Monday, September 28, 2009

Good day minister Michael O'Brien,

I've visited lately your road safety webpage. Lots of words, no substance and lots of lies and fantasies. This is not a page created/run by anyone who knows the subject, who is responsible and mature and wish to serve society in road safety.

You do not impose dictatorial governing, imposing your will on society, you are a servant to society therefore your webpage is one way communication. You tell society whatever you wish and society have choice to visit your page or subscribe to it. No, society does not need to express it's will and expectations, you know what society need and you tell us. There is also no need to give you a feedback because whatever you do, is perfect, so no need to modify, give ideas, or criticise.

I hope you will not seek to punish me harshly when I dare to criticise you and your department. As I said, your page either contain no substance, lies or contradictions.
Another Michael that is Attorney General have expressed his views that cyclists are not treated as more vulnerable road users, they have and must have same status as all road users, not special ones - the more vulnerable users with some protection, like children on the road are vulnerable and there is no excuse to run on them.
So minister, perhaps it is right to correct the Attorney who disagree with your statement, or perhaps you conform to Attorney.
But the new road rules draft go against both of you. The new road rules demand that cars have a special status and cyclists must give them way and care on them. Below given link will lead you to my webpage with number of issues posted. There is provision for your comment.

This page is being updated often. By the way, this message is intended to by published because this is not private but public matter and public should have free access to scrutinise action/inaction of ministers.

Minister, the new road rules you mention in your webpage are not ordered/compiled by sensible and mature people who do know safety issues nor care for safety. They are in number of places conflicting one another, are illogical, are unclear, and the most important - they are not intended to be known by all drivers in 100%. They are to be rejected immediately.

Minister Michael O'Brien, you are the first minister who does not know 90% of the proposed or even existing rules in 100% accuracy. No other minister knows 90% of rules nor the Premier. I dare to state that at least 90% of police officers does not know 90% of new (draft) or existing rules in 100%.
Minister, no senile driver nor mentally sick, nor 16 year old driver know 90% of the rules in 100% accuracy. All because the rules are not meant to be known by all drivers in 100% but are meant to be used to punish innocent drivers.

Perhaps you do not fully understand what I mean. It's simple; every driver must know all the rules by heart that is in 100% in every situation and without thinking but must make correct decision in a split second. Simple but logical rules must be invented. We do not have nor ever had such rules.
Rules conflict one another and I made comments on the official draft which is posted on the given website of mine. The rules promote road danger and conflict.
In addition to the fact that rules are not designed to be known by all drivers, the external to rules factors confirm government intention do not care for safety but to care for raising revenue and punishing innocent drivers.
All drivers are innocent because they do drive with license which entitle them to drive. However the license makes nothing to ensure that person is fit for safe driving nor that one is trained properly for such driving.

I will not explain in one email all the aspects. I do explain on the given website.
The GP is untrained and unsuitable to decide weather his patient is fit for driving. There must be appointed a specially trained commission which will be trained and independent to assess people for fitness to be safe drivers.
This also does mean that most elderly drivers are unfit to drive.
The system is all wrong because every change to road rules must be rigidly linked with retraining all drivers. Yes it is logical. Another logical issue is to make such a rules which do not need modification or frequent one. The license must not be a matter of money but retraining every few years.

The number of problems like mismatch of brain and car power is explained on my webpage under a,b,c licenses.

Whatever you say about cyclists, is nonsense. Government actively does everything to put cyclists in great danger. This is and will be dealt with on the mentioned page.
The ACC refuse to compensate for my damaged bicycle wheel a result of their negligence.
The government refuse to create the bicycle lanes and road shoulder on known spots dangerous to cyclists even when I asked government to do so. An example is the Golden Grove Road and McIntyre Rd and many other. So many road sections are very dangerous to cyclists due to many factors like extremely bad surface and made obstacles as well as very dangerous drivers. The medieval storm drains by the kerb (photos on webpage), the horrible and dangerous section of kerb and bitumen sections like on NE rd next to Holden Hill police station are extremely dangerous plus lack of bicycle lane and dense traffic and refusal to grant cyclists priority and some privileges, and hostile drivers. All make cycling out of rich by most potential cyclists.
Whole government system starting from you minister, and through the police and courts do not care at all for cyclists nor even for safe and innocent drivers. When driver through careless driving hit the cyclist, your government make sure it will continue. The driver is not charged automatically nor cyclist is compensated, nor driver is checked for actual cause of his dangerous driving and crash, nor to order such driver to improve his/her driving skills to prevent any more crashes.

Police refuse to take reports of dangerous driving forwarded by public, police openly state that they refuse to enforce the safety rules like tailgating and other say cutting in front, failure to indicate for more than 2s before changing lane etc.

Please acknowledge that police call centre 131444 number of times refused to take my reports of very dangerous driving. Sometimes the operators do comment the situation showing their lack of knowledge of road rules and what is safe and what is not. Often the management refuse to accept number of incidents calling them bulk reporting. This does mean that government tells us that if there is little problem they are happy to take notice but when there is lots of problems the government is not interested.
But facts behind that are that even when all the reports from public are taken properly, they are wasted. Nobody check thoroughly for facts nor make sure that alleged offending driver upgrade driving skills.

The very high rate of dangerous lady drivers in particular young ladies does mean that there is no proper training of drivers nor proper policing. Young lady drivers are clearly much worse in that respect than their male peers. Ladies do tailgate extremely persistently and very close, they in kamikadze style cut in front on car they decided to overtake. They behave like on computer game. For young lady to speed between traffic light to over 80 in 60 zone is nothing. Males also do it but not so readily as ladies.

Tailgating is a plague in SA and is in the range 55% to close to 100% of all drivers as is shown on my webpage.

What government does to improve safety?
declare to be serious on safety
refuse to take reports of more dangerous driving incidents
police refuse to enforce the rules
refuse to create bicycle lanes and improve otherwise road surface safe for cyclists
refuse to create simple and logical road rules known by all fit drivers
refuse to compensate damages to bicycle as result of road and path negligence
refuse to introduce 1m space for cyclists
refuse to ensure that all drivers participating in crash are not addicts of a substance, are medically fit and have upgraded driving skills
continue to waste lots of public money for so called research which produce not much more than gossip, and for departments which openly refuse to care for road safety
raise revenue at every fair or unfair opportunity
refuse to cooperate with society in order to improve safety
ensures that killing,injuring or traumatising on the road remains high and with no consequences to offender
traffic lights, parking and traffic management have nothing to do with safety or convenience. Crashes and offences are often induces by deliberate mismanagement.

I cannot say all the rest is ok, it isn't. I hope that if you minister sort out those points you do a good job.

Road safety campaigner

Minister's wisdom in his reply as presented in the media. I highlight and comment in square brackets.,22606,26126543-5006301,00.html

Article from The Advetiser

September 26, 2009 12:01am

P-PLATERS will be banned from driving popular high-powered cars in tough road laws the State Government will try to push through the Parliament before Christmas.
Provisional drivers aged under 25 will be banned from driving vehicles with eight-cylinder engines or more, turbocharged or supercharged engines and cars with modifications aimed at increasing performance.
They also will be prohibited from driving specific high-performance vehicles, details of which will be outlined under regulations once the legislation is passed. [Minister treat all young drivers with P plate as stupid or irresponsible, and somehow miraculously they become sensible immediately after advancing to normal license. It is quite irrational because minister does absolutely nothing to address the problem]
Road Safety Minister Michael O'Brien said a list of vehicles that would be restricted in South Australia was still being worked on but it would be based on those vehicles restricted in Queensland.
P-platers in Queensland are banned from driving V8s, including the Holden Commodore SS and Ford Falcon XR8, non-diesel-powered turbo and supercharged cars such as the Subaru Impreza WRX Turbo, Nissan Skyline R34 and Holden Monaro V6. [I'm sure that the list of cars would have to be fair bit bigger but more about it on my webpage above]
DO YOU AGREE WITH THE NEW P-PLATE LAWS? Have your say in the poll to the right of this page and in the comment box below.
Cars with engine power outputs of more than 200kW, such as the Porsche Boxster S and BMW M3, and rotary-engine cars with a capacity of more than 1146cc, including the Mazda RX-4 and RX-8, are also on the restricted list.
The proposed legislation will be introduced into Parliament when it resumes on October 13.
Mr O'Brien said he hoped the "compelling logic" behind the moves would ensure it was passed before Parliament rose for the Christmas break. ['compelling logic' of minister is irrational, there is no logic. I propose to solve the problems by educating drivers. Minister does not propose education but restrictions and hope. How can you failing to educate drivers properly can hope in their better driving??? only if you believe in miracles, minister. If you happen not to have a proper solution, than why you reject a good solution of mine? My solution addresses many problems and is less complicated than Mr O'Brien's plan which does not address any problem. Likely that minister rely on “science” that is opinion of Road Safety Research team at University of Adelaide, headed by prof. Mary Lydon. That scientist openly preach that “there is no evidence that driver training improves their driving ability”. Mary have told me that education of drivers is not a solution; in person and also in public presentations.] Other key measures in the proposal include:
INCREASING the supervised driving time required by learner drivers from 50 to 75 hours. [good but far not enough]
INCREASING the minimum time on a learner's permit from six to 12 months. [good but not enough]
TIGHTENING the curfew on novice drivers when they return from a serious disqualification by restricting them from carrying passengers between midnight and 5am. [in my opinion it is childish rule treating drivers as children rather than enabling/encouraging them to actually acquire skills and maturity in safe driving. It does not address the problems (source)]
A PENALTY of two demerit points to replace licence disqualification as a penalty for failure to display P-plates.
Mr O'Brien said the measures would strengthen the graduated licensing system, which is aimed at better preparing young drivers for when they proceed to full licences. [nonsense, minister fail to understand my proposition which actually address most the problems and provide excellent solution. Minister's proposal does not solve any problem but maintain likely to provide means to raise revenue]
He said too many young people were dying on our roads.
"On average, 27 per cent of all fatalities in SA each year are aged between 16 and 24," Mr O'Brien said. "There are more than 76,000 P-platers on our roads and these new drivers, particularly those aged between 16 and 20, are up to three times more likely to be involved in a serious road crash." [all irrational, as for instance the government fail to take all the necessary steps (described on my webpage as per link above) to find out actual cause of crash or dangerous driving (drugs, alcohol, fatigue, poor driving skills, medical problem etc) and to take all the necessary steps to ensure that driver which caused and/or contributed in crash or dangerous behaviour will occur in the future. This is simply done by addressing addiction, driving training, medical problems. Failure to address the source of the initial crash almost guarantees such driver to continue dangerous driving. Further more, it is well known in neuroscience that lack of punishment can be seen by offender as acceptance or even endorsement of the behaviour which only reinforce it. The dramatic raise in violent driving and worryingly more by women does confirm that idea. Many if not most drivers do drive exclusively the way as others do, rather than according to rules and common sense. Minister O'Brien along with government system does not allow common sense driving nor common sense rules]
Mr O'Brien said the proposed legislation was tough "and mums and dads will appreciate it". [nonsense, as mums and dads are also not trained properly in safe driving]

Friday, June 19, 2009

Anarchy characterise with no effective government management. While it is true in SA about government is general, the road safety is very clear example of it. The business people do what they want without any regard to road safety. Police everyday drive there and they do not care. It is well known that police cannot be too intelligent, and is it also known that they do not have adequate road safety knowledge, nor pro safety attitude. They cannot see what is happening almost everyday.

It is natural that business may be pushing the boundaries in advertisement but in this case the electrical overhead wires seem to be the limit and sideways the road itself. All we need is government asking: how many people were killed by this?

If this question is wise than imagine thousands of speeding motorists may ask same question. Will government accept it as an excuse?

So clearly government is not interested in road safety but in imposing own agenda.

Sensible people also have baloons but they are secured by 5cm string, why SA Lounges have often over a metre and on the kerb where wind blows in the face of any driver and very dramatically in face of cyclists or motor cyclists. Cyclist wanting to avoid it, may turn into middle lane and get hit by incoming car. This is not important, as long as SA Lounges advertise... what they advertise? Ah, baloons.

Police travel there everyday, politicians do travel and cannot see that, "wise" scientists conducting research on factors contributing to road danger and they cannot see it. If however tragedy happen, the official on media with sad face declare: it is unfortunate accident... oh we have to do something about... perhaps we should talk to the shop owner is he/she think it is too dangerous? And motorists, becareful of the baloons when you drive.

Scientists come up with brilliant solution - baloon detection and warning device, it costs only.... and business goes on and everybody is happy thereafter.

Road safety campaigner

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Tailgating who is to take blame?

Tailgating is following a car in front of you with less than 2s in South Australia and most of the world and 3s in some other states.

The rule on tailgating explains that the figure of 2s is scientifically based it is a distance you travel at any speed for 2 seconds, and it is only a reasonable expectation that you will manage to stop without crashing with car in front. This translate to about 33m at 60km/h. As most cars on photos do drive just a bit to close, you may notice how close drive some "idiot" drivers. The photos are taken from the actual research I've conducted on the 100km/h road.
 In some countries where also 2s rule is accepted, the government take a serious steps against drivers breaking 1s distance. In South Australia government does not care about tailgating at all. Well, the senior police officer in the Commissioner office have told me trying to prove me wrong that when car on freeway follow me 200mm it is still ok. Other police officers also have told me that they refuse to honor this rule and they make as they are pleased what is acceptable and what is not. Police routinely tailgate others this same way as common drivers.

I do blame for tailgating and all the consequences, the government because they issue with licence even when drivers:
  1. Were not screened for mental suitability and mental stability
  2. were not screened for general medical fitness
  3. were not adequately trained as drivers

 When driver hold license to drive, who can tell one that he can't drive? So they drive as they know, but since they were not trained, they cannot drive properly.

Government who issues licence must take all the blame.

Government tell us that speed kills. If it was true all the police chasing offenders on the streets were dead. They are not because speed is only one of the factors. Government say those lies to society because they have it as an excuse to raise revenue almost fraudulantly.

Tailgating is clearly multifactorial dangerous behaviour, usually integrating speeding as well. Pile up of many cars is typical example of consequences of tailgating. Lots of trauma is not published in media because nobody records near misses. Police is not interested even when you provide them with evidence. For cyclists tailgating is very dramatic...

How do I know that government is not interested in tailgating? I experience it on the roads, it is well visible but as a road safety campaigner, I've requested the information from ministers, from road transport department, and when they had nothing specyfic I've turned to universtity which has a team for road safety research. The very first publication I've looked at, was tailgating. And nothing specific was there. I've decided to devise and conduct my own private research. When done, to my surprise the head of the research team refused to cooperate and take for free my data and my method and improve it. Same with other university and college dedicated to road safety. Minister is also not interested. Why than they are so determined to waste public money and not produce results?

As a general rule for the government: there is no business in solving social problems, but plenty of business in maintaining those problems.

 Simply they want to keep raising the revenue from speeding and dangerous drivers rather than educating them and punishing and in general solving the problem.

Well, my research data show that from 55 to over 77% of all drivers who follow another car do tailgate. In fact depending on situation, this figure comes close to 100%. Somehow government is not keen of solving it. It's a good question, why government allow this to be such a big problem?

When police refuse to honor the rule, refuse to punish driver for violation of this rule, and themselves routinely tailgate, no wonder that we have so much tailgating.

Untrained drivers also drive according not to rules but to driving culture - what they see on the road.
Oh, yes there are some intelligent drivers who regardless of government, do try to drive sensibly. Majority however drive dangerously.

Why society should be interested in stamping out tailgating?
  • to avoid crashes
  • to avoid trauma
  • to avoid stress
  • to improve traffic flow
 That's correct, tailgator is much more stressed than a good non tailgating driver and a good driver often arrive sooner to a destination without speeding than speeding tailgator fixed to observe only the tail lamps of one in front of him rather than whole traffic. There are many other reasons why tailgating is not good.

Why most tailgators today are women? Mainly young women? Simply because they were not trained adequately.
To add to the problem are the elderly and otherwise inable drivers who drive slowly and/or without confidence. This only frustrate younger mentally unstable but fast drivers. They react with emotions rather than use training which they lack. Migrants do bring with them bad habits. Just go to many Asian cities and see road haos. They bring that chaos with them and our government does not train them adequately to proper standard.

Overall the government is not interested in road safety at all only in our money.
Somebody have said: the government is only as bad as we allow one to be!

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

One solution can solve many problems; a,b,c licences

Assuming that government wants to improve dramatically road safety and reduce so much drama, one solution can solve many problems.

So far, all the indicators show that government has business in keeping problems.

Tell me if government want but cannot solve:

1. hoon behavior
2. speeding problem
3. stealing, joy riding and damage of a car
4. tailgating
5. near misses
6. road rage
7. breaking about all the rules

Perhaps you can add another many other problems to this list.

To add to it, I found what government actively does to keep road problems:

1. issues licences to untrained people (drunk uncle is not same as professional trainer)
2. issues licences to mentally compromised and otherwise not fit to drive
3. fail to investigate an actual cause of crash and the driver at fault and to require one to improve driving ability
4. does not punish offenders by fine or in court
5. road rules are incomprehensive and long outdated. Car industry advanced a lot but rules and training is a 100 years behind.

According to title, it supposed to be a talk about solution. Let me bring just one of my invention. So far all officials reject it without any rational reason. I hope that public will debate and bring any endorsement or even improvement if possible.

***Common licenses should be divided into 3 categories, a,b,c, depending on the car's performance.

Obviously the points above should be taken into account and no GP to be allowed to be a one man commision permitting license to anyone. A GP may point of someone's inability, but not fitness to drive. It is a conflict of interest and in fact irrational to allow a GP to replace commision trained and dedicated to test people's ability to drive. A GP is also biased and want to please one's patient and is not trained to screen for driving ability.

The lowest category c would require much more comprehensive training and be reviewed every 5 years for rules knowledge, for new rules, for actual driving skils. It would be available for driving least capable cars like beetle, mini morris, and many modern low power cars. Most pensioners, students and less able people will be in this category. The rule would be that category b, that is one up be available only for those who have blameless driving record on c level for 3 years, and would allow to drive middle of the range cars with faster maximum speed and acceleration. This way a 16 year student would not be able to drive a powerful car. Absolutely minumum age for those cars would be 19 years and 3 years experience and much more demanding training which would also cost much more than lower level. Perhaps most of modern cars would be in this b category. Another 3 years driving with perfect record, would enable to undergo the most demanding training for a license to allow to drive the most powerful cars. Another rule would take away the higher category of license for certain types of offenses (not once off parking violation).***

Some advantages of this system.
At present, there is huge disparity between car power and brain power of the driver. This system would solve it instantly.
The teenagers stealing car and joy riding would become rare because everybody would see wrong person driving wrong car and call police.
Many criminals and hoons would never pass the higher level license because it requires fair bit of intelligence.
Once a potential hoon, got high license, one would be afraid to do hooning, because it is an instant loss of status and cost and another 3 years blameless driving on lower level. Hooning on lowest level license is not easy if possible.
Just observing the manner of highest level drivers on the streets, would have an educational effect on the rest of drivers. For instance speeding, if you face to pay fine and lose the status, you would think more than twice before you press the pedal.

It is fair and very logical system. Nobody forces you to get higher level license, and if you on your own want it, you have to undergo strict training at considerable cost. Why? the more powerful car the more dangerous. Less likely street chasing with police or anyone, and less youth colliding with the tree or driving into someone's bedroom. I mean the professional training. Unconvinced? It is for your and public safety. No nonsense questions on exam how many demerit points you loose in what situation, but practical driving knowledge and as some driving experts say, it should be quite long and on higher (college) level training for number of weeks and at considerable cost.

Let it be clear how I think to solve the current problem with driving without license.
I've mentioned a panel of experts comprising of psychologist, GP, driving specialists, lawyer and so on. Say a hoon was caught burning tyres and creating disturbance in neighborhood and danger to motorists. One would be brought for such an offense before the panel which may decide say $200 instantly fine, and have a check of actual reasons of doing it. One may be refered to mental screening, or to driving skill training or simply have a talk with the panel without punishment or referal. In case one was punished and was suspect but not refered to mental screening, the panel warning would be for example: this is very serious matter and when caught next time doing similar offense, you may loose license instantly and even be detained in mental asylum. Offender would be asked if one understands this. When such offender would drive dangerously or hooning, one might be deprived of license and when caught again, would surely be detained not by police but in mental institution. One was offending, was warned, was deprived of license and if continued, one is not capable to understand the warning, nor the consequences of own actions, one is dangerous to self and society, one must be detained in mental hospital until one is free from this problem.
For those who object to such measure. Imagine, any young person, at new year's eve does something silly. Normal. But if warned by the panel (not one allegedly stupid cop) and still ignore it, it then become very serious. Normal rational person would never allow self to go as far. We are talking about road safety. By the way, this should apply not just to hoons, but to an alcoholics, drug users and any serious offenders like habitual speeding drivers and so on.

Very likely that car manufacturers would dedicate their cars to fall into one of the category.

Hopefully there is clear that 3 years blameless driving record is required to become eligible to do training for higher level. All common sense.

Hopefully it is clear that money you spend to have good skills to avoid crashes, near misses and to tolerate others less able, is well spent so you would not be killed nor you less likely kill anybody else on the road. Hopefully it is clear that traffic flow would increase, driving become more relaxed and less stressful.
I deliberately have not included any figures of car speed and acceleration. I let it to be decided by experts, or if they fail, I may suggest some figures.

It would be shame when the world would adopt this system before Australia.

Any rational comments and suggestions are welcommed.

p.s. based on experience, many police offiers would struggle to get higher level license. Perhaps any road safety minister, transport minister, attorney general and all police force must have a minimum b level license current.

safety campaigner

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

2009 Tour Down Under - cycling promotion or business?

If you just accept what you are being fed in media, the tour and an invitation of Lance is nothing but positive thing.

But if you start to think and see the facts, the reality is somewhat different.

It is nice to watch the cyclists at tour down under, it is even nicer to be able to cycle like them.

Have you noted the dark photo? Read the sign on government building: no cycles in foyer.

This government saw that cyclists are desperate to park their bikes, and rather than providing bicycle stand, government decided to ban cyclists. Not very interesting? Would you classify the taking of this photo as a terrorist activity? Government does. I was actually stopped by secret police while taking this photo and warned not to make such photos again. Leave you to comment further.

The above link shows many photos, just some examples of government anti-cycling activity.

My favourite Lance Armstrong, I thought that he is so good cyclist and health promoter, but now... Perhaps you may help me to make an opinion. I've contacted Lance through his webpage, begging him to do something about road safety in SA. No reply. How can I interpreat it?

Yes, as a health professional, I do promote cycling, and the absolutely most common answer from average people is: no way, I let my children to cycle on  our roads, it's far too dangerous.

The essence of my criticism is that inviting Lance Armstrong as cycling undisputed champion and health campaigner, and absolute determination of the government not to improve cyclist safety on our roads, sends actually very confussing message.

In fact it is once off, the entertainment like a circus. I am not ment to bring a comprehensive analysis of road probems in SA, but just turn your attention to the purpose of this Tour Down Under. (please find the service hole on the picture as per link, which is next to parliament house, which caused me to crash on the road what could be fatal in heavy traffic. They paid for wheel damage but are determined not to fix this service hole.)

Having some opportunity let me bring a few of many points on what government does wrong on road safety.

1. Refuse to train car drivers for safety.

2. Refuse to legislate cyclists as more vulnerable road users, making car drivers faulty in case of crash unless they prove innocence.

3. Refuse to legislate 1m space to cyclists whenever car overtakes them.

4. Refuse to investigate all crashes, particularly with cyclists, and to take all reasonable steps to improve guilty driver's driving ability.

5. Refuse to take reports of dangerous driving incidents and to include them into statistics.

6. Police offend cyclists and this is classed as normal job of police.

7. Police in general have extremely poor understanding road rules and road safety, and also push to dangerous driving.

There are many more points, but anyone can check the above and have own experience.

In a few words, all relevant ministers and the Premier do everything they can not to improve safety and police does everything not to improve safety but to raise their revenue. 

Adelaide City Council refuse to take responsibility of damaged wheels of cyclists, no cost reimbursement, no fixing of their negligence in sense of holes and so on.

It seems that there is no business in right doing but lots of business in wrong. 

If you read this message as positive message, as the desire to cycle safely and freely, you are correct. The more cyclists, the heathier whe become, the more free space on the roads, the cleaner air. Killing, injuring or near missing cyclist, will not solve any problem some drivers try to "solve". Cyclists have right to use roads. If you are upset on cyclists, you are surely wrong. If there is something to improve, do not teach cyclists or other drivers, teach politicians, ask them to improve.

If my blogs will not be blocked, I intend to publish lots of details on road safety. Latest is the research I've conducted to show what is the actual situation on the roads. Will publish results and some ideas to improve safety.

Honestly, sure, tour was nice, and with Lance will definitely be much nicer, but will it persuade any single person who is today afraid to cycle, to take bike and cycle regularly?

safety campaigner