We tolerate roads not fit for purpose

THE tragic death of the cyclist Jason Lowndes set me thinking. About half of us seem to blame cyclists, the other half to blame motorists. At the risk of inviting everyone to visit me armed with pots of tar and bags of feathers, I think groups are wrong. Motorists and cyclists are users of the system, not its builders. Despite all the pleas for sharing and driving slower and leaving a gap of 1.5m, the bottom line is that most roads are too narrow for motorised vehicles and bicycles to share safely. For almost everything in life, we expect the builders of the system to build it fit-for-purpose, implying it should be safe when used normally. We might impose a load limit or speed limit temporarily to cope with events like floods or fires, but our road system is one of few systems we tolerate being permanently unfit for purpose and dangerous when used normally. We even resort to political doublespeak to justify this by redefining “normal”. The white line currently in favour with our councils and governments has no magical powers. It doesn’t include dimensional distortion borrowed from a Tardis to make our roads 5m wider; it doesn’t include a force field from Star Wars to keep bicycles to the left and vehicles to the right; it’s just a white line. Just as we build fences around airports to protect planes from sheep and puppy dogs; and sheep and puppy dogs from planes; we need much more than a white line to keep bicycles and motorised vehicles safe.