Jan 16

Bicycle bombs: a further enquiry and a new theory

Has anyone, anywhere, ever, been killed by a pipe bomb disguised as a bicycle? I have been pursuing this question since last June with the help of the Internet and the BBCs Today Programme and World Service. So far the answer appears to be not yet; but it remains in the mind of the Westminster Police a theoretical possibility that must be zealously guarded against. (New readers can catch up here: http://john-adams.co.uk/2008/11/05/proving-a-negative-and-the-onus-of-proof/ )

The manner of the guarding is causing great inconvenience to significant numbers of cyclists. Around Parliament Square and Whitehall, and other areas that the police deem particularly sensitive to threats of terrorism, the police are confiscating bicycles on the grounds that they might be pipe bombs. A problem for cyclists is that the boundaries of these areas are not published. Cyclists are left to guess where it is safe to park their bicycles. Read on …

Dec 31

Deus é Brasileiro?

Preface for Risco the Brazilian translation of Risk – to be published in Brazil in March 2009.

I first encountered the idea that God might be a Brazilian forty years ago. I was a visiting student at the University of São Paulo. On a trip from São Paulo to Santos I was the passenger of an extremely skilful Brazilian driver. I was terrified. I begged him to slow down. Dont worry, he said, taking a hand off the wheel to pat my knee reassuringly, Deus é Brasileiro.

I am grateful for the invitation to write a preface to this book for Brazilian readers. It provides an opportunity to reflect both on my experience of risk in Brazil and on developments in the field of risk since the book was first published in 1995.

For the rest of the preface click here

Dec 29

Two old men

John Adams and (even older positively venerable) Mayer Hillman are looking for a younger enthusiast to carry on a research project that Mayer and Anne Whalley began at the Policy Studies Institute. In 1971, they conducted a survey of English childrens independent mobility how they got to school, visited friends and so on, whether they were allowed to get about and use public transport on their own and, if they owned a bicycle, to ride it on public roads, and how they spent the weekend previous to the survey. Parents also were involved by completing a questionnaire about the age up to which they imposed personal mobility restrictions on their children, and the reasons for doing so.

These surveys were repeated in the same schools in 1990 (published as One False Move … and available online at http://john-adams.co.uk/books/). This follow-up study disclosed a dramatic loss of children’s independence over the previous 19 years. For instance, in 1971, 80% of 7 and 8-year old children got to school unaccompanied by an adult but by 1990 this proportion had fallen to 9%. With the collaboration of John Whitelegg, then at the Wuppertal Institute, matching surveys to provide a cultural comparison were conducted in West Germany. This revealed that, compared with the English, children there enjoyed a significantly higher level of independence.

Now, close on 20 years later, we think it would be instructive to conduct the surveys again to produce a 40-year review and to extend the comparison to other European countries to widen understanding of the influence of culture. The study would be an opportunity to chronicle the changes in childrens independent mobility and the possible relationship this has had with their physical and emotional development. It would also help to explain the social significance of childrens loss of what could be described as a right and enable lessons to be learned from wider international comparisons with the experience, behaviour and attitudes of children and parents in other countries.

We offer our services as eminences grises (John thinks he is beyond grise and that Mayer is preternaturally ungrise) to assist/guide whoever might be interested in continuing what we believe to be an important area of policy-relevant research. We are looking for someone to coordinate the European dimension of the proposal (we can provide introductions to other potential collaborators in other countries on the Continent) and someone who would conduct the surveys of children and parents in the English schools involved in the earlier surveys this could be developed into an interesting PhD project. Of course, the two ˜someones could be the same person.

Anyone tempted, please contact Mayer in the first instance at mayer.hillman@blueyonder.co.uk.

Nov 05

Proving a negative and the onus of proof

Two assertions that I cannot prove:

·      No one, anywhere, ever, has been killed by a bicycle bomb.

·      No life, anywhere, ever, has been saved by the life jacket under their seat.

 Anywhere is a large place, and ever is a long time. The most one can do is broadcast an appeal for disproving evidence. In the case of bicycle bombs I have broadcast my appeal on my website, on various cycling Internet grapevines and on BBC Radio 4 and the BBC World Service. So far nothing. 

There remains a possible source of disproof. James Daley The Independents personal finance editor and cycling columnist (an inspired marriage of responsibilities) had his bicycle confiscated by the police for parking it near Trafalgar Square – http://blogs.independent.co.uk/independent/2008/04/my-bikes-been-n.html .

When he finally tracked it down he discovered that it was in the possession of Superintendent Ovens of Belgravia who justified his confiscation of James bicycle by producing a list of bike-bomb incidents dating to the 1930s –http://blogs.independent.co.uk/independent/2008/08/cyclotherapy-fi.html .

Intrigued by Superintendent Ovens assumption that James bicycle might have been a bomb I sent him an email asking if I might have a copy of his list of bike bomb incidents.

Dear Supt Ovens

I read in a blog by James Daley – http://blogs.independent.co.uk/independent/2008/08/cyclotherapy-fi.html – that you have a list of bicycle bomb incidents going back to the 1930s. Is it by any chance the list on which I comment on my website

– http://john-adams.co.uk/2008/07/28/bicycle-bombs-a-threat-to-westminster/ ?

If your list is different might I have a copy?

 Since posting my commentary on 28 July my request for evidence justifying the Westminster cycle parking ban has been picked up and more widely disseminated by various cycling grape vines. I also had an opportunity on 30 July to broadcast my request for evidence on the Today Programme and the BBC World Service. So far I have yet to receive a single convincingly documented case of a fatality caused by a bicycle bomb.

 I am amongst the large number of cyclists who have routinely experienced significant inconvenience as a consequence of the cycle parking ban. We would like to see the evidence justifying it.

 I would be very interested in any comments that you might have on the commentary on my website.

Despite two chasing emails the only response I have had to my message, first sent on 10 September, is All rather busy but it’s on my list of things to do.

So I still cannot prove that a bicycle bomb has never killed anyone, anywhere, ever. Proving a negative is notoriously difficult. When I confronted a senior police official recently with the fact that I had been unable to find a single instance of anyone, anywhere, ever having been killed by a bicycle bomb he replied instantly with Yet.

This takes us into the realm of worst case scenarios. Must everything imaginable, despite the fact that it has never happened and is highly improbable, now be guarded against?  Guarded against by authorities who cannot be challenged? This appears to be the state of affairs governing cyclists in the political heart of London.

When trust in those responsible for our safety is lost we become less safe. If their warnings and commands are not credible they will be ignored or disobeyed or worse construed as evidence that our guardians havent a clue.

Consider another example of bureaucratic paranoia: the life jacket under your seat. I recently asked the most senior person I know in the world of aviation: has any life been saved by the lifejacket under the seat, whose¨ location and fitting is explained on every trip? He knew of none, although he did comment that many thousands of life jackets had been stolen by passengers heading for boating holidays in the Mediterranean.

So here we are. The police in the political heart of London are defending against a highly improbable terrorist threat in a way that seriously inconveniences thousands of cyclists, and the airlines continue to insist that billions of passengers pay attention to meaningless safety advice. Why should we trust them with our safety? Why should we pay attention?

Nov 04

Seat Belts: the debate goes on, and on

Letter accepted for publication in Significance, December 2008. This is a much abbreviated version of the letter submitted.

Apologies for my delayed reply to the Controversy piece by Richard Allsop, et al  (Significance, June 2008) – challenging my piece Britains seatbelt law should be repealed (Significance June 2007). The myth that seat belt laws save lives is so deeply entrenched that I no longer entertain hopes of their repeal. But I take a tiny bit of consolation from the creeping acknowledgement of risk compensation the idea that people, in this case drivers, respond to changes in their perception of risk.

The debate has shifted from denial of the existence of the phenomenon to an argument about whether in particular circumstances the compensation is partial, complete or more than complete.

Let us for the moment grant Allsop et al their dubious contention of many more deaths saved than caused by seat belts.  Who are the saved and who are those sacrificed for their benefit? The saved are people in cars; the lives sacrificed are those of pedestrians and cyclists. The best protected (and usually the economically best off) are provided further protection at the expense of the most vulnerable.

This is a perversion of cost benefit analysis. The central tenet of cost benefit analysis states that a change from the status quo can only be considered an improvement if it makes at least one person better off while leaving no one worse off. Since there is no way of compensating a dead cyclist or pedestrian, their argument fails. Or, in non-economist speak, it is unfair.

For many decades road safety measures have emphasized deference to traffic. Pedestrians are channeled by guardrails or forced to use underpasses and footbridges. Cyclists are offered inadequate cycle paths and encouraged to believe other roads are dangerous. Policy has been to withdraw vulnerable road users from the threat, rather than to withdraw the threat from the vulnerable. The group most seriously affected by this policy is children. The fears of parents and the admonitions of safety campaigners have led to their almost complete withdrawal from the threat. Traditional childrens independence has been lost, and with it a host of experiences vital to their physical and social development.

We can end on a more cheerful and constructive note. Seat belt laws rest on a model of human behaviour that assumes that motorists are stupid, obedient automatons who are unresponsive to perceived changes in risk and who need protecting, by law, from their own stupidity. The idea of risk compensation underpins an alternative model of human behaviour: we are intelligent, vigilant, responsive to evidence of safety and danger and, given the right signals and incentives, considerate. Road users motorists, pedestrians and cyclists are now discovering, in pioneering shared space schemes, that safe and attractive urban environments can be devised to encourage the convivial coexistence of all road users.

Aug 21

Three days national mourning for 12 days death on the road?

Spain’s Prime Minister declared a three period of mourning to mark the Madrid plane crash of 20 August. This reaction to the crash highlights yet again the intractable problem of finding a metric that everyone can agree upon for measuring risk.

The crash was what is sometimes referred to as a low-probability high-impact event. High impact is a malleable term. Compared to the Boxing Day tsunami or the Szechuan earthquake, the Madrid crash was a low-impact event. But compared to a road accident in which only a few people are killed, it qualifies as a high-impact event.

How should impact be measured? The number of fatalities caused by an event is a commonly used metric sometimes converted into cash. In Britain the last time I looked a life was deemed by the Department for Transport to be worth £1.5 million. But the number is indexed for inflation so may now be higher. The Madrid crash killed 153 people a loss, assuming a life is worth £1.5 million, of £229.5 million had it occurred in Britain. In Spain 153 people die in road accidents every 12 days events also worth £229.5 million.

The probability of an air accident causing a loss of £229.5 million is vastly less than the probability that in the next 12 days in Spain road accidents will cause a similar loss. Yet the first loss merits three days national mourning. The second losses merit a few column inches. In terms of mangled flesh and grieving family and friends the two losses are equivalent. In terms of media impact and popular reaction the numbers appear irrelevant. What kills you matters.

Aug 15

Cycle helmets and the importance of culture

On 11 August the Guardian published an article entitled “Do cyclists really need helmets?” It noted the difference in cycling culture between continental northern Europe and elsewhere. I submitted a letter on the subject that they declined to publish. So I have submitted it to my blog where I have a 100% success rate. 

Do cyclists really need helmets? (G2 11.08.08 and Letters 13.08.08) Two years ago I was invited to give a lecture in Amsterdam comparing Dutch and British attitudes to risk. I complimented my hosts on having a much better cycling accident record than the British, and went on to say that I had been in Amsterdam for two days and seen many thousands of cyclists but only half a dozen cycle helmets. A member of the audience responded by saying that I had been looking in the wrong place. He offered to show me the following morning a disciplined file of children on bicycles all wearing helmets and fluorescent jackets. They would, he added, be cycling to the British school.

Aug 04

More on bicycle bombs

My bicycle bombs story (see previous blog and comments – http://john-adams.co.uk/?p=122 ) was also aired on the BBC Today Programme and the BBC World Service on 30 July.

I still haven’t received any convincingly documented case of a bicycle bomb, in the form of the frame packed with explosives, killing anyone anywhere in the world.

One commentator says, “I have heard of a bicycle used as a bomb reported to be in Sofia c.1948. The reports are of the saddle being ejected by some 300 feet but the bike remained rideable.”

The trick in making an effective pipe bomb (see How to make a pipe bomb – http://www.linkbase.org/make-pipe-bomb/) appears to lie in fixing caps that are stronger than the pipe itself. Otherwise the pipe won’t explode. The caps (or the saddle) pop off and you have an interesting firework.

I’ve had a number of responses indicating that the anti-terrorist bureaucratic paranoia I complain about is not confined to Parliament Square in London.

More comments/examples would be welcome. It would be interesting to see just how widespread the ban on cycle parking is, and the extent to which it is rooted in anti-terrorist paranoia or simple anti-cycle prejudice.

Jul 28

Bicycle bombs: a threat to Westminster?

On 25 June I participated in a debate held by the Royal Institute of British Architects

This house believes we should fortify our cities.

Piers Gough and I opposed the motion. In the course of the debate the proposers, Lorraine Gamman and Adam Thorpe, raised the threat of bicycle bombs. After the debate they produced evidence to support their view that bicycle bombs were a threat to be taken seriously now posted on the debate website . I present below my comments on their evidence.

For my comments click here

Jun 14

Maths and the City

Published in The Guardian
Thursday June 12, 2008

Ian Stewart asserts that his university’s mathematics students “earn more money, on average, than those studying any other degree subject” and that “their ability to handle technical ideas is highly prized, and rewarded” (Letters, June 7). His assumption, shared by most other contributors to the current debate about maths teaching, is that this reward differential can be projected on to the nation as a whole, with the conclusion that if we were to have more well-paid mathematicians we would all be much richer.

We should distinguish between two rewards – to the mathematicians, and to the rest of us. The mathematically trained “rocket scientists” in the City and Wall Street have been engaged in a financial arms race. They have been extravagantly rewarded for devising the clever financial “instruments” that are so clever that no one, themselves included, understands them.

Almost 20 years ago, in Does God Play Dice? – The Mathematics of Chaos, Ian Stewart observed: “because we are part of the universe, our effort to predict it may interfere with what it was going to do. This kind of problem gets very hairy and I don’t want to pursue what may well be an infinite regress: I don’t know how a computer would function if its constituent atoms were affected by the results of its own computations.”

The bubble of bad debt now distributed globally presents precisely the problem that Stewart does not wish to pursue. The rocket scientists are still absurdly well rewarded for playing war games with other rocket scientists – with other people’s money. But they are the constituent atoms in Stewart’s infinite regress. They have all become day traders trying to second-guess each other over the next move up or down of whatever it is they are betting on.

The current bubble may prove to be the biggest ever. But maths courses, as Simon Jenkins has observed, don’t do history.

For more on the subject of numbers and rocket science see – Risk Management: it’s not rocket science – it’s more complicated