and therefore the design allows them to continue to use the carriageway to undertake this journey. They can enter the carriageway at the Toucan crossing and as vehicles will then be stopped they can make a manoeuvre to take the lane and undertake the roundabout.
The second option is to use the minor road to enter the roundabout and proceed to the A81. If people do not wish to cycle around the roundabout then there is an option of using the shared footway and then the signalised crossing before using the footway to access the A81. However before you shout No!!!!, the design is constrained by this being the start/end point and the Waitrose design (roundabout and signal crossing) having been completed prior to the segregated cycle route design. I like you wish one day not to be constrained but this is the reality of cycle route design. I am aware this is providing an option which requires users to cross traffic either once or twice depending on which way you cross the roundabout roads but it does provide an option for less competent and less confident cyclists.
The signs that have been located on the bollards are a TSRGD 522 - Two Way Traffic - It is a warning sign to cyclists that there is two-way vehicle movement ahead and they should proceed with caution. The road lining will show that it is for vehicles to give way.
We are also happy with the 'floating bus stop' design. The hierarchy of users clearly indicates we should prioritise our design for pedestrians.
Cyclists will have to proceed with caution through the floating bus stop area and the design acts as a traffic calming measure for cyclists. The second floating bus stop design is placed on a gradient which acts as a calming measure and therefore the angle is not used on the uphill but used on the downhill.
Now I could pick at a few things here, but there are three fundamental issues. Here is the bulk of what I wrote back:
There are a few things that strike me reading your reply. Firstly I'm really disappointed to hear that this development is effectively part of a dual network, that is, it has not been designed for everyone. I really was looking forward to this section of infrastructure, as everything I had heard about it previously suggested that, whilst it wasn't going to be perfect, that it was going to be a big step in the right direction. I didn't know though that there was such a restrictive target user as designated by Sustrans. I understand your suggestion that I and other users could still use the carriageway, however the reality is that this is actually going to be very difficult. On a number of occasions in the past I have had abuse from drivers for not using the very poor facilities that were there previously, including 'professional' drivers (see these two videos for examples https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8EIqtS12x0 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJLIn0c2OfE). I can imagine the abuse I will now get on this new reduced width carriageway will be significantly worse when they see the segregated lane at the side of the road. Despite what some commentators suggest, I don't go looking for trouble so I will probably feel forced to use the new lanes despite what I might think of them.
You also mention Cycling By Design. I (and many others) have been trying to highlight for a good few years now that this document is outdated. I've seen this borne out recently when in discussions with Glasgow Council. They have been designing infrastructure that just meets the minimum standards set out in CBD. It's quite frankly rubbish. My heart sunk when you mentioned it here as once again it is suggesting a solution that, rather than making conditions better for cycling for everyone, will improve conditions for some whilst making it worse for others. Of course, you and everyone else in this project aren't to blame for CBD, but by being guided by it we are ending up with a compromised project that may solve issues for some, but will cause problems for others. I must admit I don't know the answer to this but, are you bound by the design principles of CBD or are you free to go beyond them?
With regards to the floating bus stops, I totally understand that there is a need to slow cyclists approaching the floating bus stops. However, I can't understand why a table couldn't be used instead of the zig-zag. I've had a quick ride on it, and it is quite tight, and will be way too tight for two way traffic. Why could a raised table not be used there instead?
Lastly, I'm concerned that, as far as I am currently aware, there is no physical effort to stop drivers pulling out onto the cycle lane at junctions. On the continent they often use raised tables at the junctions along with markings to encourage drivers to slow and stop. I'm concerned that road markings alone are not going to have the desired effect. Will there be anything to supplement the road markings?
Since I've written that, I've came across two further issues that are best demonstrated with pictures.
The second shows the lane fading into a shared use path on approach to a junction. Why? Seriously, Why? This will almost certainly mean that cyclists will not have priority at this junction, and will conflict with pedestrians. Yes, at the moment there aren't many pedestrians that use this path, but that will change when the new housing development there gets the go ahead.
I got chatting with another cyclist today just along from here. He too was looking forward to this, and he too is dismayed at what he has seen. All of the issues I have highlighted could have been avoided quite easily, but once again we are getting a very poor compromise.
I really am quite disappointed about this.
Thursday, 14 May 2015
Bears Way: Heaven or Hell?
I was like a kid before Christmas.
I was literally bouncing off walls.
Yes, the first potentially semi-decent segregated cycle lane on my route to work is now being built. I've talked about it before and you can find what I've said already here.
The keen eyed will have noticed that my first two sentences of this blog are however using the past tense. Why, well, now that East Dunbartonshire has started building the lane, the reality is starting to set in. If it continues to go in as planned it is going to be far from perfect. In fact, I might not even use it! Rather than explain it to you, let me share a letter I have sent to one of the council officers in charge of the project.
For me personally the biggest issue is the treatment of cyclists at junctions. If the priority isn't correct and it isn't properly signed and controlled (raised tables could be a solution) then the lane is very poorly designed and one I might chose not to use.
I'll let you know when I get a response, but feel free to let me know your thoughts.
I was literally bouncing off walls.
Yes, the first potentially semi-decent segregated cycle lane on my route to work is now being built. I've talked about it before and you can find what I've said already here.
The keen eyed will have noticed that my first two sentences of this blog are however using the past tense. Why, well, now that East Dunbartonshire has started building the lane, the reality is starting to set in. If it continues to go in as planned it is going to be far from perfect. In fact, I might not even use it! Rather than explain it to you, let me share a letter I have sent to one of the council officers in charge of the project.
Hi xxxx,
I hope you are keeping well.
I have been watching the building of the 'Bears Way' segregated cycle route with some considerable interest and I look forward to trying it when it is finished. I am desperate for some good quality infrastructure.
In the past I discussed with the design team some of the issues with the designs, i.e. the need to cross over, the fact that it was a two way lane etc. However, since I have seen the work progress I have some new concerns. My first is the treatment of cyclist heading north as they approach the Burnbrae Roundabout. Previously the lane continued on north beyond the roundabout. It wasn't ideal, but at least it kept cyclists going in that direction away from what is a horrible roundabout. Now cyclists are abandoned on the pavement and are expected to then use the junction to join the join the roundabout. This is definitely a step in the wrong direction. Having also spoken to a few cyclist who head north (I head north east onto Glasgow Road), I understand that a new pinch point has been created at the new crossing. This is obviously concerning.
This morning I was also very concerned at some new bollard signs going up. They are placed just before junctions and the arrows suggest that cyclist must give way to traffic coming from side (minor) roads. Is this correct? I'll be quite shocked if it is, as this would effectively stop me and many other cyclists from using it. Why use a segregated lane that is significantly more inconvenient to use than the main road? Would a main road ever be built where drivers were expected to continually stop for cars entering it?
My final issue for the time being is the floating bus stop being put in near Burnbrae. First let me congratulate you on building the lane this way. I think the idea is excellent. However, I am concerned at the step angle that cyclists will need to turn to allow for this. This might not be an issue if the lane was one, way, but traffic is supposed to be using it in both directions. This area has a high potential for collisions, especially in the wet and when the council inevitable does not clear leaves and muck as often as it should.
I have attached a few images from my helmet camera that demonstrate the areas I am discussing.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your reply.
Best regards
David Brennan
For me personally the biggest issue is the treatment of cyclists at junctions. If the priority isn't correct and it isn't properly signed and controlled (raised tables could be a solution) then the lane is very poorly designed and one I might chose not to use.
I'll let you know when I get a response, but feel free to let me know your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)