With the number of cyclists killed in 2012 hitting a five-year high of 122 ( http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3313260.ece ) & the summer of 2012 showing an eight percent increase in cyclist KSIs (Killed and Seriously Injured) ( http://m.bikeradar.com/news/article/number-of-cyclists-killed-and-seriously-injured-rises-again-36387 ) you could be forgiven for thinking cycling is becoming more dangerous. Figures from 2011 support this. Whilst cycling increased by 2% and the level of fatalities fell by 4%, serious injuries increased by 16%, leading to a 9% increase in KSI rates for distance cycled ( http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3551562.ece ).
Is cycling getting more dangerous though? In itself, at the top end, most speed records have been set relatively recently ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_records ), so perhaps this translates to cyclists on the road. Better technology leads to quicker speeds, leads to more severe injuries in accidents. There is, after all, very little that can be done to improve safety on a bike without losing a lot of speed. This seems unlikely to be the case however, as the vast majority of cyclists on the roads will be at a pace around 15mph, which is hardly likely to cause severe injuries should they come off.
Perhaps the increase in cyclist numbers disproportionately increases the number of accidents. After all, 1 in 5 new drivers has a crash within 6 months of passing their test. ( http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/young-drivers-the-hard-facts.htm ) Perhaps novice cyclists, having less skill & experience, find it harder to anticipate & avoid accidents.
Whatever the reason. It's hard to argue against the view that there are too many deaths and serious injuries of cyclists on our roads. The vast majority of accidents involving cyclists also involve a motor vehicle. In collisions involving a cyclist and a motor vehicle, the cyclist always comes off worst. It's a familiar line in news stories 'the driver of the car was uninjured'.
The key in reducing cyclist accidents is therefore to minimise interactions with motor vehicles. Dedicated cycle paths, which are fit for purpose, are one way of doing this. As are reduced speed limits. If there are more 20mph limits in urban areas, the desire by motorists to overtake will be reduced, leading to less overtakes & less chance of risky or dangerous overtakes. Giving cyclists the ability to bypass traffic lights, junctions or entering roundabouts to turn left would also help.
All of these require action from other people. Whilst cyclists can campaign, as individuals, we still want to cycle, so what can we do to help keep ourselves safe?
This doesn't carry any amount of victim blaming - if someone doesn't do any of the below, they should still have a right to use the roads without being hit.
Be Seen
The familiar excuse of SMIDSY (Sorry Mate I Didn't See You) is the bane of cyclist's lives. Whilst it's often caused by drivers not looking for cyclists, they do tend to look for other cars, so it's best to increase your chances of being seen. You can do this through garish hi-vis, bright & multiple lights, even during the day, and keeping a road position away from the kerb where you'll stand out more, especially at junctions.
Be Predictable
Drivers complain about cyclists 'swerving all over the road'. This may well be to avoid drain covers, potholes & debris, but it's important to try to maintain a straight course to allow drivers maximum opportunity to know what you're doing. This may mean cycling further out from the kerb than you're used to. Keep far enough out to avoid drain covers, usually 2ft or more from the kerb. This will also enable you to swerve left to avoid an obstacle, rather than left into the path of a car overtaking you too close.( http://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/community/how-to/road-positioning ) When passing parked cars, keep out of the door zone, and keep your line, even when there is a short absence of cars - better to annoy a driver than get knocked off when you pull out again.
Control the Lane
This is usually necessary where the lane is narrow & there isn't enough room for a car to overtake, or you are going round a sharp corner or approaching a junction. Be aware that some drivers will try to pass you too close & assume the one behind you is one of those. Move out into the centre of your lane to prevent this from happening. You can also do this near traffic lights and junctions to avoid being overtaken, or a car pulling up alongside blocking your view.
Be Alert
Consider everything a potential hazard. Ride with your hands over your brakes, ready to stop. That car up ahead, waiting to pull out of a side road? Maybe they haven't seen you. Maybe they think they have enough time to pull out. Don't assume drivers will respect your right of way on a roundabout. Don't think pedestrians won't make a dash for it in front of you. When passing parked cars, stay clear of the door zone & be ready to avoid one if it swings open if you can't do this. If you're riding on the road, make sure you can hear the traffic - that means either no headphones or turn them down really low!
Stay Calm
Don't get wound up by bad drivers & attempt retribution, or to catch up to 'have a word' - cars always win in a collision. If you've had a close call, it's often best to stop & wait to regain your composure before continuing, so you can focus on cycling & not worrying what might have happened.
Be Bold
Make sure your arm signals are confident, you make eye contact to ensure you know drivers intentions & you don't get bullied to the side of the road. Also - I can't stress this enough - don't worry about the law if you feel you're in danger - if you think the driver behind you is so dangerous they may hit you, get up on the pavement. Your life is worth more than a £30 fixed penalty notice!
Look after your bike
Keep your bike in good condition - prevent it from rusting, maintain the parts, replace anything that wears out & it will look after you. A badly maintained bike could fail & cause you to crash and you can't rely on the driver behind to avoid hitting you.
Remember, just because you're in the right, it doesn't mean your safety is ensured, we all make mistakes & until the government recognises the need to make roads safe enough to negate the impact of mistakes by drivers of motor vehicles, you need to take all the precautions you can.
Monday 18 February 2013
Wednesday 23 January 2013
Common Misconceptions About Cyclists
Whilst on the road, on Twitter and even in casual conversation, I hear a huge number of misconceptions about cyclists, related to the legality of what they are doing. All too often these arguments are used to undermine the position of cyclists & reduce the legitimacy of our right to use the road. This has inspired me to write this post, to deal with common misconceptions about our rights and responsibilities first off, but also to clarify that whilst some cyclists do undoubtedly break the rules, the numbers are nothing like as high as are often touted & other cyclists are no more responsible for the actions of this minority than anyone else is responsible for drink drivers.
"look well ahead for obstructions in the road, such as drains, pot-holes and parked vehicles so that you do not have to swerve suddenly to avoid them. Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path"
In order to be able to avoid drains, it is necessary to be far enough out from the kerb to avoid the widest ones. It is also necessary to be far enough out to not be adversely affected by the camber of the road. Cyclists should keep their line & avoid swerving out simply to avoid obstacles as this is dangerous & unpredictable for cars. I was taught in my cycling proficiency to cycle 60-100cm from the kerb at all times, further when necessary.
CTC advice ( http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/cycle-skills/gaining-confidence-riding-in-traffic ) supports this road positioning to enable cyclists to be recognised in traffic & to prevent being squeezed against the kerb. In traffic it is hard to avoid obstacles if a stream of cars is keeping you within a 2ft width of the kerb.
It is also important to ride out from the edge of the road in order to be clearly seen by drivers. Wherever the cyclist is in the lane, they are legitimately allowed to be there. A driver should NEVER carry out a punishment pass. It is their responsibility to wait until it is safe & give the cyclist plenty of space when overtaking. As much space as they would a car, the highway code states in rule 163 ( https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169 )
'Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.'
In short, it is up to the cyclist's judgement whether they should use the lane or not. Given that cycle lanes are often full of debris, potholes & drain covers (these are just the ones at the edge of the road, off-road cycle paths are often in an even worse condition). Especially at this time of year, cycle lanes are full of slush or excess grit, snow and ice. Cycle paths tend to remain ungritted.
Many on pavement cycle paths have no right of way over side roads, having to stop and give way at each one. This makes the route both slow and inconvenient.
The mistake made by drivers here is the assumption that because there is a cycle path or lane, it is suitable to be used. A bit of experience on a bicycle will show that in the UK, this is rarely the case.
Neither of these are right, both are equally illegal, but simply due to the size and speed of the vehicle infringing the law, the cars doing this are far more dangerous.
A 2007 survey from TfL showed that between 79-87% of cyclists obeyed the red lights at various locations around London ( http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/traffic-note-8-cycling-red-lights.pdf ). Whilst this figure is far too high, it shows that the vast majority of cyclists do obey red lights. It's worth noting that 4% of collisions caused by jumping red lights are due to cyclists, whereas a whopping 71% are caused by car drivers ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/may/14/cycling-red-light-jumping-iam-survey ).
Given that a large number of drivers talk on hand held phones ( http://www.brake.org.uk/latest-news/290312.htm ) and up to 82% admit breaking the speed limit ( http://news.sky.com/story/719315/driving-motorists-admit-to-breaking-speeding-laws ), the focus on cyclists running red lights is grossly disproportionate not only to the risk it creates, but also the sheer number of traffic violations.
I've addressed the key points I see as being misunderstood by drivers. In a similar vein to red lights, lots of other laws that a minority of cyclists break are often cited, but the fact that some cyclists ride on the pavement, without lights or without signalling, doesn't diminish the right of other cyclists to be treated with respect & to have a safe journey. Even the cyclists breaking the law should not be treated any worse - 2 wrongs do not make a right, after all.
'Cyclists have to ride close to the kerb'
This is not mentioned anywhere in the highway code. Rule 67 states that cyclists should:"look well ahead for obstructions in the road, such as drains, pot-holes and parked vehicles so that you do not have to swerve suddenly to avoid them. Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path"
In order to be able to avoid drains, it is necessary to be far enough out from the kerb to avoid the widest ones. It is also necessary to be far enough out to not be adversely affected by the camber of the road. Cyclists should keep their line & avoid swerving out simply to avoid obstacles as this is dangerous & unpredictable for cars. I was taught in my cycling proficiency to cycle 60-100cm from the kerb at all times, further when necessary.
CTC advice ( http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/cycle-skills/gaining-confidence-riding-in-traffic ) supports this road positioning to enable cyclists to be recognised in traffic & to prevent being squeezed against the kerb. In traffic it is hard to avoid obstacles if a stream of cars is keeping you within a 2ft width of the kerb.
It is also important to ride out from the edge of the road in order to be clearly seen by drivers. Wherever the cyclist is in the lane, they are legitimately allowed to be there. A driver should NEVER carry out a punishment pass. It is their responsibility to wait until it is safe & give the cyclist plenty of space when overtaking. As much space as they would a car, the highway code states in rule 163 ( https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169 )
'If there is a cycle path, cyclists HAVE to use it'
This is not the case. Cyclists are allowed to use the cycle path, but they remain allowed to use the road. The Highway Code rule 63 states:'Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.'
In short, it is up to the cyclist's judgement whether they should use the lane or not. Given that cycle lanes are often full of debris, potholes & drain covers (these are just the ones at the edge of the road, off-road cycle paths are often in an even worse condition). Especially at this time of year, cycle lanes are full of slush or excess grit, snow and ice. Cycle paths tend to remain ungritted.
Many on pavement cycle paths have no right of way over side roads, having to stop and give way at each one. This makes the route both slow and inconvenient.
The mistake made by drivers here is the assumption that because there is a cycle path or lane, it is suitable to be used. A bit of experience on a bicycle will show that in the UK, this is rarely the case.
'Cyclists always run red lights'
This is obviously incorrect, as evidenced by seeing cyclists waiting at red lights. The fact is some cyclists DO run red lights, but so do drivers. The difference is how they run them. Drivers will continue driving through a light, just after it has turned red, often causing danger to other vehicles whose light has just turned green. Cyclists will often run red lights at various times throughout the phase, but most commonly just before they turn green, in order to get a head start.Neither of these are right, both are equally illegal, but simply due to the size and speed of the vehicle infringing the law, the cars doing this are far more dangerous.
A 2007 survey from TfL showed that between 79-87% of cyclists obeyed the red lights at various locations around London ( http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/traffic-note-8-cycling-red-lights.pdf ). Whilst this figure is far too high, it shows that the vast majority of cyclists do obey red lights. It's worth noting that 4% of collisions caused by jumping red lights are due to cyclists, whereas a whopping 71% are caused by car drivers ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/may/14/cycling-red-light-jumping-iam-survey ).
Given that a large number of drivers talk on hand held phones ( http://www.brake.org.uk/latest-news/290312.htm ) and up to 82% admit breaking the speed limit ( http://news.sky.com/story/719315/driving-motorists-admit-to-breaking-speeding-laws ), the focus on cyclists running red lights is grossly disproportionate not only to the risk it creates, but also the sheer number of traffic violations.
'Cyclists are always undertaking illegally'
What's clear here is that drivers don't like being passed by cyclists. This is generally more due to the fact that they are stuck in traffic and it feels like the cyclists are cheating by not queueing with them. Somehow it seems unfair. However, avoiding traffic is one of the major reasons for many to cycle. Indeed, the more who cycle, the less traffic there is, simply because there are less cars queueing up at each junction, each set of traffic lights. You can fit a lot more bikes in the space of one car (and if you look in most cars, there is usually only 1 occupant anyway). If there is enough room for a cyclist to continue moving safely, they are legally allowed to do so. Undertaking does not exist in traffic - think about when you are on a motorway in heavy traffic - the outside 'slower' lane is allowed to move at a faster pace than the other lanes, because that is the speed of traffic. Motorcyclists are allowed to filter between the lanes of traffic because there is space for them to do so. The same applies for cyclists. It is their responsibility to do so at a safe speed & for drivers to check their mirrors before changing lanes or turning.I've addressed the key points I see as being misunderstood by drivers. In a similar vein to red lights, lots of other laws that a minority of cyclists break are often cited, but the fact that some cyclists ride on the pavement, without lights or without signalling, doesn't diminish the right of other cyclists to be treated with respect & to have a safe journey. Even the cyclists breaking the law should not be treated any worse - 2 wrongs do not make a right, after all.
Tuesday 22 January 2013
Cycling in Winter
In case we didn't already know, the last few days have left many cyclists in the UK with little doubt as to how much their local councils care about them. Whilst roads have been gritted and kept clear in an admirable manner, in many areas the snow has long stopped falling, yet cycle routes remain covered in the white stuff, often in combination with ice. It doesn't matter what sort of route, all cycling provision is ignored in the same way. Off road cycle paths are completely ignored. Shared use pavements are covered such that it is impossible to tell which side is for cyclists and which for pedestrians, though moving much quicker than walking pace is tricky anyway. On road cycle lanes are only marginally better, benefiting from their proximity to the road with a sprinkling of grit. All too often these lanes remain repositories for slush, forcing cyclists out on to the road anyway. I don't have a problem cycling on the road - indeed most of my cycling is on road - but the facefulls of snow flying off the roofs of passing cars doesn't do much to make the experience any safer than the icy paths.
It seems as though councils don't expect cyclists to venture out in such weather. I'm sure they could cite numbers to back this up, but there is an issue of cause and effect here. Cyclists may be willing to head out onto ice free paths, despite the arctic air temperatures, but if they don't have the option, they'll just hop in their cars and take the easier road. I'm sure if councils gritted cycle routes, they'd find the numbers using them would increase to justify their action. I have been told the City of London and Edinburgh have been keeping their bike lanes clear, sending out a clear message to others that it can be done.
It's not as though we shouldn't be cycling in this weather. Cyclists venture out year round in far worse conditions in other countries. It's just they are provided for much better.
In Sweden, for example, even small towns have snowploughs specifically for their bike lanes ( http://www.copenhagenize.com/2008/03/small-town-bike-lane-snowplough.html ) The dutch are even considering heated cycle lanes to keep theirs snow free. ( http://www.ecf.com/news/dutch-to-heat-cycle-lanes-ecf-newswatch/ ) Of course, for either of these to work, you need a sufficient network of dedicated cycle lanes, which are sadly lacking in this country.
What can we do then? Well, it depends. If you need to stick to cycle paths (literally) then a mountain bike with winter tyres such as these ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B000QT1IIS/ref=asc_df_B000QT1IIS11591890?smid=A1HZ5FPD8FVC3N&tag=googlecouk06-21&linkCode=asn&creative=22218&creativeASIN=B000QT1IIS ) should help. An interesting innovation is this clip on winter tire, akin to sticking some crampons on whilst on a mountain ( http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/with-this-sticky-tire-bike-in-the-snow/10681?tag=main;river ). With these, you should have a lot more grip but I'd personally still want to take it slow, especially approaching junctions & corners.
The other option is to take to the road. I do this anyway & these last few days in the snow, they have either been blissfully car free, or so blocked up with traffic, cyclists were overtaking huge queues (as is often the norm), so there's not too much worry about dangerous overtakes. I would say though, it's worth more than ever being assertive and ensuring you're not too close to the kerb. Far better to annoy the driver behind you a bit, than to hit a patch of ice or snow in the gutter and end up under their wheels.
The only other obstacle to cycling in the winter becomes your ability to cope with the cold. Here the mantra that there is no wrong weather, just the wrong clothes comes in handy! Get some decent gloves and socks, waterproofs & layer up. You can always take layers off as you warm up on your ride. Don't be afraid to start a little bit cold, you'll heat up quickly. Far quicker, in fact, than in a car!
It seems as though councils don't expect cyclists to venture out in such weather. I'm sure they could cite numbers to back this up, but there is an issue of cause and effect here. Cyclists may be willing to head out onto ice free paths, despite the arctic air temperatures, but if they don't have the option, they'll just hop in their cars and take the easier road. I'm sure if councils gritted cycle routes, they'd find the numbers using them would increase to justify their action. I have been told the City of London and Edinburgh have been keeping their bike lanes clear, sending out a clear message to others that it can be done.
It's not as though we shouldn't be cycling in this weather. Cyclists venture out year round in far worse conditions in other countries. It's just they are provided for much better.
In Sweden, for example, even small towns have snowploughs specifically for their bike lanes ( http://www.copenhagenize.com/2008/03/small-town-bike-lane-snowplough.html ) The dutch are even considering heated cycle lanes to keep theirs snow free. ( http://www.ecf.com/news/dutch-to-heat-cycle-lanes-ecf-newswatch/ ) Of course, for either of these to work, you need a sufficient network of dedicated cycle lanes, which are sadly lacking in this country.
What can we do then? Well, it depends. If you need to stick to cycle paths (literally) then a mountain bike with winter tyres such as these ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B000QT1IIS/ref=asc_df_B000QT1IIS11591890?smid=A1HZ5FPD8FVC3N&tag=googlecouk06-21&linkCode=asn&creative=22218&creativeASIN=B000QT1IIS ) should help. An interesting innovation is this clip on winter tire, akin to sticking some crampons on whilst on a mountain ( http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/with-this-sticky-tire-bike-in-the-snow/10681?tag=main;river ). With these, you should have a lot more grip but I'd personally still want to take it slow, especially approaching junctions & corners.
The other option is to take to the road. I do this anyway & these last few days in the snow, they have either been blissfully car free, or so blocked up with traffic, cyclists were overtaking huge queues (as is often the norm), so there's not too much worry about dangerous overtakes. I would say though, it's worth more than ever being assertive and ensuring you're not too close to the kerb. Far better to annoy the driver behind you a bit, than to hit a patch of ice or snow in the gutter and end up under their wheels.
The only other obstacle to cycling in the winter becomes your ability to cope with the cold. Here the mantra that there is no wrong weather, just the wrong clothes comes in handy! Get some decent gloves and socks, waterproofs & layer up. You can always take layers off as you warm up on your ride. Don't be afraid to start a little bit cold, you'll heat up quickly. Far quicker, in fact, than in a car!
Monday 14 January 2013
Abuse of Cyclists
I set up my twitter account ( www.twitter.com/asecretcyclist ) for a number of reasons:
1. To vent my anger at being mistreated on the roads.
2. To interact with others specifically about cycling and cycle-related issues.
3. To have a means of responding to abuse directed at cyclists & to educate others.
Now, whilst I do still have the occasional rant about being poorly treated by drivers, or contact companies to inform them of dangerous behaviour towards cyclists by their drivers, this forms a small part of my twitter use.
I do continue to interact with other like-minded people, sharing links and ideas at a volume which would bore followers of my personal twitter account to tears. There are great things which need to be shared to take off, however, such as the petition to include cyclist awareness in the driving test ( http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/44059%20 ) or innovations in cycle safety such as the blaze bike light ( http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/embrooke/blaze-bike-light ), which would not be anything like as popular without social media to spread the word. Using twitter in this way gives me great comfort, and restores my faith in humanity, when I am dragged down by the sheer bile and hatred some people feel the need to spew on twitter.
Remember, this is a public forum - people are broadcasting their thoughts for the world. As such, the world needs to give some (constructive) feedback.
So who is using twitter to badmouth people, and what is their beef?
Sadly, the type of person who will abuse cyclists in this group will tend to have friends who are likely to enter the debate to back up their friend, regardless of how rational the original grievance was. Often at this point (if it hadn't already) the interaction will descend into name calling, threats & other abuse.
Fortunately, there are also people out there who will tweet a grudge about cyclists & will then thank other twitter users for explaining why a cyclist may have been cycling so far from the kerb, for example. These people are often slightly older, with a maturity that shows, although by no means are the older users mature & the younger ones immature.
Common themes are:
Then there are those who feel encouraged by hearing others making such statements in public & who feel it is OK to drive a bit closer, to shout at a cyclist, to hoot a horn at a cyclist etc.
In reality though, I can briefly respond to each common argument:
The outcome I'm usually hoping for is that the person corrects or clarifies their statement, makes clear they meant just one person they had seen & that they realise cyclists are not a homogeneous group.
Even better, I'm hoping that the person will have simply misunderstood why the cyclist has been acting in a certain way, and that by explaining it, they now understand and will in future be more patient and forgiving of behaviour they don't understand by cyclists.
I'm only human, I get dragged into petty arguments, but I will always try to remain civil and ensure that I continue to reiterate my points in the hope that their continued hostility is simply a display of twitter bravado, trying to save face, but inside they have realised they were wrong & will act & speak differently in the future.
1. To vent my anger at being mistreated on the roads.
2. To interact with others specifically about cycling and cycle-related issues.
3. To have a means of responding to abuse directed at cyclists & to educate others.
Now, whilst I do still have the occasional rant about being poorly treated by drivers, or contact companies to inform them of dangerous behaviour towards cyclists by their drivers, this forms a small part of my twitter use.
I do continue to interact with other like-minded people, sharing links and ideas at a volume which would bore followers of my personal twitter account to tears. There are great things which need to be shared to take off, however, such as the petition to include cyclist awareness in the driving test ( http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/44059%20 ) or innovations in cycle safety such as the blaze bike light ( http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/embrooke/blaze-bike-light ), which would not be anything like as popular without social media to spread the word. Using twitter in this way gives me great comfort, and restores my faith in humanity, when I am dragged down by the sheer bile and hatred some people feel the need to spew on twitter.
Remember, this is a public forum - people are broadcasting their thoughts for the world. As such, the world needs to give some (constructive) feedback.
So who is using twitter to badmouth people, and what is their beef?
Twitter Cyclist Abusers
In my experience people who are abusive towards cyclists are usually reasonably young (late teens or early twenties). I hope that this is down to the increasingly younger twitter demographic, rather than being an indictment of the entire generation. One interesting thing about this group though, is that they are either learning to drive, or have recently passed their test. It seems they are rebelling against cycling, because they feel they have a new found freedom given to them by their cars. While cars may be new and exciting, they will find in years to come (perhaps when their parents stop subsidising their insurance or filling up the petrol) that the freedom often becomes the opposite - that their car becomes a burden - it has to be filled with petrol, MOT paid, VED paid & at any moment something can go wrong that costs a few hundred pounds. Perhaps they have learned this already, and are resentful of those cyclists, streaming along past queues of traffic, without being tied in to this expense.Sadly, the type of person who will abuse cyclists in this group will tend to have friends who are likely to enter the debate to back up their friend, regardless of how rational the original grievance was. Often at this point (if it hadn't already) the interaction will descend into name calling, threats & other abuse.
Fortunately, there are also people out there who will tweet a grudge about cyclists & will then thank other twitter users for explaining why a cyclist may have been cycling so far from the kerb, for example. These people are often slightly older, with a maturity that shows, although by no means are the older users mature & the younger ones immature.
The Abuse
The follow-up abuse is water off a duck's back - people don't always react well to being tweeted by a stranger (perhaps not realising the idea behind twitter). However, the original abuse, directed at all cyclists, is something which is genuinely worrying and indicates a serious problem with respect and safety on our roads.Common themes are:
- All cyclists are selfish and arrogant
- Cyclists hold up traffic
- Cyclists shouldn't be allowed on the road
- Cyclists don't pay road tax
- Cyclists should cycle on the pavement
- Cyclists all cycle on the pavement & shouldn't
- All cyclists jump red lights
- Cyclists never use cycle lanes when they're provided
- Cyclists jump out in front of traffic and don't indicate
- Cyclists don't wear hi viz or have lights
- Cyclists look ridiculous in their hi viz and lights
- I will push over / knock off / run over the next cyclist I see
Then there are those who feel encouraged by hearing others making such statements in public & who feel it is OK to drive a bit closer, to shout at a cyclist, to hoot a horn at a cyclist etc.
In reality though, I can briefly respond to each common argument:
- 'Cyclists' only have one thing in common - their mode of transport. This is akin to arguing that all drivers are the same.
- One more cyclist is one less car. In rush hour, less cars means less phases to get through traffic lights. Overtaking a cyclist, a car will often catch up to the next car in no time.
- Cyclists have every right to the road - it's often the most suitable route. If drivers want their own roads (like motorways), then they should campaign for segregated infrastructure, alongside the majority of cyclists.
- 'Road Tax' is now vehicle excise duty, which is based on emissions. 0 emissions is £0. All cyclists are avoiding is costing other users more in administrative fees.
- It's illegal and unsafe to cycle on the pavement unless it's designated shared usage.
- This is nonsense. Cyclists shouldn't do this and the majority don't.
- This is nonsense. Cyclists shouldn't do this and the majority don't
- Cyclists aren't mandated to use cycle lanes. If they are suitable, they will get used, but the majority of cycle lanes aren't suitable. They are often too narrow, potholed & contain debris and drain covers. Off-road cycle lanes don't give any priority over side roads & are therefore slow and arduous routes.
- This may happen, but it's by no means common. It's in cyclists' interests to look before they leap & to make their intentions clear. The shoe is often on the other foot & frequently motorists do not signal or give cyclists enough space.
- This is some cyclists. The fact they have been seen suggests this equipment isn't necessary. In fact, hi viz isn't necessary ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2013/jan/10/cycling-high-visibility-safe-fluorescent ). Lights may be, but don't assume all cyclists are dangerous, just because some don't have the required lights.
- You can't have it both ways. It's better to look ridiculous & be seen. It's better to have 'annoying' flashing lights than to go unnoticed and get hit.
- This is an outright threat of violence, or incitement of violence. Whether 'it's just a joke' or not, the language is threatening & should be taken seriously, reported to twitter & the local police (if known)
Why do I respond?
I respond because it makes people think. At the worst, they will realise that cyclists are not a pushover, not meek & will think twice before making these comments again.The outcome I'm usually hoping for is that the person corrects or clarifies their statement, makes clear they meant just one person they had seen & that they realise cyclists are not a homogeneous group.
Even better, I'm hoping that the person will have simply misunderstood why the cyclist has been acting in a certain way, and that by explaining it, they now understand and will in future be more patient and forgiving of behaviour they don't understand by cyclists.
I'm only human, I get dragged into petty arguments, but I will always try to remain civil and ensure that I continue to reiterate my points in the hope that their continued hostility is simply a display of twitter bravado, trying to save face, but inside they have realised they were wrong & will act & speak differently in the future.
Monday 10 December 2012
The War on Britain's Roads
Sensationalising is what the media do. Relatively minor incidents can be blown out of proportion, a small upward trend in crime can lead to hysteria about how we're not safe to go out on our streets. Sensible advice from the government gets labelled as the 'nanny state' dictating how we should live. This is common amongst tabloids - it's how they sell papers. Now online content is a source of revenue, similar tactics are used to generate visitors to a site. 'Opinion' pages are full of outlandish views we probably shouldn't believe, but we get sucked in anyway. Cyclists are a favourite target - they are already contentious - many cyclists are ready and willing to vehemently defend both their own actions - and any of their 2 wheeled brethren - from attack. The tactic is often to state how cyclists break the law - don't stop at red lights, cycle the wrong way, on pavements & how they all have a reckless disregard for the safety of themselves and others. Such articles find a publisher on almost a weekly basis. What I didn't expect though, was for the BBC to get involved in poking the hornet's nest.
It's clear from the title that 'The War on Britain's Roads' isn't going to be a rational look at what needs to be done to improve the safety and harmony of all road users. I did expect at least for this to feature in the concluding minutes. It does not, short of a taxi drivers wry comments that the best thing for all of us is if no one drives and no one cycles.
A lot of the footage is from helmet cameras - such footage is increasingly found on YouTube, of drivers who pass too closely to cyclists, who get out and get aggressive. The programme treats this as though it means cyclists are getting militant, or that they feel the need to have camera's as protection & the abundance of them is indicative of an increase in poor driver behaviour. Nonsense, it's indicative of an increase in cyclists & a decrease in the cost of such technology.
We see a video from CycleGaz where a taxi driver cuts in too close & Gaz slaps it to make the driver aware, leading to the driver getting out and angrily confronting him. Rather than focusing on whether the original manoeuvre was safe, what a safe distance to leave is or what cyclists and motorists can do to avoid such close calls, the programme chose to show the confrontation and analysis of this. Such incidents are rare - whereas the close misses happen all the time.
The programme continues in essence, as we have seen - looking at confrontation, from cyclists getting punched in the head, to police having to intervene in a grievance. There is a large amount of discussion around a cyclist who was unfortunately killed, and her mother's campaign for greater safety on the roads, especially concrete mixer lorries and other HGVs. This part is rare though - the programme's aim doesn't appear to have been to resolve anything, but to provoke a reaction from both the cyclists and the motorists featured.
Towards the end, this is exemplified by the showing of what I am led to believe was a commercially funded race of cycle couriers across London. Of course everyone condemned their risky behaviour, but what did showing this achieve - it's not typical, just as boy racers having drag races along dual carriageways are not typical of drivers. It's easy to show the obviously bad and get universal condemnation of it - what the show didn't do was explain what behaviours were seen by drivers as acceptable, yet felt dangerous to cyclists, or the behaviours cyclists engage in which they may not be aware unnecessarily antagonise drivers.
In sensationalising the issue & picking extreme examples, the BBC may have been successful in portraying a 'war' on the roads, but it was unsuccessful in showing the truth: The vast majority of interactions between drivers and cyclists occur without note - giving way to each other, overtaking safely, obeying the law. I would say that 90% of the cycle journeys I take pass without incident, and only 1-2% feature dangerous or reckless behaviour towards me rather than simple misunderstanding. It's what we can do to fix that which falls in the gap which concerns me - the drivers who don't know they are overtaking dangerously close, the cyclists who act as though they don't need to obey the law. If we can change the cultural norms that disregard safety on the roads, that is where the most lives will be saved. If cycling can be adequately protected, if drivers don't feel the need to overtake cyclists at any half-opportunity, if cycle infrastructure can be created that meets the needs of cyclists, we will get somewhere, not focusing on individual, isolated acts of aggression. 'The War on Britain's Roads' has been greatly exaggerated - it's mostly just blustering and hot air.
It's clear from the title that 'The War on Britain's Roads' isn't going to be a rational look at what needs to be done to improve the safety and harmony of all road users. I did expect at least for this to feature in the concluding minutes. It does not, short of a taxi drivers wry comments that the best thing for all of us is if no one drives and no one cycles.
A lot of the footage is from helmet cameras - such footage is increasingly found on YouTube, of drivers who pass too closely to cyclists, who get out and get aggressive. The programme treats this as though it means cyclists are getting militant, or that they feel the need to have camera's as protection & the abundance of them is indicative of an increase in poor driver behaviour. Nonsense, it's indicative of an increase in cyclists & a decrease in the cost of such technology.
We see a video from CycleGaz where a taxi driver cuts in too close & Gaz slaps it to make the driver aware, leading to the driver getting out and angrily confronting him. Rather than focusing on whether the original manoeuvre was safe, what a safe distance to leave is or what cyclists and motorists can do to avoid such close calls, the programme chose to show the confrontation and analysis of this. Such incidents are rare - whereas the close misses happen all the time.
The programme continues in essence, as we have seen - looking at confrontation, from cyclists getting punched in the head, to police having to intervene in a grievance. There is a large amount of discussion around a cyclist who was unfortunately killed, and her mother's campaign for greater safety on the roads, especially concrete mixer lorries and other HGVs. This part is rare though - the programme's aim doesn't appear to have been to resolve anything, but to provoke a reaction from both the cyclists and the motorists featured.
Towards the end, this is exemplified by the showing of what I am led to believe was a commercially funded race of cycle couriers across London. Of course everyone condemned their risky behaviour, but what did showing this achieve - it's not typical, just as boy racers having drag races along dual carriageways are not typical of drivers. It's easy to show the obviously bad and get universal condemnation of it - what the show didn't do was explain what behaviours were seen by drivers as acceptable, yet felt dangerous to cyclists, or the behaviours cyclists engage in which they may not be aware unnecessarily antagonise drivers.
In sensationalising the issue & picking extreme examples, the BBC may have been successful in portraying a 'war' on the roads, but it was unsuccessful in showing the truth: The vast majority of interactions between drivers and cyclists occur without note - giving way to each other, overtaking safely, obeying the law. I would say that 90% of the cycle journeys I take pass without incident, and only 1-2% feature dangerous or reckless behaviour towards me rather than simple misunderstanding. It's what we can do to fix that which falls in the gap which concerns me - the drivers who don't know they are overtaking dangerously close, the cyclists who act as though they don't need to obey the law. If we can change the cultural norms that disregard safety on the roads, that is where the most lives will be saved. If cycling can be adequately protected, if drivers don't feel the need to overtake cyclists at any half-opportunity, if cycle infrastructure can be created that meets the needs of cyclists, we will get somewhere, not focusing on individual, isolated acts of aggression. 'The War on Britain's Roads' has been greatly exaggerated - it's mostly just blustering and hot air.
Wednesday 28 November 2012
'Walking and cycling should become the norm for short journeys '
A report recently published by NICE (the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) has hit headlines across the UK. Why? Because it recommends that cycling and walking are better options for short journeys than driving. ( http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/13975/61629/61629.pdf ) This point, which a couple of decades ago would just have been seen as common sense, today somehow provokes debate. It's controversial to suggest that cars aren't the best way to get around! So why is walking and cycling short journeys better?
The report handily outlines the benefits to local authorities & government in a way that will appeal to them. It will enable them to better achieve their goals (or targets, if you will). These goals range from improving public health and obesity - which is what NICE focuses on - to reducing traffic congestion, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. All good things. It also hints that big measures need to be taken to ensure that walking and cycling is increased, by suggesting other guidance on how to improve the environment to encourage physical activity (from Jan. 2008 - http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11917/38983/38983.pdf ) and that the impetus needs to come from central government. It is necessary, the report argues for "national actions to support walking and cycling, such as fiscal measures and other policy interventions to alter the balance between active and motorised travel in terms of cost and convenience." NICE recognises that it can't do it alone, hopefully the relevant people will pick up the baton so politely held out to them.
What are the health benefits of cycling & walking, then? According to the report, these activities can:
Promote mental wellbeing.
All of which, we can surely be in favour of. However, a national paper (I'll leave it up to the reader to deduce which one) has claimed that this is simply the 'nanny state' and focuses on a small part of the report which suggests that increased parking charges might provide an incentive to avoid driving. In our car-centric culture, anything which points out the downsides of driving is seen as an attack, as part of the 'war on the motorist.' This report is nothing of the sort. In fact it clearly shows, that by encouraging people who are able, to make their journeys on foot or two wheels, we will all benefit - not least, other motorists, who are perhaps making journeys for which their cars are a necessity. Reduced congestion benefits everyone, and freeing our streets from being clogged up by cars does too. Additional benefits, highlighted by the report of increased levels of walking and cycling include.
The report handily outlines the benefits to local authorities & government in a way that will appeal to them. It will enable them to better achieve their goals (or targets, if you will). These goals range from improving public health and obesity - which is what NICE focuses on - to reducing traffic congestion, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. All good things. It also hints that big measures need to be taken to ensure that walking and cycling is increased, by suggesting other guidance on how to improve the environment to encourage physical activity (from Jan. 2008 - http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11917/38983/38983.pdf ) and that the impetus needs to come from central government. It is necessary, the report argues for "national actions to support walking and cycling, such as fiscal measures and other policy interventions to alter the balance between active and motorised travel in terms of cost and convenience." NICE recognises that it can't do it alone, hopefully the relevant people will pick up the baton so politely held out to them.
What are the health benefits of cycling & walking, then? According to the report, these activities can:
Reduce the risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer, obesity and type 2 diabetes.
Keep the musculoskeletal system healthy.
Promote mental wellbeing.
All of which, we can surely be in favour of. However, a national paper (I'll leave it up to the reader to deduce which one) has claimed that this is simply the 'nanny state' and focuses on a small part of the report which suggests that increased parking charges might provide an incentive to avoid driving. In our car-centric culture, anything which points out the downsides of driving is seen as an attack, as part of the 'war on the motorist.' This report is nothing of the sort. In fact it clearly shows, that by encouraging people who are able, to make their journeys on foot or two wheels, we will all benefit - not least, other motorists, who are perhaps making journeys for which their cars are a necessity. Reduced congestion benefits everyone, and freeing our streets from being clogged up by cars does too. Additional benefits, highlighted by the report of increased levels of walking and cycling include.
Reduced car travel, leading to reductions in air pollution, carbon dioxide emissions and congestion.
Reduced road danger and noise.
Increased numbers of people of all ages who are out on the streets, making public spaces seem more welcoming and providing opportunities for social interaction.
Provide an opportunity for everyone, including people with an impairment, to participate in and enjoy the outdoor environment.
If that's not enough, the economy is likely to benefit too. The reduced cost to the NHS of obesity and hopefully reduce car crashes (a fatal car crash is estimated to cost around £1 million). Congestion alone costs the economy nearly £11 billion a year, so reducing this gives a clear benefit. As for the argument that town centre shops will wither and die from reduced car access, car users have been shown to spend just £56 per week in town centres, compared to a whopping £93 per week for walkers and £70 per week for bus users. ( http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/customer-research/town-centre-study-2011-report.pdf ) Another report suggests that walkers and cyclists are the two highest-spending groups in town centres ( http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/roadusers/cycling-revolution-end-of-year_review.pdf ). So getting more people cycling and walking, or allowing cyclists and walkers easier access will surely improve the fortunes of our beloved high streets.
Some of the many benefits of switching mode of transport from driving have been very nicely outlined in the report. I'm hopeful that this will make some people reconsider their mode of transport next time they're about to hop in the car to pick up some milk from the shops, but the big change in our culture can only be made if local authorities and central government take this report and invest in facilities that favour bikes and pedestrians as much (or more) than cars. That's what I hope for and I will be writing to my local council and my MP to urge them to take note.
Monday 26 November 2012
Why is the car seen as king?
Every day in the media, on twitter, on the roads and with people I meet, the perception of travel is clear: The Car is King! In fact, aside from aeroplanes, the mainstream view seems to be that all other forms of transport are completely inferior. It's an astonishing view, but it is so prevalent that it impacts on politics, town planning, even company policies & professional perceptions. I notice the difference if I ask how to get to a meeting by public transport compared to if I ask where I can park my car. But why is this?
In the UK, learning to drive and buying your first car is seen as a rite of passage. Once you turn 17, you're definitely in the minority if you're not at least getting driving lessons. Fair enough. Driving is a useful life skill, and like many such skills, it's good to learn it young, to have it there for when you need it. However, a lot of emphasis is put on actually driving as well. You may have been independent for several years previously, getting the train or bus around to see your mates, but somehow you're expected to drive everywhere once you pass your test. It's seen as completely normal to spend all your spare cash on buying & running a motor. No-one thinks you're insane for spending several grand a year just to go to the same places you went to before, but now in a car. college, mate's house, shopping, work (that extra job you had to get to afford the car), but people do see you as a bit weird for continuing to cycle to college even after you have the car, despite it being the best option. This view seems to continue, unchanged, throughout adult life.
It's seen as strange to cycle to town on a Saturday afternoon to do your shopping. You get pitying looks from passers-by as you adjust your heavily laden panniers ready for your journey home. It doesn't matter that you'll be cycling freely along, home in no time whilst they're stuck in traffic for another half an hour, having parted with £7.50 just for the privilege of parking their car for a few hours. The thought won't even occur to them that perhaps there is a better way, one that would allow them a bit of extra cash to spend at the shops & one that would allow them more free time. For some reason sitting in traffic, whilst an inevitability in many towns, is seen as a sensible choice. People moan about it, but they accept it, as though it's better to be sat going nowhere in a car than to already be home, cracking open that first beer and settling down to watch final score.
Companies up and down the country will unquestioningly reward drivers - they will pay them full expenses - 45p per mile driven, on a journey of any distance. Few companies I have encountered seem to care that there may be a cheaper option for them than every employee driving to their meetings. It won't be suggested for one second that maybe they should get the train instead, as it will save some money, these are tough times after all. Yet get the train and you're expected to be willing to get a cheaper ticket, even if it means taking the longer route, getting home later to your family. First class? Some chance! Even if it's cheaper than driving, a first class rail ticket is still somehow seen as an extravagance.
Commuters are expected to drive in most towns across the country. In London and a few other large cities, public transport is seen as an acceptable way to get to work (and even, dare I say it, cycling), but the reality in most towns & workplaces is that workers are expected to drive. Job adverts frequently highlight, among the benefits on offer, 'free parking!'. It's rare to see one that advertises 'great public transport links'. Indeed, many town-centre businesses seem willing to spend good money on expensive land just so their employees can drive right to the office door. Out of town business parks may be forgiven for expecting workers to arrive by car, but these are often served by a shuttle bus at least from the nearest transport hub. Do any have specific cycle parking? Rarely.
So when all these cars are going about their business, often at the same time of day, our town centres become congested, students going to school, workers commuting, shoppers driving into town. The end result of this is that the car loses any benefit it may have had for most people. Ok, so some may be disabled, or have a bootload of heavy shopping, or several young children, but look at most cars stuck in traffic and you'll see time and again just one person in the car, often between 20-50 years old & most likely with nothing in the boot but a spare pair of shoes. It's situations like this where the bike comes into it's own. Journey times can be far quicker by bike across town centres, over the relatively short commutes that most people will do, of under 5 miles, even in normal traffic conditions, at rush hour, it's a no-brainer. Bikes do still get held up by traffic though. A bike lane would be nice, to allow cyclists the smooth journey they deserve without having to 'weave through traffic'. You would think most drivers would switch. It seems to be some sort of prisoner's dilemma though - perhaps if the roads were clear, a car would be quicker - so it's better to be in a car & for everyone else to be on a bike. I don't see this happening any time soon though, so it's time for drivers to realise this and get on their bikes.
The result of all these congested town centres is often the same. Councils seek a solution, at the request of frustrated drivers and residents. They ignore the obvious solution though. The most common need of all these drivers is simply to get themselves from where they were to where they are going. They don't usually need to be in their cars. The obvious solution then, is to make the most efficicent use of the roads, to invest in more buses, more bus lanes, more cycle lanes, to allow each person to take up as little room as possible on the roads, and allow everyone to get through those traffic lights that stop them getting out of town in the quickest time possible.
But that's not what happens. Somehow, the problem is incorrectly identified. Town planners think the issue is not that people need to get somewhere, but that the cars need to get somewhere. So more road space is given over to cars, because the Car is King! It needs to get where it is going! Bus lanes get overlooked, cycle lanes squeezed into non-existance, traffic lights get re-phased, roundabouts get replaced & yet the result is just the same. Nobody is going anywhere. Because the Car is King, we all have to go at the pace the car goes at, no matter how slow this is.
In the UK, learning to drive and buying your first car is seen as a rite of passage. Once you turn 17, you're definitely in the minority if you're not at least getting driving lessons. Fair enough. Driving is a useful life skill, and like many such skills, it's good to learn it young, to have it there for when you need it. However, a lot of emphasis is put on actually driving as well. You may have been independent for several years previously, getting the train or bus around to see your mates, but somehow you're expected to drive everywhere once you pass your test. It's seen as completely normal to spend all your spare cash on buying & running a motor. No-one thinks you're insane for spending several grand a year just to go to the same places you went to before, but now in a car. college, mate's house, shopping, work (that extra job you had to get to afford the car), but people do see you as a bit weird for continuing to cycle to college even after you have the car, despite it being the best option. This view seems to continue, unchanged, throughout adult life.
It's seen as strange to cycle to town on a Saturday afternoon to do your shopping. You get pitying looks from passers-by as you adjust your heavily laden panniers ready for your journey home. It doesn't matter that you'll be cycling freely along, home in no time whilst they're stuck in traffic for another half an hour, having parted with £7.50 just for the privilege of parking their car for a few hours. The thought won't even occur to them that perhaps there is a better way, one that would allow them a bit of extra cash to spend at the shops & one that would allow them more free time. For some reason sitting in traffic, whilst an inevitability in many towns, is seen as a sensible choice. People moan about it, but they accept it, as though it's better to be sat going nowhere in a car than to already be home, cracking open that first beer and settling down to watch final score.
Companies up and down the country will unquestioningly reward drivers - they will pay them full expenses - 45p per mile driven, on a journey of any distance. Few companies I have encountered seem to care that there may be a cheaper option for them than every employee driving to their meetings. It won't be suggested for one second that maybe they should get the train instead, as it will save some money, these are tough times after all. Yet get the train and you're expected to be willing to get a cheaper ticket, even if it means taking the longer route, getting home later to your family. First class? Some chance! Even if it's cheaper than driving, a first class rail ticket is still somehow seen as an extravagance.
Commuters are expected to drive in most towns across the country. In London and a few other large cities, public transport is seen as an acceptable way to get to work (and even, dare I say it, cycling), but the reality in most towns & workplaces is that workers are expected to drive. Job adverts frequently highlight, among the benefits on offer, 'free parking!'. It's rare to see one that advertises 'great public transport links'. Indeed, many town-centre businesses seem willing to spend good money on expensive land just so their employees can drive right to the office door. Out of town business parks may be forgiven for expecting workers to arrive by car, but these are often served by a shuttle bus at least from the nearest transport hub. Do any have specific cycle parking? Rarely.
So when all these cars are going about their business, often at the same time of day, our town centres become congested, students going to school, workers commuting, shoppers driving into town. The end result of this is that the car loses any benefit it may have had for most people. Ok, so some may be disabled, or have a bootload of heavy shopping, or several young children, but look at most cars stuck in traffic and you'll see time and again just one person in the car, often between 20-50 years old & most likely with nothing in the boot but a spare pair of shoes. It's situations like this where the bike comes into it's own. Journey times can be far quicker by bike across town centres, over the relatively short commutes that most people will do, of under 5 miles, even in normal traffic conditions, at rush hour, it's a no-brainer. Bikes do still get held up by traffic though. A bike lane would be nice, to allow cyclists the smooth journey they deserve without having to 'weave through traffic'. You would think most drivers would switch. It seems to be some sort of prisoner's dilemma though - perhaps if the roads were clear, a car would be quicker - so it's better to be in a car & for everyone else to be on a bike. I don't see this happening any time soon though, so it's time for drivers to realise this and get on their bikes.
The result of all these congested town centres is often the same. Councils seek a solution, at the request of frustrated drivers and residents. They ignore the obvious solution though. The most common need of all these drivers is simply to get themselves from where they were to where they are going. They don't usually need to be in their cars. The obvious solution then, is to make the most efficicent use of the roads, to invest in more buses, more bus lanes, more cycle lanes, to allow each person to take up as little room as possible on the roads, and allow everyone to get through those traffic lights that stop them getting out of town in the quickest time possible.
But that's not what happens. Somehow, the problem is incorrectly identified. Town planners think the issue is not that people need to get somewhere, but that the cars need to get somewhere. So more road space is given over to cars, because the Car is King! It needs to get where it is going! Bus lanes get overlooked, cycle lanes squeezed into non-existance, traffic lights get re-phased, roundabouts get replaced & yet the result is just the same. Nobody is going anywhere. Because the Car is King, we all have to go at the pace the car goes at, no matter how slow this is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)