(A bit out of date but perhaps interesting to some.)
Patronised by Elizabeth “Her Majesty the Queen” Windsor, CyclingUK in partnership with West Midlands Police have reached their Kickstarter goal to supply the UK’s police force with giant mats they claim will be used to teach bad drivers “how to overtake vulnerable road users”. However, strong criticisms have been made regarding value for money and a harmful messaging that actually invites restrictions on the victimised class.
A Two Dimensional Trojan Horse
The above imagery has been circulated in the cycle-specific and national press. There is no other information on the mat other than the explicit statement that people cycling should be 0.75cm from kerb and any overtaking vehicle should be 1.5m from the rider’s tyres. Already something that police and Cycle UK claim is 100% about instructing negligent drivers is 50% instructing the potential victim group to know their place in the gutter. The same tag team also explicitly state that a 1.5m buffer should be measured from the handlebars or rider’s arm, whichever is furthest into the road, so there is no doubt that this “safety initiative” is at least incorrect. However, the fact that both her majesty’s cycling charity and her majesty’s police have refused to correct or even recognise this as a mistake dismissing all criticism implies a greater malfeasance.
It’s also contrary to Cycling UK’s own best advice to even imply people should cycle within 0.75cm of the kerb for all manner of reasons. People cycling can, should, and need to be any distance from the kerb depending on road conditions.
False expectations create false demands, and people who don’t get what they want trend towards violence. Have moral authorities signal such expectations and the aggressor can act on good conscience. Give them monopoly of violence and there’s minimum inhibitions. A matt that the cycling community supposedly crowd funded but which turned up at various police forces by other means casting further doubt on motive, actually achieves the opposite of the purported aims. Danger is therefore increased rather than decreased, and I’ve already lost count of the number of times I’ve been terrorised by a belligerent driver demanding I remain 12 inches from the kerb at all times.
Awful Value for Money
The prototype was 800£, and a bulk-buy for the fifty UK police forces reduces individual costs to 240£, but even still, 12k£ is a large amount when the community is financial starved. There was a suggestion that a similar effect could be achieved with box of jumbo playground chalk and bulk order of tape-measures off Ebay, for a total project cost of about 20£. Neither CyclingUK or West Midlands Traffic Police would justify why mostly empty mats with a few lines were necessary. Though one doesn’t have access to the full breakdown, one can crudely estimate who benefits the most financially. Perhaps 8400£ to some petro-chemical company, 2400£ to Her Majesty’s Treasury, and 1200£ on Kickstarter fees.
Double Taxation Without Representation
Having the cycling community subsidise police by funding an alleged road safety training campaign is secondary taxation with minimal representation. Aggravating the issue, Cycling UK has previously helped the motor industry embezzle cycle safety funding. The most egregious case was nearly half a million pounds diverted to increase motor volume and traffic speeds at the now infamous “Turbo” roundabout in Bedford.
In Other News
Costing a quarter of a million pounds and under the pretence of pedestrian safety, the Royal Parks have installed a series of trip-hazard granite rumble strips along one of the few safe cycling routes in London. The move has been called a vindictive scheme to suppress and divert cycling away from Hyde Park. The money could have been spent on path separation giving each type of visitor comfortable space.
The move comes after a Royal Park transport survey which found cycle speeds to be within expected bounds. A single rider was clocked at 32mph but most averaged around 15mph, and there have been no collisions. Despite this the board have decided they want to limit speeds to under 10mph which almost defeats the point of cycling in the first place.
A similar report into motor traffic speeds found that 50% of drivers break park 30mph speed limits, 5% travelling over 40mph, and 1% over 50mph. Maximum recorded speeds were even over 80mph, yet the Royal organisation has refused to take action. What could explain such discrimination?
Ignoring the wider monarchy’s private wealth (historically in corporations like Rio Tinto, Royal Dutch Shell, Landrover, and Jaguar), the Royal Parks boardroom have clear conflicts of interest with some more noteworthy than others:
- Chairman, Apurv “Baron” Bagri: former Conservative Lord granted a CBE in 1990. Former chairman of the London Metal Exchange. Current advisor to The Prince’s Trust, Director of Dubai Financial Services Authority, and CEO of Metrod Holdings which primary serves the electricity industry;
- Ruth Anderson: Trustee of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, director of KPMG LLP and hauliers, Ocado Group and Travis Perkins PLC;
- Andrew Fenwick: propagandist at Brunswick Group (an international lobbying firm), director of retailer Fenwick);
- Sir Andrew Ford: retired British Army officer, and current member of the Royal Household, appointed Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order;
- Lord Nicholas True: Baron, Conservative Lord, appointed a Commander of the Order of the British Empire.
HGVs are notoriously the most dangerous vehicles in London, and motions for a daytime ban are gaining support, so the growth of cycling is a pressing liability for some of these directors. Likewise, as the UK financial sector gears up for a switch to lithium powered cars, and an aristocratic Brexit contingent still delivers reaction in favour of petroleum, there’s a clear incentive to prevent a culture of cycling but have a plausible deniability. The same industry might want to legalise the killing of those who cycle outside their advised boundaries especially when “artificial intelligence” is consistently failing to deliver on cycling safety.
Cycling UK is just another of the many dumb organisations ventriloquising for the motoring industry trying to keep her majesty’s roadways clear of any sort of competition whilst misrepresenting their victims. As for West Midlands Police, their beat covers the heart of Britain’s motor manufacturers, so it’s absurd to believe those most under the influence would be the most progressive force when it comes to cycling.
