Cycling safety

 photo: www.NZHerald.co.nz - photographer Steven McNicoll

There has been a spate of car v cyclist deaths and serious injuries in the last week and as a result there is much noise made by various interest groups and the public – as Shakespeare would tell us – full of sound and fury, not necessarily achieving much.

If you look at each of the incidents they all occur in circumstances which conform to previously identified risk factors.  Although most cycling injuries occur in urban areas, more serious accidents occur on open roads where speeds are greater, so you would expect the worst accident to have occurred there – which it did.  Highest rates of accidents in urban areas for adults are during major commuting times – which happened.  Children and teenagers are at worst risk, and we saw both groups injured or killed this weekend.  That it all happened over a short period may simply be a statistical anomaly.  In fact cycling deaths are still way below the 1990 total of 27 killed.

Either party may be responsible for an accident (in serious crash injuries about 25% are cyclists fault, and in 13% there is some fault of the cyclist), but in all cases the consequences for a cyclist are greater, due to their relative instability and much lower protection.  Having said that, statistically, cycling is still a much lower risk than riding a motorcycle.

People have an interesting relationship with driving and their vehicles and most treat it as an extension of their personal space, happily engaging in activities in their vehicles they would otherwise only do in the privacy of their homes.  It is hardly surprising then that we treat apparent obstacles to our progress – such as cyclists – the same way as we would treat a direct marketing call or Jehovah's  Witness visit at dinnertime.   Our reactions to these events reflects our personality.  Motorists get particularly upset when cyclists flout the rules, and although there are cyclists who are arrogant or ignorant, most will tell you they do so because our roads are particularly poorly designed to accommodate cyclists – for instance most traffic lights don't recognise cyclists presence, meaning they will only get a green light if a car happens to be in their lane (imagine how many motorists would go through red lights if the situation was reversed).  The LTSA believe, paradoxically, fewer cycling accidents would happen if there were more cyclists, both through “safety in numbers”, and demand for better road design.  Since the majority of accidents with cyclists happen at intersections, separate cycle lanes can actually increase the risk to cyclists by putting them out of the motorists “zone of observation” until they enter the intersection.

Recent research on happiness placed a figure of nearly 50% as the time our mind wanders from the task we are performing, and around 50% of serious injury accidents between cyclists and motor vehicles where the driver was at fault are due to inattention or diverted attention.  We have a limited ability for “directed attention” - our ability to concentrate despite distractions.  This is a task carried out by the inhibitory attention system, which can become fatigued - unsurprisingly called directed attention fatigue (DAF), with symptoms that include; impatience, forgetfulness, feeling stressed, cranky or distracted; and can lead to bad judgment, apathy, and accidents.  Sound familiar?  Many people have commented on the level of distraction in modern society, so maybe DAF is becoming more prevalent.

So what can be done?  Back in 2003 a town in the Netherlands called Drachten - population 45,000 - looked at this same issue and came to the conclusion that many of the problems were due to the number of rules and directions on the road.  The founder of this philosophy, Hans Monderman said "We're losing our capacity for socially responsible behaviour, ...The greater the number of prescriptions, the more people's sense of personal responsibility dwindles."  Their solution was removing signs, roadmarkings, traffic signals, and blur the distinction between pavement and roadway to force drivers to interact with others rather than comply with “artificial” rules.  These included intersections with over 20,000 traffic movements per day.  By making the road theoretically more dangerous they reduced traffic flow issues, reduced the number of accident injuries and eliminated deaths.  This concept is called “shared space” as it removes the segregation of motor vehicles, pedestrians and other road users.   It has been trialled in a number of cities around the world including some streets in Auckland.

Shared space in Brighton, England (photo from Wikipedia)

Although there are ways of specifically targeting cyclist safety, many of the safety issues are common with other road users, such as poor road design, and lack of knowledge and experience.  Some, such as driving while intoxicated are wider social problems – so there is no simple solution.  The appeal of shared space as one component of a solution comes from a couple of simple messages often forgotten – pay attention! and be nice to one another.

Alcohol abuse

The primary purpose of a liberal education is to make one's mind a pleasant place in which to spend one's leisure.  ~Sydney J. Harris

Alcohol fuelled behaviour is a fairly constant headline provider, whether it is at a sports match, on the road, domestic or late night public binge behaviour.  While everyone seems to agree it’s a problem, there is very little agreement on dealing with the issue.  

Alcohol affects the brain - at low levels alcohol increases the electrical activity in the brain affecting pleasure and euphoria, (working in a similar way to cocaine and amphetamines). It also works on the circuits targeted by drugs such as Valium - easing anxiety and calming, and on the serotonin system in a similar way to Prozac, increasing self-confidence and reducing depression.  In larger quantities though, it interferes with chemical messaging in the brain, affecting coordination, speech and the ability to learn and form memories - which is why people experience "blackouts".  All primates have an affinity for alcohol - monkeys and apes have been observed drunk from naturally occurring fermentation in the wild – based on our shared genetic ability to metabolise alcohol, and people with genes who are more efficient at processing alcohol are also linked to higher rates of usage.  Using this as a basis, we can theorise that modern binge drinking is a “disease of nutritional excess” like obesity, where the beneficial effects of particular foodstuffs in limited supply in the prehistoric environment we evolved in have become mismatched with its availability in the modern environment.

While this physical basis may give us a propensity to consume, using to excess must also involve other factors.  If we continue with our obesity analogy we can perhaps find signs of distorted thinking patterns among heavy drinkers such as; filtering - where you focus on negative details and magnifying them while filtering out all the positive aspects of a situation; personalization - where you think everything people do or say is some kind of reaction to you; control fallacies - feeling externally controlled and seeing yourself as helpless; and blaming - holding yourself or others responsible for every problem.  Distorted thinking can be involved in self harm situations so you may also see behaviour such as suicide in correlation with high alcohol use in some populations.  New Zealand certainly has high rates of both alcohol overuse and suicide.

Being social animals, there are also group dynamics involved with alcohol use.  Drinking patterns vary hugely between cultures, and the cultural heritage for many groups in New Zealand involves binge drinking.  Also present is the deindividuation that can occur within groups – the anonymity found in a group allowing the individual to indulge in forms of behaviour they wouldn’t otherwise engage in.

You may have heard of the Stanford marshmallow experiment; an experiment on self control where young children were left in a room with a marshmallow, and if they didn’t eat it before the experimenter came back, they could have it and another.  Only around a third of the children could wait long enough to get the second marshmallow.  Although the ability to defer gratification changes as we age, an earlier study in Trinidad showed that it was also dependant on social and economic background.  If self control was an issue with alcohol abuse it would be evident where alcohol was more available, and there are a number of studies which link alcohol related behaviours with the density of liquor outlets.

We can use a simple performance model to look at alcohol related behaviour; physical attributes plus motivation plus situational factors leads to behaviour.  There is a genetic basis to alcohol use with more efficient processors more likely to drink, and there are motivational factors – such as distorted thinking in individuals, deindividuation and cultural factors in groups.  Also present are contingent factors such as alcohol availability.  For each individual who exhibits negative alcohol related behaviour there may be a different emphasis e.g. low self control and high availability plus distorted thinking pattern; or genetically efficient, social users.  This may mean there is no one solution to alcohol abuse.   If we go back to the theory expressed above regarding alcohol as a disease of nutritional excess based on its availability, and the research indicating that the contingent factor of geographic availability has a correlation to negative behaviour then it would seem likely that restricting the density of outlets will assist with the dealing with the problem, although not solve it completely.

There is another way of restricting the availability of alcohol, and that’s by age.  If we look at teenagers they are a group that display low ability to defer gratification, a high proportion of distorted thinking patterns and more easily influenced by group behaviour i.e. many of the risk factors for abusive behaviour - so increasing the availability (reducing the contingent factor preventing use) by lowering the legal age doesn’t seem a particularly good decision.

But is there a simple solution?

New Zealand has been named as one of the countries people would most like to migrate to.  The standard of living for almost all of us is pretty good by world standards, so why are we so uncomfortable with ourself that we seek to leave our minds before we consider we are enjoying ourselves? Why don't we appreciate what we have more?

www.dilbert.com

There is a story about a great Buddhist teacher who is lying on his deathbed.  Shortly before he had his final meal; his favourite sweet rice cakes.  His students are gathered around, to hear and record his final words – such a great teacher will undoubtably say something particularly profound.  Finally he speaks and they lean forward eager to hear – “My” he said, “they were particularly good rice cakes” - and then he died.  When we get to the point of appreciating such simple everyday things in our lives, then the issue of alcohol abuse will surely go away.

Defense White Paper

photo: Navy Today

The Government has issued a white paper on the future of our defense forces.  Never in human history has the military technology developed so quickly or the cost of deploying it escalated so much.  The United States military have had to scale back or cancel many of their acquisition programmes for the most sophisticated weapons – such as their new jets.  Even new equipment which would save lives can be subject to budget considerations.  Traditional enemies (at least if you believe Yes Minister) Britain and France have just signed a 50 year agreement that will them to share their military resources, such as aircraft carriers, in order to save costs.  In all their cases purchase of equipment serves also to support their military research and production industries, which in turn provide their country with export earnings.  Even Australia has a defense industry, but for New Zealand the purchase of equipment provides little or no economic benefit – we've even outsourced our uniform purchase to China.

One of the major arguments being used against the continuance of 'business as usual' for the military is the current spate of asymmetric conflicts; terrorists (or freedom fighters depending on which side of the particular conflict you are spinning), cyber terrorists, and other irregular forces who won't put on a uniform and play by the rules.  Their impact in the news media has overshadowed the conventional conflicts that have taken place, both the initial invasion of Iraq (and of course the first Iraq war post Kuwait invasion), and the Russian invasion of Georgia.  The cessation of conventional warfare has been predicted before – after the 'war to end all wars' in 1918 much of Europe wound down their research, manufacture, and deployment of their military, and found it difficult to scale up to successfully defeat Hitler – impossible perhaps except for the intercession of an outside party.  The sophistication of modern conventional warfare puts this sort of escalation over a short period even less achievable.

Georgia particularly demonstrated one important aspect of modern warfare – even if your force is well equipped, if you can't field an integrated force that covers all aspects of operations (e.g. air cover for your ground forces), you will fail.   For a small country such as New Zealand, where the operational costs of even Vietnam era aircraft was prohibitive, let alone the cost of purchase and maintenance of modern equipment, this does present a problem. Even if you can afford it, as the USA is finding out, being able to sustain it for an extended period is also prohibitive.  If you ignore the furor over the mothballing of the expensive to run and totally ineffective Skyhawks, the military did quite well out of the previous government.  The airforce is replacing its Vietnam era helicopters for up to date ones and it acquired transport aircraft which can fly in commercial airspace.  The navy gained the ability to mount a limited expeditionary force, as well as significantly more ability to patrol New Zealand waters.  The army gained new infantry combat vehicles, modern communications equipment and a guidance system for its anti aircraft missiles.  Still not nearly enough though to independently mount a conventional war – or even defense of our own country.

The white paper recognises this by calling for interoperability with our allies – effectively becoming a limited resource within a larger force.  This makes good operational sense if you can't afford to do it yourself – and if Britain and France can't afford it, we certainly can't.  Militarily supporting other countries is also a good introduction for other aspects of a relationship -free trade agreements for instance - so it's also good foreign policy. 

US Coastguard helicopter operates off HMNZS Te Kaha during an exercise

The paper also categorizes other types of operation our military would be involved in and how it would achieve it.  It was disappointing that perhaps some ideas weren't explored enough.  Resource protection and other interception duties might better be done by a Coast Guard type service.  Surveillance might be better done through UAV's.  A joint rapid response force with Australia wasn't explored.  Counter terrorism might better be dealt with by a paramilitary force within the Police rather than an offshoot of the SAS.  Before the advent of firearms, Great Britain required its adult men to put a certain amount of time aside for archery practice – golf notwithstanding, and was able to field a fearsome and effective force at short notice.  Would it be more cost effective to expand the territorial army and reduce the size of our regular forces?

So why do we have a military force at all?  The origin of human warfare is still a topic debated by scientists and philosophers, but it is possibly a hand down from our common ancestor with the other hominids.  The aggressive acquisition of territory and resources appears to be common right through history and across all cultures, or at least all the successful ones who got to write the history.  Having said that, the requirement to have an actual army, navy and airforce shouldn't be taken as a given.  New Zealand is isolated geographically, and there are examples of less isolated countries which don't have them; Costa Rica for example eliminated its army after a particularly bloody coup and has since become one of the most stable democracies in South America (Fiji take note).  The level of health care and high rate of literacy is a testament to the good you can do with the money you save.

Modern conflicts seem irrational.  I can understand the Allied response to Hitler.  I don't understand the mindset of a suicide bomber and I don't understand the mindset of a President or Prime Minister who would lie to their citizens to justify military action, or consider water-boarding acceptable.  Religion, tribalism, nationalism, intolerance, racism, hate and hubris define modern conflicts.  How do you combat this without it costing life?

Another reason for the unease I feel when thinking about this subject has nothing to do with strategic decisions about the mix of our forces, but the removal of a major brake on our engaging in conflict.   Desmond Morris suggested a reason for our hesitancy to engage in face to face conflict;

“Every time one individual launches a physical attack on the body of another, there is a risk that both may suffer injury.  No matter how dominant the attacker may be, he has no guarantee of escaping unscathed.  His opponent, even if weaker, may be driven into a desperate frenzy of wild defensive actions, any one of which could inflict lasting damage.”

Of course, we've graduated to weapons which reduce this possibility but there is still the potential to die in conflict, and before sending in troops, leaders have to factor in the response to casualties in relation to the perceived gain e.g. attacking Iraq rather than another “axis of evil” power such as North Korea.  This remoteness was a major criticism to IBM's, but the potential response to such wanton destruction proved (so far) to be an adequate deterrent.  The next generation of weapons allows us to wage war without risking our troops, or causing massive indiscriminate damage, from a distance – “precision” guided weapons and cruise missiles have been joined by armed UAV's, remote controlled vessels and combat vehicles, which are now developing autonomous capabilities.  Where is the deterrent to our using them - and do we want to be part of that?

I guess the final argument on why it's necessary for us to maintain our military must belong to a wildly out of context misquoting of Ben Elton; if Albert Einstein was mugged in a dark alley, who would win - Albert or the mugger? It doesn't matter how sophisticated or civilised your society, or how idealistic your beliefs, in an irrational world sometimes you need to be pragmatic in your idealism and carry a big stick.