Cambridge Cycling Campaign Election Survey 1: Labour

I'll look at Labour first because they're in control both in my home ward (Kings Hedges) and across the City. And as it happens our local Labour candidate, current councillor Martin Smart has responded.

The first question is rather a preamble:

What experience do you and your family have of cycling? Do you have any different concerns about younger or older family members cycling than you do yourself?

And Martin has responded with an autobiography. I'm not kidding. Like, we've seen some extensive answers but this is epic. Martin rides a bike, has always ridden more or less, and continues to do so. His kids, likewise. He's got first hand experience of dangerous drivers and tells us he cares about safe cycling facilities for those who need them. I'm not here to mark a respondents brevity or lack thereof - but I do wonder if he's being a little over-earnest with the scale of his response to reassure us that he's on side. But, heck, I have no reason to doubt him. This seems earnest. 

The nest question is about bike routes and where we could have them...

A key aim of our organisation is enabling more people to cycle, by the provision of protected space for cycling away from traffic, not shared with pedestrians, thus reducing traffic and providing transport choice. This best-practice is outlined in our guide, Making Space For Cycling, endorsed by all national cycling organisations. Do you support these principles, and if so, where could they most effectively be applied in your ward?

And Martins response is pretty much standard:

 Making space for cycling is very important and I support segregated provision wherever the available space makes this possible. This has been done on Hills Road and Huntingdon Road in Cambridge and can be seen to work well. In King’s Hedges I have been a councillor for the past four years. I have worked on behalf of residents with the Greater Cambridge Partnership to get the best possible outcome for the Milton Road scheme. I have been involved from the early stages with the improvements to Arbury Road and look forward to the next phase coming forward. I believe that it would also be worth looking at possible improvements to both King’s Hedges Road and to Campkin Road in the future.

Or, in other words, he believes in picking the low-hanging fruit. Kings Hedges Road hasn't yet been a target for City Deal but you kind of have to think it will be before long, and then the fight between residents parking and cyclists will start - I need something rather more than 'possible improvements' to be convinced he's on side, I want to hear him saying 'when KH Road comes up, and it will, we must have safe, segregated cycle facilities on this key route that links sites of employment, the College, and homes'. Not 'where possible'. It IS possible, lets hear you say you'll back it. And Campkin Road is an absolute doddle, but I'd question the extent to which thats a primary target. 

As for Arbury Road - we're getting bike lanes where there was hedge that could be moved. And thats it. The dangerous end, the one his residents still have to negotiate as they leave the ward, is fast, straight and has cars parked all down the length of it. And we're getting nothing as a result of this scheme. Martin old chap - your residents need a bike route there. Why aren't you using this opportunity to say so?

It would be remiss of me not to mention that the farce of hedge-replacement on the first stages of the Arbury Road scheme (this could have been a superb, ecologically sound scheme, and at lower cost than we've seen, but hasn't been) was on Martins watch. I wouldn't mention that here, but he's brought that up. Sorry, I'm afraid Martin doesn't score so well on this question. There was a great chance for a clean, green, eco-friendly scheme and City Deal blew it. 

The next question is about police priorities and evidence based policing on the roads. Martins answer is:

It is very important that cyclists are made to feel that they will be safe when using cycling infrastructure or they will move away from it and use other options. For example they will choose to cycle on the pavement instead of the road. It is critical that we all understand that vehicles can injure and even kill cyclists whereas cyclists can injure pedestrians but not kill them. This common sense approach needs to be taken on board by all concerned, including the police.

Well I don't disagree. And yeah, he's right that if you're going to die on the road the options are to ride on the pavement for that section or not ride at all, and it is important that the Police should understand that (and that the guidance they were issued alongside the powers to issue FPN for pavement cycling specifically state that leeway should be given for this). But its not really an answer to the question. Not a very precise one anyway.

The next question is quite subtle and allows a candidate to expand on many things that are very much broader than one might originally anticipate. I like this one:

 We are keen to see more children being able to cycle safely to school independently. Ideas from our members to assist this include protected space for cycling, parking/pickup bans 200m of schools, cycle parking. What measures would you suggest?

I mean thats quite clever - most of the things you'd want for kids to ride on their own are exactly the same things that facilitate cycling for everyone. And Martins answer fails in every conceivable way.

 I would suggest using measures to encourage children and families to choose to use healthy, safe and sustainable modes of travel to school. These include cycling, walking, skating, scooting, skateboarding and any other similar such method. Using vehicles to transport children to school disempowers children, costs more, pollutes the environment, does not give children or main carers any exercise and runs the risk of hurting other public highway users like pedestrians and cyclists who are not protected inside a heavy steel box.

Measures, eh? You suggest using 'measures'? What measures? Did you not read the question properly, I wonder? I don't get it. 

Now we've a very 'Cambridge local politics' question. This is a real bugbear of Camcycle, they hate that where there are planning rules for bike parking and access they're often seemingly ignored with local politicians often actively hostile to volunteers from the Campaign pointing this out (are you reading Peter Sarris?). Underneath a polite veneer there's some needle to this one:

 Our volunteers spend a lot of time scrutinising planning applications for failures such as lack of secure cycle parking, poor access, failure to fund nearby improvements to make the roads safer, and so on. Many of these things get let through by officers and Councillors in clear contravention of the Local Plan. The lack of a full-time cycling officer makes this situation even worse. What are your main concerns about the planning system, and how would you seek to make improvements?

Being part of the ruling Labour group and involved with City Deal, Martin is basically snookered by this question. He's not going to say 'you know yeah, you're right, we need a full time salaried employee to do this'. He isn't going to basically say 'yeah, we're totally getting this wrong like you say'. But I would have expected something better than this:

 This is good work by Camcycle and largely unknown by the general public. Perhaps something to publicise more. Council officers do the best they can but you are right to allude to the lack of resource. However, I believe it is the quality of advice rather than the quantity that makes the difference and with the emerging Local Plan we have the opportunity to put in place policies to regularise the inclusion of good quality cycle provision in applications coming forward.

Thats a classic way of dealing with criticism from a charity plugging gaps in public service - flatter the charity and tell them they do a good job and should be more vocal about it rather than say 'yeah, you know, you're right, thats something we're not doing right'. We've got rules for planning already and they're only getting caught by a charity - come on dude, you know this isn't good enough, and that putting more of that in a 'local plan' won't answer when you're not making that work anyway.

The next question is about junctions and here I think Martin is pretty good - he's interested in the suggestions put forward and wants to see how changes work out and build from that. I'd suggest that he's falling for the same trap many candidates do in Cambridge and forgetting that we're part of a wider world - Cambridge drivers will behave like they do anywhere else, and we've got many examples all over the world showing how to build safer junctions. This constant 'we have to be careful and see how it goes' approach isn't evidence based.

Then we have a question about pavement parking. And Martin says:

`Pavement and verge parking is a real problem in King’s Hedges. It sometimes blocks the way for less able pedestrians and especially for wheelchair users. It looks unsightly and spoils the grass on verges and cracks and otherwise damages the pavements. We have already brought in Traffic Regulation Orders for Ramsden Square to stop this. This was done after consultation and support of local residents there. This may well be the way forward for other areas, after consulting with local residents of course.

Fail. It took years to get the Ramsden Square parking scheme and TRO sorted - are you seriously saying we should do this street by street? No. No. No. We won't sort this out even in our childrens lifetimes at that speed. Cambridge already has the power to sort out verge parking, we have a bye-law. And where a car is blocking the pavement we've got the power to address that too, but we don't - the County aren't interesting in enforcing and the Police aren't. The answer, for a City Councillor, is to say you'll seek to bring enforcement powers under City control and, indeed, on many residential streets in the council estate not 'adopted' by the County you've arguably got those powers now already. Sorry Martin, that is a cop out and you know it.

And the last one just feels... I dunno, I'll post the question and Martins response:

How would you improve permeability and accessibility for walking and cycling through King’s Hedges, especially with regard to the inaccessible barriers that block access to larger cycles such as tricycles, cargo cycles and adapted cycles for disability?

 Some cyclists cannot dismount and push their cycle through barriers. They can block access to disabled cyclists. Access control barriers such as A-frames, K-frames, York Chicanes and kissing gates cannot be used by cyclists who cannot dismount. Any barriers that block access to some users is an equalities issue and would need to be replaced with more suitable ones wherever possible.

 Am I being harsh or does that just not read like something an experienced city cyclist would say? I mean, surely if there's a fence across it and you have to lift your bike over or push it round, its not a cycle route, and anyone who rides a bike in such a space would tell you that? Am I being dumb or does this not just read a little odd? Look, if you have to dismount or push a bike it ain't a bike route and you need to rip the barrier out. It isn't any more complicated than that. Its not about equalities (although that matters immensely), its about whether the facility is fit for use.

Lets look South for the next candidate. Patrick Shiel in Arbury hasn't responded so lets move to East Chesterton, and having tossed a coin I'll look at Carla McQueen.

Regarding her and her family cycling: 

When I first moved to Cambridge I cycled everywhere with my youngest son on a bike seat at the back and my eldest son has always rode his own bike. My youngest son now uses a tricyle (he received great support form outspoken)due to mobility issues. However due to near misses he won’t ride anymore. The cars cause him anxiety due to the close proximity however myself and my eldest son still enjoy cycling particularly in green areas. My main concerns particularly in this branch is dangerous driving around cyclists.

Fair enough. And excellent shout out to Outspoken who are good folk - and I wonder whether it might be handy (if you're reading this Carla) to have a word with the lovely folk at You Can Bike Too - depending on the nature of your sons mobility issues they might be worth having a chat with, and as they're up in Milton park its maybe somewhere you can still enjoy a ride together.

Regarding Space for Cycling, she supports it, and hilights Chesterton High Street, Union Lane and Fen Road as locations in her ward where this is needed - and she's not wrong. Simple and to the point answer to the question. And on evidence based policing on the roads, she's not really answered regarding evidence but does say dangerous driving is a problem and seems keen on more enforcement. Hasn't particularly got in to the question, though.

Her next answer, to the same question about planing scrutiny that Martin answered above, just doesn't make any sense:

Great initiative’s from Camcycle, I believe better education more resources like outspoken visiting schools and regular inclusive courses for all could help a great deal. I believe Councillors do their best to support all members of our community and we should use the local plan for a more inclusive community.

I can only assume either I'm not reading the question right or she isn't. Question 5 (about accessibility for non-standard cycles etc.) she's picked up one location thats a problem: 

I have concerns over Green end rd to Milton rd however I hope when the Greater Cambridge Partnership gets under way the segregated lanes will help a great deal. Again Nuffield Road is a worry however once the cycle lanes go in I feel this will help a great deal. I have also given some suggestions in below answers around management of these areas that suffer from poor accessibility eg cutting hedges back.

Now the response to the next question about junctions on Milton Road etc. is very interesting - because we see a party line emerging:

Safety is my main concern. I am mostly worried that vehicle traffic will not recognise the need to give way to bicycles in the arrangement proposed. I am also worried about Elizabeth way when cyclists have to use the foot path for fear of being hit by vehicles. Therefore I believe Elizabeth way Rd leading upto the garage on the left needs improvement and consideration.

Or, in other words, the tried and tested means of making a junction safe for cyclists wasn't tried and tested here so we have to continue being at risk while our road planners re-invent the wheel? And thats your party line? Sorry guys, I'm going to label this simple cowardice. We know what works, why are you scared to deliver it? 

I agree about Elizabeth Way, but I don't understand your lack of ambition - that route needs upgrading all the way from Milton Road to the City Centre, why are you only interested in that short stretch? 

Now on to a hyper-local one...

Plans for a safe and protected cycleway on Nuffield Road have been prevented due to local concerns about parking and a nearby wall. During school-run time the pavement is often covered with badly-parked cars and there are lorries rolling up and down the road. Many parents are afraid to let their children cycle to school in such conditions. What specific measures would you seek to provide safe cycling conditions for the children at the Shirley Community School?

So there's a wall that stops some people looking out on to a road. Its a pig ugly wall and it isn't on anyones personal or rented property. There would be a great space to make this route safer for cyclists if the wall was knocked down. The road being full of parked cars (especially at school drop-off time) and delivery vans, its dreadful for kids riding to school. There has been some local fuss with stakeholders not properly consulted and (labour) councillors passing the buck for why they didn't go and talk to the School. Thats the context for this response...

I believe in protected space for cyclists and for segregated provision. All stakeholders and the authorities need to work together in partnership in a co-ordinated way to significantly improve the current situation. The County cycling team must do the best they can to improve the scheme on the table. The police must enforce the highway code and the law. The school staff must lead on bringing an understanding to children and families that driving children to school is a damaging option for all sorts of reasons. The school PTA and the governors need to take a leadership role in changing behaviours with a plan and timescale in place. It maybe that staffing could be provided, either paid or volunteer staff, to person the traffic movements outside the school That resource will need to be sourced, but it must be a possibility if a useful specific measure, at least in the short term. This can be supported by the County education team and this approach will be fully supported by city and county councillors in the ward.

Thats just not good enough - the wall has to go, we need a good cycle facility, and anything else is just hot-air. The scheme can't be good enough with the wall there, you can't educate school children and parents out of delivery drivers risking their lives. This answer is nonsense, as has been the entire Labour line on this ugly, superfluous wall. If you don't knock it down to make space for a bike route that is only becaue you don't value the lives of children riding to school as highly as you value the opinions of a dozen NIMBYs.

Another hyper-local one with a really, really simple answer: 

The new cycle lanes on Green End Road permit parking in them, completely undermining their purpose. How would you improve the safety of residents and the many other people who cycle along Green End Road?

...said simple answer being 'ban parking in them and put a double yellow line in them'. But lets see what the candidate says...

 It is never a good idea to allow parking in cycle lanes but it is not the only place where this happens. For example, on East Road outside the shops around KFC and others, vehicles often park in the cycle lanes. With Green End Road, it may be that this is a temporary situation from where we move to a more sustainable situation where parking in cycle lanes is phased out. We need to plan for a situation on Green End Road where this dangerous parking in cycle lanes comes to a stop and the sooner the better.

It isn't temporary, you've got a specific TRO in place allowing parking there. You either accept this is not ok and its easy to solve or you don't, its not complicated. It doesn't need complex or extensive planning, it doesn't need caution, it doesn't need 'phasing' out. Its simple and easy to solve this, either say you support that solution or don't. Disappointing response, as you've clearly acknowledged that its a danger. 

Still on the hyper-local issues...

 Union Lane is an important cycle route connection between East Chesterton and the rest of the city. However, it is narrowed by parked cars, and some drivers tend to speed and aggressively overtake people cycling here. Also the pavements are tiny and often obstructed by parked cars and overgrown hedges. How do you propose to calm traffic and make conditions safer for walking and cycling on this street?

 This is actually really hard - its a nasty little road that isn't quite straight, making the slight bend in it nearly blind to any motorist going too fast. Its a sort of false-straight, made worse by parked cars. There have been some good ideas for fettling this in he past, but...

I think that as the Arbury Road cycleway scheme comes forward that it would be appropriate for the Greater Cambridge Partnership to look at Union Road as a part of the cross city cycle schemes to see what is possible there. It is certainly the case that the current conditions for cycling on Union Lane are very unsatisfactory. Any illegal parking on the pavement can be enforced by the appropriate authorities to allow proper access to pavements by all pedestrians including people who are disabled and people pushing babies and children in buggies. Householders can be asked to cut back overgrown hedges and this can be managed and if necessary enforced by City Rangers.

There's a lot wrong with this. To begin with there's a huge hole in the Arbury Road scheme - the whole South end of the road is being excluded. So that scheme won't join up with Union Lane, which is a huge shame for residents of Chesterton for whom that would be handy. The hedges can overgrow a little but the approach she's suggesting doesn't end well (short version - my hedge extended about a foot into a 3m wide space after council staff had repeatedly killed the slow growing plants leaving me no option but to leave something fast growing there, a Councillor sent people round to trim it, they destroyed it, that cost them over a grand in compensation and took way too much time and effort). The obvious answer is to follow what Councillor Manning said and make the road one-way for car traffic. 

So thats our two Labour candidates. They're not awful, but not amazing. I think Marin Smart is probably about the best Labour councillor in this regard but he's still very much Labour first, cyclist second. He knows what is needed but seems reticent to cross the party line and suggest anything more radical than the rather pedestrian rate of change we're seeing. Carla McQueen is also not bad, but not good either - she's concerned but seems reticent to commit to supporting serious measures to make things better. I'm giving them 5 out of 10. Perhaps they feel constrained by the fact that they're in power here, and by their support for the (largely failing, in cycling terms) City Deal. I don't know. But I'd have hoped for better.

Cambridge Cycle Campaign Local Election Survey 2018

Its that time again.

Every time there's an election here, the local cycle campaign group Camcycle send some questions out to the candidates in the hope of finding out their attitude to cycling and cyclists - what (if anything) they'd do to improve things, what kind of measures would help, etc. Sometimes it is informative, often its funny, and occasionally its absurd. But its usually a good read.

This year its city council elections, with a third of seats up for grabs (well one over a third - there has been a resignation down in Chesterton, so one ward gets to elect two councillors). In terms of what this means for the City, if the Liberal Democrats play an absolute blinder and Labour fall flat on their faces this year then there's a decent chance the LibDems could gain overall control next year. But its a big ask - and I gather that the year after there may be a full local election on new boundaries. So this isn't so much about control of the city council this year - that isn't going to happen. Its about individual wards and individual councillors. 

I wouldn't suggest that cycling provision is the only thing you should be basing your vote on (it won't be for me) but its something to consider. And I hope that as I go through some of the responses that might help you make some decisions.

I'll use my normal format - I'll look at responses from the ward I live first, and then I'll go to neighbouring wards until I've found responses from two councillors from each party. I'll add links to those here as I go, and afterwards I'll post a summary. 

Got that? Great. Let us head down the rabbit hole together...

Greater Cambridge and the County - Local Government at their Worst.

The trouble with Greater Cambridge is that it is, in effect, a wing of Cambridgeshire County Council, a more than typically car-obsessed local council you'll encounter and also one of the most officiously obstructive organisation you'll ever encounter. Their entire customer service ethos is one of messing the public around to a point where it takes an Herculean act of sheer will to get anywhere rather than be sidetracked into complaining about how they're not handling your query. its a 'the customer isn't always wrong but if we bugger about enough they'll go away' that has been so taken to heart by Greater Cambridge that it could be their motto. 

So I've made my complaint regarding Arbury Road (see here, links therein, and then here, and here - or just search the blog for Arbury Road) formal with the County Council now. I asked (again) to talk to their Chief Exec on the 3rd, received no response, so I phoned them again last Thursday. They still hadn't responded so I phoned yesterday, and again today started getting a bit more direct. They've agreed to treat the complaint formally, but I've not the slightest confidence that they'll do the slightest thing about this - why would they, they've no need to. Oh, they're also telling me to maybe (but not definitely) expect a response within 10 working days - not from when I complained, not from when I hassled for the complaint to be treated formally, but from when I repeatedly badgered them to take it seriously. Its like they couldn't put off dealing with it any more so they're putting the start day back as far as they can in the hope I go away.

I talked to the chap who's in charge of the scheme again, and he's still, in my view, recalcitrant. In my opinion we should be past accepting second best - an improvement on Arbury Road or anywhere else in Cambridge that is not to a gold-standard facility is not good enough, and campaigners should not stop demanding better. As for the hedging, I still maintain that many of the plants are the wrong species, planted after a woefully in adequate ecological survey, at the wrong time of year, with no plan in place to restore the habitat. They still think they're going to hand weed the bindweed in winter. They aren't, because its just root by the middle of November, they won't find it and it will therefore be choking the whole site again by next Summer - they've missed their window of opportunity. So re-planting with plug plants of native species is (even if they can get them now, which at this stage of the year is unlikely) probably going to fail. They've put this off so long, I think, because they don't want to do anything restorative - I think they've intentionally delayed until they can present the cost of doing the work as higher than it would have been otherwise.

At this stage I'd be happy for the whole of City Deal to fail. We're getting a succession of poor cycle lanes (really, look at this thread here), ill considered road re-designs that offer neither a boost for cycling nor the wider environment. From their perspective cycling isn't a real form of transport so they don't even include us in their modelling while, perplexingly, claiming that they're delivering 'cross city cycling' (they aren't). While the facilities they make for cyclists are usually inherently flawed (even absurdly favouring parking over cyclist safety) they cave every time to the first bit of pressure from motorists. 

When it comes down to it, Greater Cambridge is a shady, secretive body with no effective public oversight, in a rush to spend a vast sum of money to secure more central government funding to continue with more of the same. They'll continue wrecking whatever they need to so they can spread cash thick on facilities that least upset motorists - their expenditure will not betray the car-sick nature of the County Council at any time. It isn't a sensible agency seeking to make improvements, its a self-serving gang of rogue council officers looking to make a career by spending as fast as they can on the wrong facilities, in whichever way causes the least fuss. And as it's car dependent ancient NIMBY's make most fuss, we can expect ample more sub-standard cycle facilities delivered in environmentally destructive ways wherever they think can get away with it.

I think perhaps the next thing to consider is steps towards active resistance. How can we scupper the whole thing, and if we can't, how do we tie them up so much on each poor scheme that they finally think providing better ones is easier?

Arbury Road Cycle Lane (again)

So after badgering, and badgering, and FOI'ing, we've finally got the plans for part 2A (like, the bit they're already building) of the cycle lane scheme in Arbury Road. Here's a PDF file. 

A 1.9m cycle lane, not wide enough really, it should be 2m+ to conform to recommended standards. Rubbish.

We didn't get this plan at consultation time, nor when the project was approved, nor even prior to it being commenced. They're building it now - in fact here I am videoing them building it a couple of days ago before they released details about how wide it would be. 

Look, that can't be ok. My response to the initial consultation was 'yes if its wide enough' - this isn't wide enough, it should be 2m+. The one key thing you need to know about a cycle lane before deciding to support it is whether it'll be good enough to be worth the disruption and, crucially, worth abandoning all hope of getting a good facility any time in the next couple of decades - this one is close, but no cigar. And because there's still no reason to think we'll get a cycle lane on the Southern stretch of the road, the bit with the parked cars and close overtakes, I'd have sooner not bothered with this. What kind of mockery of openness is this? Detailed plans not released until after they started building it? You need to ask people about this during the consultation, not after the bulldozers turn up.

And as for all of the other concerns? Nope. Still nothing on re-planting native species under and around the hedges to fix the damage done when the wrong shrubs were put in, at the wrong time. This could have been such a boon for local ecology, but it is instead a complete failure.

I can only now state the obvious - Greater Cambridge as Cambridge City Deal are now known are an undemocratic, unaccountable body of County Council officers largely gone rogue in an effort to get enough money spent to secure the next slice. And they're willing to trample over anything necessary to achieve that - consultation processes, local ecology, wildlife, anything. They're building the Arbury Road scheme because its a relatively non-controversial place to spend money - they're not depriving people of on-street parking and they're mostly digging up hedges, but without continuous cycle lanes all down the length of Arbury Road the whole thing is conceptually flawed. 

We'd be better off if City Deal was stopped, but I really don't know how.

How do you stop the Police breaking the law?

So this happened.

Roxburgh Road, Cambridge. Now. Pavement blocked @cambscc @CambsCops pic.twitter.com/6kgoU622F6

— Cab Davidson (@gnomeicide) November 1, 2017

So when I walked past the cop car, with the parked cars protruding from the bays behind it, you couldn't walk down the pavement. That isn't ok - there's plenty of room to park on the road, even if there's an emergency to attend. In fact that'd be quicker - park on the road, dash off to whatever policing stuff they had to do.

This is the web-chat of trying to report it:

Operator : Hello, you are now chatting with a Police Control Room Operator, how may we help you today?

CAB_Davidson : Police car and Taxi are parked on the pavement in Roxburgh Road, Cambridge. Pavement is blocked, its impassable. Especially a problem for anyone in a wheelchair or pushing a pram.

CAB_Davidson : Image here.

CAB_Davidson : :link:https://twitter.com/gnomeicide/status/925726707574824960

CAB_Davidson : I'd like to report this, I'd like the officers responsible to be told that this isn't ok, and I'd like the taxi owner to be talked to. Its not picking up or dropping off, its parked.

CAB_Davidson : Hello? Are you there?

CAB_Davidson : HELLO?

CAB_Davidson : IS THERE ANYBODY THERE?

Operator : Hello my apologies, this is a very busy time being the emergency services. Bare with me and I will look into this for you.

Operator : I am looking at this photo you can't tell how wide the road is.

Operator : police attend to incidents of crime and emergencies I am sorry but we will not ask them to move their vehicle.

CAB_Davidson : It doesn't matter how wide the road is - its a normally suburban back street. The pavement is -entirely- blocked, andthat is illegal.

CAB_Davidson : In an emergency it would be quicker to park on the road than on the pavement. I require an incident number for this illegal police parking.

Operator : we do not think about parking when attend emergencies.

Operator : what you are suggesting is unreasonable

CAB_Davidson : There is no flashing light, there is no evidence of an emergency, what I am suggesting is not unreasonable, it is compliant with the law.

CAB_Davidson : YOU are excusing police officers breaking the law. Can I have your badge number please?

CAB_Davidson : And I need that incident number.

Operator : no I will not be raising an incident number.

CAB_Davidson : I want your badge number and to speak to your superior now please.

Operator : I can look into why the officer is there but I can't advise you.

CAB_Davidson : Badge number now please.

Operator : its not dangerous its down a residential street they are attending an incident.

CAB_Davidson : You have refused to give me an incident number for a police car parked dangerously and illegally blocking the whole path. I want your badge number to complain about that.

CAB_Davidson : It is dangerous if you're a pedestrian and have to walk in the road, and there is no evidence that there is an 'incident'.

CAB_Davidson : Badge number please.

Operator : one moment please

CAB_Davidson : How long does it take to type a badge number? I'm raising a complaint that you're a police officer or staff member refusing to accept a report of someone breaking the law. I need your number.

Operator : I have consulted with my superior, given you the correct advice. Police officers are not going to think about where they are parking when their are life and death situations to attend which is none of your concern.

Operator : this chat is recorded so my details should be seen

CAB_Davidson : There are -two- illegally parked vehicles. You're refusing to accept a report about -either-.

Operator : ok **** i cannot see what I am displayed as.

CAB_Davidson : Your only visible detail is 'operator'. You are avoiding giving me your number because you don't want a complaint.

CAB_Davidson : It would be -faster- to park on the road, not blocking the pavement, if attending any incident. The police officer has -chosen- to break the law. For the last time of asking will you give me an incident number and follow up please?

Operator : I am happy to give out my details but I am ensuring that I give you the correct details first with regards police cars parking which is what I did talking to my superior then I got back to you

CAB_Davidson : I'll be filing a complaint. Good day.

Operator : Ok that is your opinion which is fine but there is nothing more to say on this matter. It is an emergency vehicle would you say the same about an Ambulance that parked to save someones life?

Operator : and it was a matter of urgency. They would not think about where they are parking

CAB_Davidson : It takes -more- time and effort to safely mount the pavement than park on the road. You're speaking nonsense. I am terminating this discussion and will initiate a complaint

Look, you don't get a free pass to act like a douche because you're the Police. It might indeed be an emergency - but even if it is you STILL need not to endanger people by making them walk in the road, unless you absolutely must. Here you didn't have to, you chose to. And then you chose to make getting you to take that seriously into a fight.

I put it to you, Cambridgeshire Constabulary, that you can't be trusted to police our roads because you're among our most prolific offenders. Every time I see a parked police car, its parked illegally. And on each occasion it would be safer and faster to park on the road - your officers choose to entirely block pavements rather than risk the slightest inconvenience to motorists. How do you expect to have any credibility as a police authority when you're abusers of the law yourselves?

We need longer sentences for killer drivers AND more disqualifications for dangerous drivers

There's a very good blog article here arguing we don't need longer sentences for killer drivers but we do need to disqualify more dangerous drivers. And I agree with most of the points Matthew has made there, but I don't entirely agree with his conclusions - and I think its worth explaining why.

Matthew goes through his though process in response to the Ministry of Justice conducting a review of punishments available for driving offences, but has started with the same baffling assumption that we so often see:

The consultation did not mention that we already have amongst the safest roads in the world.

This is something repeated so often we don't challenge it - and its flat out untrue. Yes, if you very crudely divide the number of kilometers traveled by the number of fatalities, we do very well. But we achieve that through exclusion of vulnerable road users - we don't attain low fatality rates through a safety culture, we do it by making our roads so hostile to walking or cycling that almost no one dares. Vulnerable road users die at a higher incidence in the UK than in most other EU countries, and as a result we have very low active transport rates. We know that fear of getting hurt is the main reason for our low cycling uptake, and that fear stems from the fact we've created a hostile environment for cycling. We scare pedestrians and cyclists out of public space and then congratulate ourselves that fewer of them are dying. That isn't ok.

So, I reject the premise we're starting form a safe road environment and that there aren't big gains to be made. Reducing casualties by excluding people from public space isn't in any meaningful sense a good safety record.

I accept that in theory there are harsh punishments available for dangerous drivers who kill. The trouble is, we're not using them. Now I'm not saying that we should have life sentences (I agree for the reasons Matthew gave, that would be inappropriate), but there's a problem when we're letting a quarter of those who killed a cyclist drive home from prison, and where less than half face any prison sentence at all. So I agree with Matthew that the 'life sentence' option is populist nonsense, and that our prison population is unsustainable. But I've seen too many killer motorists walk free. We are routinely not prosecuting motorists for manslaughter when they kill innocent people they should have seen - we need root and branch reform here. I would say increasing sentences is an option - but I'd argue that until we address why it is you can get away with killing a cyclist who was blatantly visible in front of you on a clear road on a sunny day sentencing is almost irrelevant.

I entirely agree that we need to prosecute (and ban) motorists who are endangering others before they kill. Over the years, in this blog, I've posted countless links to staggeringly dangerous, illegal driving that Cambridgeshire Constabulary have flat out refused to prosecute, even with incontrovertible video evidence. 

You can go your whole life as a bad driver and not kill someone on Britain's road. But you're still part of a culture that discourages uptake of walking or cycling - activities we need to increase to tackle both pollution and obesity crises. Addressing dangerous driving before a motorist kills seems like a no-brainer to me. But its not quite as headline grabbing, is it?

Police Commissioner for Cambridge Doesn't Get It

There's been quite a response to our local police service rejecting Operation Close Pass because they prefer motorists to be able to overtake dangerously without facing any legal repercussion. And eventually, the elected Police Commissioner had to respond.

Firstly I'd like to thank Commissioner Ablewhite for his response. I'd like to go through that and give some thoughts...

As Police and Crime Commissioner, my job is to protect all road users, whether car users, cyclists or pedestrians. That is why I support a multitude of different safety initiatives. 

There are 6,000 roads and streets in Cambridgeshire and the police cannot be (and never have been) on every single road. With ever-reducing budgets impacting on police resourcing as well as on other bodies, it is more important than ever that we work together to find new solutions to keeping all of our road users safe.

I find it odd that the commissioner should choose to discuss how many roads we have in this region as if that somehow differentiates us from any other. There are, I gather, a lot of roads and streets everywhere, and none of the police services running an Operation Close Pass have conspicuously fewer streets than we do. No one is asking cor a copper on every corner, we do't want a 'police state' on our roads with omnipresent police officers waiting behind every tree. The purposes of Close Pass has been to police in specific locations and use the publicity associated with that to change the culture across all roads - it is a rational response to the scale of the policing job. By making getting caught and prosecuted a possibility, motorists across the region start to comply with the law. Its really not that complicated.

People need to take a sensible approach to overtaking cyclists and I’m pleased to see the majority do. The code is clear – don’t get too close to the cyclist you intend to overtake, use your mirrors and signal when it is safe to pass, allow plenty of room without putting other users at risk.

I agree that the code is clear, but lets be honest - some motorists do overtake with plenty of space but Commissioner, you know for a fact that this far too common a crime, and you know full well because I've brought you clear video evidence of precisely such crimes, which you know full well Cambridgeshire Constabulary have not sought to prosecute. You know this is a problem and you know its not being dealt with.

My first priority is to reduce road deaths in our county, fatalities which are primarily car drivers caused by other people driving dangerously or inappropriately.

Commissioner you've slipped a massive, massive assumption in there. And I must challenge it. 

The most recent data we have is from 2016. Yes, motorists do die in larger numbers than pedestrians or cyclists (not in proportion to how many there are or how far they travel, but in terms of number of deaths), and I accept that as every death is a tragedy we need to address all such incidents. But your assumption is that the primary cause is other people driving dangerously. I don't see any evidence that. In fact we know pretty well what causes deaths on our roads -  65% are caused by motorists error, 31% are caused by driving too fast. Here it is - here's the full report here.

Yes, policing motorist behaviour is worthwhile, but the claim that it is other motorists to blame is demonstrably facile. The point of Close Pass is that it is addressing precisely the kind of risk-taking behaviour that is endangering other road users. It conforms precisely to what it is you claim to want to do - protect people from others who would risk their lives. Focusing on motorist behaviour to protect other motorists from them is not a good use of police time. 

That is why earlier this year I invested in a Casualty Reduction Officer. Jon Morris has years of experience in dealing with these issues and continues to work on a daily basis with a wide range of statutory and non-statutory agencies to help educate all road users about keeping safe.

John Morris was wrong in his statement. He claimed our roads are narrow but, except for right in the tiny historic centre of Cambridge they are not. He intimated that motorists having to go on to the other side of the road to pass is a bad thing, when in fact that is precisely what the Highway Code shows is correct. Officer Morris presented 'potentially forcing motorists to drive at the speed of cyclists' because the alternative is to risk the welfare of a cyclist as a bad thing. He is wrong, his advice is contrary to the highway code and a poor interpretation of the law. Just as importantly, in rejecting Close Pass, officer Morris has directly contradicted your supposed wholehearted support. Or in other words, by asserting that actually obeying the law is just too hard and inconvenient, he has condoned dangerous overtakes and abdicated the responsibility for policing demonstrably illegal and dangerous driving. 

One such scheme is Speed Watch which I’m pleased to see now has over 2,000 volunteers. I would encourage anyone in any parish who wants to set up a scheme to contact Mike Brooks, the Force Watch Coordination Officer: mike.brooks@cambs.pnn.police.uk.

Very nice. I don't care, we're talking about Operation Close Pass. This scheme has got nothing to do with that.

Another initiative is the introduction of Drive iQ which I introduced in June this year. The web-based learning programme is helping educate young people how to keep both themselves and others safe while driving.

Again, I don't care. That has nothing to do with operation close pass. 

It is clear that enforcement alone will not reduce fatal and serious collisions and it is vital the police focus work on preventing them from happening in the first place.

That's the whole point of Operation Close Pass. Its about changing the culture of driving, to prevent close overtakes through educating the entire driving population through highly publicised targeted policing - through such a focus it has been shown to be a cost effective and highly effective way to reduce the number of injury causing incidents on the road, and in so doing to facilitate a greater uptake of a means of transport (cycling) that brings orders of magnitude less risk to others than driving. 

I'm sorry Commissioner, you're just wrong here. Your officers claims were wrong, and you are wrong to double down on that by supporting him. Reconsider.