Woking Cycle Users' Group

Dear Councillors, Officers, Consultants, Academics and other interested parties

This letter is a follow up to the Shared Surface Public Meeting on Saturday 19th February in Woking at which I was on the panel for the questions and answers session. Unfortunately as I was unaware what the meeting would be like I came unprepared. I was neither invited to speak prior to the event nor (spontaneously at the event) allowed to give a presentation, therefore I hope you will bear with me on this rather long response to the meeting.

The letter is intended as a continuation of the debate and I invite interested parties to respond, including the experts on the distribution list who are welcome to contribute and correct me if I've made any mistakes. However, I'd like to keep this particular debate focused on the issues raised here and to remain based on research and evidence, otherwise it could quickly become unmanageable. For this reason, I've referenced my evidence with online sources (where possible) and the attached report. I've also made some quotes from the Public Meeting which, although they may not be word perfect, I believe convey the general meaning.

The email is being sent to person(s) from the following organisations:

Woking Borough Councillors
Surrey County Councillors
Surrey County Council Officers
MVA Consultancy (Woking based transportation consultancy which is leading a national study on Shared Space for the Department for Transport [1]
University of Surrey: Department of Psychology (they have carried out research on perceptions, attitudes and conflict in shared use environments, among much else) [2]
Guide Dogs for the Blind (GDB)
Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB)
Surrey Disabled People's Partnership (SDPP)
Woking Cycle Users' Group (WCUG)
CTC (The UK's National Cyclists' Organisation, Godalming, Surrey)
Sustrans
Woking newspapers

This letter will also be put on the Woking Cycle Users' Group Website.

Executive Summary

It is very important that Woking Town Centre remains safe for everyone. It is important that it doesn't become a 'no go area' for any group, especially vulnerable pedestrians who have limited other public places they can go to and feel safe.

However having looked at many sources of evidence I can find nothing to support the idea that cycling should be banned from Woking Town Centre on safety grounds.

There is a large amount of research into safety in shared use areas, however out of all this research only one carried out by Guide Dogs for the Blind (GDB) themselves seems to find evidence of safety problems. Other sources of related information include: government guidelines, published statistics, insurance premiums, research study conclusions and the results of the trial in Woking. In none of these can I find any evidence to suggest that shared use is inherently unsafe.

As Guide Dogs for the Blind come up with such starkly different conclusions, I've had a look at their research methods and campaign in more depth to try and find out why [3]. I can't find any evidence of GDB using any third party evidence in their research or campaign to help them come to their conclusions.

My finding is that both the research and the campaign methodologies used by GDB are deeply flawed and misguided. I use published evidence to support my conclusions that:

The research itself is not sufficiently robust to be able to draw any sound conclusions about the safety or the suitability of 'shared space'.
The research methods and the campaign are likely to have lead to an escalation of perceptions of conflict and danger.
Thus the GDB research can't even be used to accurately gauge perceptions of danger among the visually impaired, as those perceptions are likely have been altered by the research methodology and campaign itself.
The people most likely to suffer from these escalated perceptions of danger are those the campaign seeks to help. The fear induced is likely to reduce their independence and freedom, as the level of fear is out of line with reality.

I briefly mention some of the negative effects that a ban on cycling in the town centre would have. Considering the many and important negative effects that a ban would have, it is important to make a sound decision on this, and not base it on unfounded fear.

Considering the strong evidence in support of allowing cycling in pedestrianised areas and the flimsy evidence against it, it would be very difficult to justify preventing cycling in Woking Town Centre based on the evidence available. The shared space should therefore be retained.

"Say 'No' to Shared Streets"

This is the title of a national campaign by Guide Dogs for the Blind which has now come to Woking [3].

From looking at the GDB website their methodology was to ask the visually impaired about perceptions of danger by first using focus groups and then using a telephone survey. As part of the telephone interviews respondents were asked about accidents and near misses with cyclists. The results were:

"20% of blind and partially sighted people interviewed have been involved in a collision with a cyclist on a pavement or path". 2% of these (that is 0.4% of respondents) reported they required medical attention following the incident. 45% of interviewees reported a near miss.

Over half (52%) of these incidents occurred on a pedestrian only path or pavement where the cyclist was thought to be riding illegally. Almost a quarter, (23%) were on a non segregated shared path and a further 15% occurred on a shared path segregated by a single white line. Only 3% occurred where the segments for pedestrians and cyclists were physically separated, perhaps suggesting that clear segregation is beneficial."

I'm unclear as to whether any of the 23% of reported incidents which were on non segregated shared paths were actually in a shared surface environment similar to Woking Town Centre, or whether they were all on shared use paths such as the Basingstoke canal. We can't draw any robust conclusions on the safety of shared surface schemes from this result.

Any accident is of course undesirable, as is the understandable fear from near misses. However I can see no attempt made to set these results in context by showing the prevalence of accidents and near misses through other related causes such as pedestrian-pedestrian accidents, motor vehicle accidents or falls caused by uneven pavements etc. No details about the severity of those requiring hospital treatment are given and I can see no attempt to verify the reports of incidents.

There is also no information about the relative time spent or distances covered on the different types of path. For example there were 3% of incidents on paths "where the segments for pedestrians and cyclists were physically separated, perhaps suggesting that clear segregation is beneficial". Such paths are not that common in the UK, so if for example this 3% of accidents only related to 1% of the time spent by the interviewees, it would suggest that such paths might be 3 times more dangerous than the other types, not safer. Clearly no robust policy conclusion can be drawn from this piece of information alone, however GDB have come down very firmly in favour of segregation. (I don't know how much influence this result had on their views of the benefits of segregation.)

Part of the Department for Transport (DfT) Cycle Infrastructure Design guidance states:

"4.3.8 Pedestrians and cyclists often claim a preference for marked cycle routes within pedestrianised areas (Davies et al., 2003). However, in practice this can lead to higher cycle speeds and greater potential for conflict. Defining the cycle route may therefore not be the best solution in these cases." [4]

This counterintuitive result isn't obvious at first, however by observing real situations and thinking about it, it makes sense. In urban planning and transport planning 'context' is everything. What works well in one situation won't necessarily work at all in another. A campaign which inflexibly comes down firmly in favour of any particular solution based on flimsy evidence is likely to be wrong in many situations, leading to generally worse outcomes.

Statistics based on the GDB research were used freely during the Public Meeting on 19th February to somehow 'prove' how dangerous cycling is to pedestrians. However, I can't find any evidence of any other sources of information being used, either at the Public Meeting or on the GDB website. The only times independent accident statistics were mentioned was when the lack of evidence from them is being explained away. Considering the very high level of danger that it is claimed cyclists present to pedestrians, it just has to be asked why more independent published data is not available and provided? Surely if this danger is as great as claimed then there would be some reflection of it somewhere in independent studies and statistics?

I accept that this is a difficult area and that there is incomplete data, especially for collisions where no injury has occurred. However, there are many available sources which include: Police records of reported road accidents (there were a total of 222,146 road injury accidents in GB in 2009), hospital admissions data, National Travel Survey data, British Crime Survey data, results from trials such as the one in Woking Town Centre, other research studies, plus a wealth of data from countries with far more experience of allowing cycling in pedestrian areas, notably the Netherlands and Denmark.

Can all of this really be explained away so simply or does it instead tell us that cycling together with pedestrians is a very safe activity? During the presentation by the GDB representative at the Public Meeting on 19th February, one of the explanations given for the lack of accidents in Woking was, "of course there were no accidents if the disabled are not there to knock down". This is contrary to another of her statements which was that she personally prefers to shop in Woking and also encourages disabled people to shop in Woking since it has a welcoming environment for disabled people. This is despite cycling being allowed in the town centre for almost 2 years now. The current shared use arrangement has not stopped Woking being a welcoming place for disabled people and no actual incidents within the shared use area have been reported during this time.

Specific studies have been carried out regarding cycling in pedestrianised areas. I'm not aware of any which have concluded that the practice should be banned (but correct me if you know of such a study). The position that the Department for Transport has come to after considering the results from studies is:

"Observation revealed no real factors to justify excluding cyclists from pedestrianised areas, suggesting that cycling could be more widely permitted without detriment to pedestrians." [5]

Insurance Risk

For insurance companies the evaluation of risk is their business, they probably have better data and a better understanding of risk than anyone else. So let's have a look at the case of Switzerland where it is compulsory to have third party insurance when cycling in a system which can be traced back (in some form or other) to 1890. [6]

The 'Velovignette' is a sticker which attaches to the bicycle. It costs between 4 and 8 Swiss Francs (£2.65 - £5.30). Purchasing it insures the rider against personal or property damage caused to others whilst cycling. It covers 2 million Swiss Francs damage (£1.3 million) and is valid for a year throughout Europe. The insurance cover is transferable between both bikes and riders.

Anyone who knows Switzerland will know it's an expensive high wage country. Yet for £2.65 it's possible to buy annual 3rd party cover for cycling. This premium has to cover transaction, administration and marketing costs, in addition to dealing with claims, paying compensation plus any losses from fraud. Presumably the insurance companies also make a profit out of this. Everyone in Switzerland knows that cyclists are covered by insurance, the claims procedure is relatively straightforward, thus claims are likely to be made whenever damage is caused (although I don't have details on the claims rate).

There should be a greater potential for conflict between pedestrians and cyclists as there are proportionately more of both in Switzerland compared with the UK and they have both shared use and segregated cycling facilities. Also, the mountainous terrain makes it easy to go fast on a bicycle! About 9% of all trips are cycled in Switzerland compared with about 2% in the UK. [7] In Canton Zurich only about 3% of children are driven to school, with walking and cycling accounting for about 2/3 of trips and the rest using public transport. [8]

The third party risks of cycling just can't be very great considering these low insurance premiums. Additionally, the Swiss government has plans to scrap the system, partly because it isn't worth the administrative effort.

This contrasts with the implication of the statement made during the Public Meeting when the Guide Dogs for the Blind representative said that, based on their research, "the visually impaired are more scared of bikes than cars". No attempt was made to try and compare the actual dangers of the two modes.

As an aside, can you imagine a Woking where only 3% of children are escorted to school by car because public transport, walking and cycling are so attractive, convenient and safe for them, as is the case in the Canton of Zurich? Personally that's the sort of Woking I'd like to live in and it's what I think we should be working towards. Banning cycling in the town centre would be a step in the wrong direction.

Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg?

There is a further and less obvious concern I have about the research methods employed by GDB for their campaign. A two phase study by the Universities of Surrey and Brighton was carried out to investigate conflict on shared use paths that are, "provided for cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders, the disabled, dogs, children and joggers etc." All of this can be found in the attached report. [2]

The conclusion from Phase I was:

"3. In Phase I it was found that, contrary to previous research evidence, conflict is an extremely infrequent occurrence. Not only was actual conflict rare, but feelings of perceived conflict were minimal on the paths we studied. We concluded that previously reported conflict was as likely to have been a consequence of the methodologies employed to investigate it as much as the existence of it in its own right."

The Phase II conclusion was:

"50. This study was different from Phase I in that routes which were busy and had a reputed reputation for conflict were investigated. In short, we focussed on hot spots. Notwithstanding this, the results of the behavioural observation demonstrate that actual conflict is a rare occurrence. The questionnaire survey supported this and found that perceived conflict too was extremely low. Even when people recalled their path experience later, it was not seen as conflictual, although perceived conflict was recalled as higher than when in the path environment. It is only when people talk about conflict that the incidence, or assumed incidence of conflict escalates and appears to be more serious. Therefore, in the scenarios and focus groups, conflict emerged as a serious issue, although it was not considered a serious problem. We conclude, therefore, that the discussion and focussing of attention on conflict serves to escalate its perceived existence.

51. The level of actual and perceived conflict being low along with the level of acceptability of sharing with other user types being at least acceptable to those using the routes suggests that, with some limits and regulations, shared use is a suitable option providing a useful transport alternative."

This suggests that the methodology of using Focus Groups to discuss conflict in a shared use environment may actually have lead to the creation of perceived conflict and therefore fear of danger. It also suggests that having a national campaign which says how dangerous it is, and having presentations such as during the Public Meeting, can generate and escalate such perceptions of danger.

Clearly it is not in the interests of vulnerable pedestrians to be subjected to any unnecessary fear. This would only serve to further limit their freedom. Even if cycling in the pedestrianised area were completely stopped it wouldn't help the vulnerable when they need or want to go outside of the pedestrianised zone where cycling would still be allowed. When I asked the representative from GDB what they do in towns where they lose the campaign to stop cycling, she replied, "We help our members to visit neighbouring towns instead". This surely cannot be in their best interest?

Guide Dogs for the Blind Research Methodology

A report based on UK focus groups was published in 2006. Later, in 2010, a report based on telephone interview results was published. I don't know how widespread awareness was of the results from the focus groups and the campaign against 'Shared Streets' amongst the people who were subsequently interviewed by telephone. If there was widespread awareness then this would likely have coloured the results.

For example, two of the results are:

6 out of 10 respondents (61%) had experience of a shared surface street.
9 out of 10 blind and partially sighted people interviewed (91%) had concerns about using shared surface streets.

So 30% of respondents had concerns about using shared surface streets despite having had no experience of them. I think it is now very difficult to disentangle how much of the concern expressed was due to the campaign itself and how much would have existed if the campaign hadn't been carried out.

'How do you train/teach the visually impaired how to cope with cyclists? Should we tell them to jump to the left or to the right?'

This was a rhetorical question asked at the public meeting on Saturday 19th February by the GDB representative. I'd like to answer this question.

The answer is simple: neither to the left nor to the right because people just don't aim straight at other people when walking or cycling, they aim to miss. To do otherwise would hurt both parties. To ask the rhetorical question at all reveals a fundamental lack of understanding about user interactions in shared space environments.

All that is required for pedestrians and cyclists to safely share space is for the pedestrians to go about their usual business whilst ignoring the cyclists. In the shared space in Woking there is generally plenty of room for cyclists to avoid pedestrians by going round them. When there isn't enough space then of course the cyclist will slow down and take avoiding action. This is borne out by research and DfT documentation. For example:

"Pedestrians change their behaviour in the presence of motor vehicles, but not in response to cyclists. Cyclists respond to pedestrian density, modifying their speed, dismounting and taking other avoiding action where necessary." [5]

If pedestrians were scared they would change their behaviour in response to cyclists. Therefore the pedestrians studied in this research were clearly not scared. It is easiest for both parties that it's the cyclists who take the avoiding action, and this is exactly what happens in practice.

Expected Outcomes of a Potential Ban

If cycling were banned from the town centre on the back of a campaign of fear, it would be extremely frustrating for people to be told to 'get off and walk' when they know that they're not posing any significant danger or inconvenience to anybody. Additionally, and according to DfT guidance, cycling would likely continue anyway:

"4.3.4 It can be contentious to reintroduce cycling into vehicle restricted areas (VRAs) but, as these areas are often prime destinations where shops and services are located, good cycle access is desirable. Where new vehicular restrictions are to be introduced, serious consideration should always be given to retaining cycle access. Traffic conditions on unrestricted routes may be unattractive to cyclists, and the routes can be indirect. Maintaining formal cycle access needs to be considered against the likelihood of cyclists using the VRA regardless of any restrictions. Where cycling is permitted, most cyclists will usually dismount at the busiest times (DoT, 1993a)." [4]

If a ban is introduced it would likely have all of the following outcomes compared with not introducing a ban:

Frustration and anger at the ban.
Frustration and anger because of people breaking the ban.
More 'them and us', less social cohesion.
The fear people have would be further justified and intensified by the ban. This fear would further limit the independence of vulnerable people.
There would be pressure to enforce the ban, yet it would be difficult to justify resources for enforcement given the available evidence and DfT guidance.
The increased negative image of cycling, together with the lower perceived official support for cycling would lead to less cycle use and more car use. [9]
Less choice.
Less child independence, worse child health.
There would be more overall danger because of increased car traffic.
More congestion from increased car traffic, leading to increased frustration and anger amongst drivers.
More traffic leads to the vicious circle of worse road conditions for cycling leading to a further decline in cycling, leading in turn to more traffic…
More health costs and worse health outcomes from higher obesity and lower fitness levels causing lower life expectancy and wellbeing. [7] [10]
An increase in local air and noise pollution.
An increase in CO2 emissions.
More vulnerability of the local economy to oil price shocks. [11]
Fewer visitors and less vibrancy to the town centre.
Less chance of winning Government money for the borough under the new Local Sustainable Transport Fund [12]

As you can see, with all these negative outcomes, the decision isn't entirely trivial. The decision shouldn't be based on unfounded fear.

Conclusion

Feelings of fear, anger and even possibly prejudice and hate were palpable at the Public Meeting. I feel that this campaign is being carried out in a seriously misguided way (which isn't in any way to dismiss the genuine needs and concerns of the visually and mobility impaired). To create fears in people and then to spread and amplify them whilst ignoring all the evidence to the contrary is irresponsible at best; particularly amongst people who are by definition less able to verify the information they're given by observing for themselves. The people likely to suffer the most from this campaign are unfortunately those it seeks to protect; this fear will reduce their actual independence.

When deciding priorities and campaigning for public realm improvements to help the visually and mobility impaired, it's important to maintain a sense of reality, use robust research evidence and take into account the local context. If not, there's the danger that the wrong conclusions will be drawn and the wrong priorities chosen. Saying that a certain percentage of people perceive something to be dangerous so therefore it must be stopped everywhere just isn't good enough.

I really hope we can sort out our differences and share the town centre in peace and safety. It is vitally important that vulnerable people not only are safe but also feel safe when coming to the town centre, otherwise they won't come and that would clearly have a massive negative impact on their lives, so please let's not scare people unnecessarily.

Clearly, based on all the available evidence and based on the expected negative outcomes of a ban, the shared space arrangements in Woking Town Centre should be continued. However, we need to recover from the current situation of fear. A more realistic assessment of the level of danger is needed so that people can be properly informed and advised on how to behave in the shared use environment. Overcoming fear should lead to an increase in freedom for many people, not just within the town centre but also the freedom to use the Basingstoke Canal Towpath and the many other areas where cyclists are present. I would certainly welcome such an outcome and be happy to be part of the solution.

Finally, and despite the contention of the GDB representative that there "isn't any research so we carried out our own", even locally there are at least two organisations researching and providing informed, independent opinion on the subject:

MVA: a Woking based transport consultancy. They are currently leading a large research project for the DfT into Shared Space covering shared use between cars, cycles and pedestrians. From MVA's website: "The team will carry out research to identify how design and other mitigating measures can address the concerns that some people, particularly those with a visual impairment, have about these environments … The project team led by MVA Consultancy includes TRL, Atkins, the Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) JMU Access Partnership and Phil Jones Associates. The study will conclude in spring 2011."
Two members of Guide Dogs for the Blind are also on the sounding board [1]
Surrey University: Department of Psychology. They produced the report quoted in this letter and are active in lots of related research. [2]


Regards

Stephen Millard {BSc., MSc., Transport Planner}
Woking Cycle Users Group




References

[1] http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/sharedspace/stage1/
http://www.mvaconsultancy.com/news/2009/DfT_shared_space_research.html

[2] See the attached document: Uzzell et al (2002) "User Interactions in Non Motorised Shared Use Environments: Phase II"

[3] http://www.guidedogs.org.uk/sharedstreets/index.php?id=198

[4] http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/ltnotes/ltn208.pdf

[5] http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/165240/244921/244924/TAL_9-93

[6] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velovignette

[7] http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/cycling/activetravelstrategy/pdf/activetravelstrategy.pdf

[8] Paul Mees (2009), "Transport for Suburbia: Beyond the Automobile Age"

[9] http://www.dft.gov.uk/rmd/project.asp?intProjectID=10051

[10] http://www.bis.gov.uk/foresight/our-work/projects/published-projects/tackling-obesities

[11] http://peakoiltaskforce.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/final-report-uk-itpoes_report_the-oil-crunch_feb20101.pdf

[12] http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/speeches/baker20101020
http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/statements/baker20101213